Socially Rich Interaction Through Information and
Communication Technology:
Moving Beyond the Concept of Users
Roberta Lamb
University of Hawaii, Manoa
College of Business Administration
Decision Sciences
2404 Maile Way, E601-C, Honolulu, HI 96822
Email: lamb@cba.hawaii.edu URL: http://lamb.cba.hawaii.edu
Phone: 1(808)956-7368
FAX: 1(808)956-9889
and
Rob Kling
Indiana University
SLIS, Center for Social Informatics
th
10 & Jordan, Room 005C, Bloomington, IN 47405
Email: kling@indiana.edu URL: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/kling
Phone: 1(812)855-9763
FAX: 1(812)855-6166
Working Paper
Draft 4.02 (Please do not quote without permission.)
Copyright, 2000. Roberta Lamb
1
Abstract: The concept of "user" is fundamental to much of the research and practice of systems
development. User-centered information studies have carefully examined the criteria that influence
individuals' selections of information gathering resources. In many ways, these studies have improved our
understanding of how a "good information source" fits the people who use it. However, this research
approach is limited, because the concept of "user" tends to treat people as atomic individuals.
We argue for a re-evaluation of "the user" in information systems research. Some recent empirical research
questions the applicability of user-study findings within organizations. One of our own empirical studies,
which examines how people select materials from online services, confirms that within organizations,
individual preferences have little impact on the use of these information resources. At the same time, it
suggests that the socially thin, and somewhat pejorative concept of "user" limits our understanding of
information selection. Within firms, the use of online information is embedded in communications among
organizations. These communications are shaped by industry institutions, they follow particular
conventions, and they have a certain legitimacy. In the biotechnology industry, for example, people collect
materials from online services to include within thick, complex drug application documents that their
companies submit to the U.S. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) when seeking approval for new
biologic products they wish to sell. In biotech and other industry contexts, interorganizational relationships
and institutional influences play a much larger role than individual choice in shaping the use of online
information. Focusing on the organization as "the user" can more effectively illuminate the ways in which
environments determine online resource use.
At the individual level, we suggest that a shift from the concept of "user" to the concept of "interactor" will
sharpen IS researchers' perceptions of how organizational contexts shape online practices, and will more
accurately recast people as critical facilitators of changing information infrastructures. As "interactors",
people select materials from new and existing online resources, take advantage of attendant opportunities to
modify information work roles, and migrate information practices across firms in support of organizational
communications and interorganizational relationships.
2
1.0 Introduction
Theories that shape our understanding of the design and use of information and communication
technologies (ICTs), such as online services, rely primarily on cognitive and cybernetic models. These
models have fostered a concept of the ICT “user” as an atomic individual with well-articulated preferences
and the ability to exercise discretion in ICT choice and use. Some cognitively oriented, information
systems researchers have unreflexively accepted the “user” concept. But for the most part, IS researchers
(ourselves included) have adopted the term “user”—even when describing social interactions that extend
beyond the “user” concept. IS studies frequently examine organization level phenomena where
contingency theory and technology adoption/diffusion models help make sense of system development and
customization efforts. They strive to define ICT system methods and models that will meet the sometimes
strategic, but largely internal demands of the firm, and will ensure that the resulting systems fit “user”
tasks. However, ICT design approaches that reflect the “user” concept have only achieved limited success
in creating “useful” information systems, in part, because they are based on models that are contextually
under-developed, leaving much of the organizational context outside the model.
A growing body of empirical research has failed to confirm the expected widespread adoption and use of
some key ICTs, such as online services, that have been expressly designed and implemented with “user”
concepts in mind . Such studies challenge these concepts on two levels. At the organizational level, they
accentuate the need for a larger environmental scope when dealing with the organizational influences of
ICT use. Interestingly, they attribute many “user” activities to the organization, such as initial ICT
adoption, and repeated selection in task-related use. More importantly, these studies show how individual
choice is constrained by organizational contexts. At the individual level, they identify the complex ways in
which individuals interact within and among organizations, and how ICTs become part of those
interactions.
This challenge from empirical research, and other critiques of the “user” concept (Bannon, 1991; Suchman,
1996; Westrup, 1997), suggest that a reconceptualization of organizational individuals as social interactors
3
would be more appropriate. This emergent view could fundamentally reshape thinking about information
system design, ICT adoption and organizational use. In this paper, we further develop this new view of the
individual as an interactor, building on the concepts of network society theorists (Castells, 1989, 1996,
1997, 1998; Bell, 1973, 1976), as well as the rich descriptions of empirical studies that show how
organizational contexts constrain individuals when it comes to making choices about ICT use. These
underpinnings help to identify some key activities of organizational interactors, and help to reframe their
use of ICTs. Instead of labeling people as passive “users”, we begin to view them more accurately as
selectors of information for embedded interorganizational communications, and as critical facilitators of
changing information infrastructures. They are ICT “designers-in-use”, who take advantage of
opportunities to modify work roles and develop new information practices. And they are ICT proliferators
who spread information practices within and across organizations.
In the next section, we will examine the theoretical constructs that shape the ICT “user,” and then present
some empirical challenges and theoretical constructs that help us reconceptualize the “user” as an
“interactor.” We close our discussion with an invitation to the IS community to try out our
reconceptualization by considering what kinds of ICT design concepts would help practitioners develop
information systems that support and strategically enable organizations and their social interactors. We
believe that removing the “user” label from key information systems constituents can encourage more
contextualized understandings and better predictions of ICT use, as well as a better dialogue about ICT
design. To initiate that dialogue, we put forward a rich conceptual understanding of ICT use in
organizations, that emphasizes the relationships that simultaneously drive individual and
interorganizational interactions, and constrain choices about ICTs.
2.0 Interacting through ICTs
Throughout this paper, we refer to people who use ICTs , like online services and intranets, as
“interactors,” and we stress that they gather data and use computers to support their primary activities as
professionals or as organizational staff members. A more robust treatment of the empirical research that
4
supports this position is presented in a later section, but we feel it is important to illustrate clearly what we
mean by socially rich, interaction focused research early in the paper. The following excerpt, taken from a
recent study of commercial real estate brokers (Lamb, 1997), highlights the dense web of interactions that
ICT use supports for a typical broker, and will serve as an example of socially rich interaction.
2.1 An inside view of ICT use
Commercial real estate brokers typically deal with institutional investors. These investors may make their
decision to buy, sell or build a property after carefully reviewing several thick property reports.
Experienced investors often make intuition-based decisions. But even when decisions are based on
intuition, commercial real estate brokers still gather a significant amount of data, and compile an equally
thick property report because underwriters require statistical data to validate the investor’s intuition, and
because investors often need to justify their decisions to others in their firm. The broker, then, may ask his
in-house commercial research team to compile an impressive information package that will “pass muster at
a Wall Street scrutiny level.” The research director and her team will then embark on an information
packaging project, such as the one described here, that may take several months, make use of a wide range
of ICTs, and involve a number of different organizations:
We put together a package that had multiple components. It was about 3 inches thick.
First of all we went through and we pulled upon demographic sources...its online. And
so you’ve got demographic statistics, employment, growth, population, income,
education-- all these statistics defining the demographics of the market area. So that was
one section of it.
Then another section was to go through and pull upon our databases, our property
availability databases, which is fed by local and national vendors as well as our own
clients and listings brochures and so forth, and say “OK, this is a snapshot of where we
currently are in the marketplace.” This is what’s currently available. This is what current
lease rates are and so forth. Then we went through and we pulled upon one other
database, which are comps, sales and leases that were done. And we said, “OK,
historically this is where we’re at. So this is where the trends are up to the current date.”
Then we have a national research arm... a national market analysis and forecasting group.
And they go through and they take information that we collect at the local level. They
upload it and they have an econometric model that they run and from that comes
projections--projected absorption, projected vacancy rates and projected lease rates...
5
Then we also went onto the Internet. And from the Internet we pulled articles... [W]e
pulled what information we could from [local transportation agencies]...We also did some
migration studies...Companies, when they took a space, where were they coming from?...
And then we pulled all the pieces together, and then we wrote an analysis at the front end
of this...Then we had an executive summary saying “OK, based upon 3 inches of data,
attached in the addendum, here’s the interpretation that we lay on all this”...And so we go
through and we pull out the salient facts from 3 inches of statistics, and we present an
analysis--insightful interpretation which substantiated what the client was trying to
accomplish. Because the client intuitively was on the right track. But we were able to
demonstrate that they were on the right track in a way that was not intuitive. In a way
that was statistically quantifiable. And that was what an underwriter was looking for.
In this case, the package was delivered to the intuitive investor and then to the underwriter as a 3-inch thick
report. Frequently, after a report like this one is compiled, the broker will select graphical data displays and
key statistics from the report to put together a professional multimedia presentation that may also include
glossy photographs of the property or video-walkthroughs of the buildings to help convince the investor
that this is the right property to buy, and that he is the right broker to work with.
This scenario shows how information packages and ICTs signal broker competency to investors, and at the
same time illustrates how client-broker interactions shape ICT use in commercial real estate brokerages. It
illustrates how ICTs become technologies of interaction, and that their use depends on shared assumptions
about what is legitimate.
2.2 MIS perspectives on ICT use
People use ICTs and their information products when interacting with others, within interorganizational
contexts where roles and power relationships differ as do perceptions about the appropriate use of
technology. This view reflects the Socially Rich Interaction focus, which is one of three that we have
found useful in classifying IS research perspectives. (See Table 1.) It contrasts sharply with the
Individualistic “user” view that focuses attention on the person at the computer and her attitudes or
preferences about information gathering and ICT use, and has more predictive power when it comes to
determining who will use ICTs and how intensively they will use them (as it did in our real estate study.)
The Socially Rich Interaction view also better indicates how ICTs will be used in organizations than does
the Socially Thin Interaction view (see Table 1), that guides a large segment of IS research. This research
6
view is more expansive than the Individualistic view, but generally retains an inside-the-firm focus and
does not develop a detailed perspective of interfirm interactions, and how they drive ICT use. We will
contrast these views in this paper to encourage a reconceptualization of the “user” of ICTs that we believe
will helpfully refocus information systems design.
Table 1: Conceptual Focus in IS Research Studies
Focus
Individualistic
Socially Thin Interaction
Socially Rich Interaction
Technology
Computer
Computers, Networks
Technologies of Interaction
Participants
Individual
People performing formal task
Human activity systems and
systems
important relationships that can
extend outside their focal
group—in institutional settings
Settings
Task/Technology
Task structures and their
Complex and multivalent social
execution and coordination
relationships
2.3 An MISQ survey
Some of the ideas that we will drawn upon to reconceptualize “users” as “interactors” are not new. One
can find them sporadically expressed in the literature of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers
and of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) community. However, both groups, like their
IS counterparts, have been dominated by researchers whose perspectives and theoretical approaches favor
atomic “users”, even though CSCW technologies examine group interactions primarily. In MIS literatures,
researchers have criticized the treatment of “users” during information systems development (Markus and
Bjorn-Andersen, 1987; Beath and Orlikowski, 1994), but few have challenged the “user” concept itself
(Woolgar, 1991; Westrup, 1997.)
To determine whether IS researchers had begun to change their thinking about “users,” we reviewed MIS
Quarterly articles from January, 1996 through June, 1999. We did not try to make a distinction between
7
positivist and interpretivist perspectives, nor between qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
Depending on the focus of the study, any of these types of articles could express a shallow “user” view, or
neglect to mention ICT use at all. Of the 70 articles we classified1, nineteen expressed the Individualistic
“user” perspective we mentioned above. Thirteen adopted the Socially Rich Interaction perspective that we
will outline in more detail throughout this paper. Twenty-two articles fell somewhere in the middle. They
expressed a Socially Thin Interaction view of ICT use – often referring to people as “users”, but sometimes
mentioning their interactions with others when describing IS use. The final sixteen articles made No
Mention of IS use or “users,” focusing instead on the organizational economics of IT, or issues of IS
pedagogy and research methodology.
Although, based on this limited survey, it appears that new treatments of “users” have not been widely
taken up and entered into the IS canon yet, there is a base of socially rich, interaction-focused literature on
which we can build conceptually. From the thirteen articles identified in our review as Socially Rich
Interaction, IS researchers can get a sense of the vivid details that emerge, along with a better
understanding of the possibilities for supporting communications and interactions with ICTs, when
conceptualization of the “user” changes. In a later section, we will return to a few of these articles to show
how they challenge “user” concepts, and support a shift to social “interactor” concepts.
3.0 The trouble with “users”
3.1 Theories about “the user”
We contend that the theories about the user that guide ICT design are contextually under-developed,
leaving the organizational context outside the model. The design of online services, for example, has relied
heavily on individualistic models to explain the use (and, frequently the non-use) of their products by
librarians, research intermediaries and “end-users”—i.e. people who gather information from online
databases for use in their own decision-making and work-related tasks. Studies of this type that seek to
inform online design examine how task models, ergonomic factors and cognitive psychodynamics define
1
See the Appendix for details on our characterization of each article, and an explanation of our evaluations.
8
the limitations of human interaction with the computer (Norman, 1986; Shneiderman, 1987.) In this view,
all humans have the same set of capabilities and limitations, albeit to differing degrees, ranging from
novice “users” to expert “users.” Their studies most often take the form of laboratory experiments or
surveys that evaluate the task/technology fit of computer systems at the individual use level.
These “user” studies draw heavily on the cybernetic models of Herbert Simon, especially his ideas of
bounded rationality and learning through information feedback and adaptation (Simon, 1988.) In
information systems research, studies that seek to understand “user” satisfaction with information systems
and MIS services also frequently draw on Simon’s decision theory, particularly his models for consumer
choice that explain the satisficing behaviors of “customers” and their coordinations through free-market
interactions. Even CSCW researchers, who seek to understand the coordinated use of complex information
systems by people in organizations, continue to rely on these rational ideals to explain system use in terms
of market interactions, organizational hierarchy, process flows, contracting, negotiating, and planning
activities (Malone & Crowston, 1990.)2 Throughout the past 30 years, these studies have enormously
improved our understanding of how a "good information source" fits the people who use it. Therefore, we
wish to state clearly that the discussion which follows is not meant to criticize this line of research or the
results of these studies, but to call into question the concept of the “user” which these studies have come to
reflect over time.
3.2 The concept of “the user”
The use of individualistic models has led to a research concept of “the user” as an atomic individual with
well-articulated preferences and the ability to exercise discretion in ICT choice and use, within certain
cognitive limits. The place for “the user” is at the user interface to the computer, where interactions center
on the exchange of information between the system and the individual.
2
For an interesting counterpoint to rational planning processes, see Suchman (1987).
9
“User studies” informed by this concept have taken researchers a long way in their understanding of what
makes a computer interface easy to use, and ergonomically comfortable to use continuously. But by
concentrating experimental studies on this individual “user,” cognitively oriented IS researchers may
inadvertently limit the kinds of “user” phenomena they can study. For example, to understand why “better”
systems often go unused, Todd and Benbasat (1999) constructed a series of studies to measure “users”
evaluation and use of decision support tools. Their findings repeatedly show that individuals choose easierto-use systems, even over systems that are functionally richer, faster, and provide better decision support.
Surveys of “end-user” PC use in small firms report similar results (Igbaria et al., 1997.) Carroll and Rosson
(1987) have tried to explain this phenomenon by extending their “user” studies to examine the conflicting
motivational and cognitive strategies that conspire to keep people from learning to use new systems. Their
approach begins to account for history and work-related contexts, but their treatment of the “user” is still
conceptually bound by individual-focused cognitive and cybernetic learning theories, and their remedies for
bad interface designs center around trying to make the system easy and rewarding to learn.
Within organizations, however, individuals don’t always have the opportunity to choose the systems they
would prefer to use. For those individuals, this concept of the “user” is a mischaracterization that
engenders faulty expectations about ICTs as “single-user,” “empowering,” and “widely applicable.” In
addition, this one-size-fits-all concept of “the user,” when aggregated to predict organization-wide activity,
leads to frequent overestimates of ICT use.
3.3 Theories about the organizational use of information systems
Many information systems researchers have assimilated the “user” concept into their studies of
organizational IS. Most, including ourselves, have at times unreflexively employed the term “user” to talk
about ICT use (Kling, 1977.) In our review of recent MIS Quarterly articles, we distinguished between
those who use the term and those who adopt the concept. Many readers, however, are not as discerning.
Perhaps the concept of “user” often goes unquestioned among IS researchers because it is analogous to the
10
idea of “worker,” and the dichotomy between IS developers and “users” resembles the separation of
managers and workers which pervades organizational literature.
When seeking to understand the use of information systems in organizations, North American IS
researchers often rely on technology adoption and diffusion models (Rogers, 1962), and on economic or
open-systems models of the firm and its markets, such as competitive interaction models, resource
dependency theory, contingency theory and transaction cost theory (Porter, 1980; Pfeffer, 1981; Lawrence
and Lorsch, 1967; Williamson, 1981), that examine the contribution of information systems and
information structures to overall firm viability. The IS researchers who use these approaches to make sense
of system development and customization efforts at the organizational level, take into account both internal
firm dynamics and environmental factors. The “user” is not the focus of study, at this level, and often
receives no mention. (These types of studies are classified as No Mention in our MIS Quarterly article
review; see Appendix.) IS researchers who are guided by these theories often seek to identify the strategic
form/fit formula that will explain successful ICT interventions and help managers appropriately tailor ICT
designs. They strive to define ICT system methods and models that will meet the sometimes strategic, but
largely internal demands of the firm.
When examining ICT use inside the firm, IS research studies more often focus on the actions of managers
and their effects on overall system success, rather than the actions of “users.” These studies are intended to
help managers of IS development focus on the critical factors that will ensure success, such as identifying
technology champions and providing training. Research efforts are directed toward designing systems that
fit “user” tasks, otherwise toward refitting “user” tasks to system designs.
This line of research has helped managers avoid many of the pitfalls that plagued early ICT
implementations. However, as IS researchers themselves have noted, management-focused ICT design
approaches have only achieved limited success in creating “useful” information systems. Some of these
studies carefully examine firm dynamics to explain the use and non-use of new ICTs, and they often allude
to the interactions between managers, system developers and “users.” (These types of studies are classified
11
as Socially Thin Interaction in our MIS Quarterly article review; see Appendix.) A few have suggested that
a key reason for implementation failures is that “users” have been left out of the system design process.
3.4 User-centered ICT design
Many IS designers have attempted to bring “the user” into the design phase of ICT development. These
attempts, such as Joint Application Design (JAD), have taken on various forms and have achieved varying
degrees of success (Davidson, 1999.) But even after reflecting upon the “user” as an important member of
the overall system, many designers retain an individualistic cognitive perspective. (These studies are
classified as Individualistic in our MIS Quarterly article review; see Appendix.) Their “user-centered”
approaches strive to design systems that meet “user” needs, and to devise tests that measure systems
“usability” and “user” satisfaction. Many of their lab results, as discussed earlier, continue to advocate
easy-to-use systems. When taken into organizations, however, the systems that these approaches produce
have met with mixed reviews (Gasson, 1999, Kling and Elliott, 1994.)
More radical attempts to create useful systems have sought to engage “users” more meaningfully in IS
design by allowing them to participate as equals in the design process. However, when developers and
“users” try to work together on system design, power imbalances frequently prevent “users” from making a
real contribution (Blomberg et al., 1994; Beath and Orlikowski, 1994; Markus and Bjorn-Andersen, 1987.)
4.0 Empirical challenge to “users” and support for “interactors”
Ironically, as some researchers continue to try to incorporate individual “user” needs more fully into system
design, studies are beginning to show that, within organizations, individual preferences don’t determine
ICT use. Studies such as these, which begin to tease out what is happening with organizational ICT use at
the individual level, take on a more interactive and socially rich focus. (These types of studies are classified
as Socially Rich Interaction in our MIS Quarterly article review; see Appendix.) They begin to explain
how people work together to use ICTs effectively.
12
4.1 Challenging the “user” concept
Socially rich interaction studies challenge the “user” concept and the applicability of its theoretical
underpinnings on two levels. First, organizational IS studies accentuate the need for a larger environmental
scope when dealing with the influences of ICT use. Individual ICT use is influenced not only by
organizational contexts, but also by interorganizational and global contexts (Baldwin and Rice, 1997;
Lamb, 1997; Walsham and Sahay, 1999.) Second, socio-technical studies suggest that a focus on
interactions can better describe the ways in which people come to use ICTs to support their organizational
and interorganizational activities. Individual interactors often fail to use ICTs in expected ways, and
frequently reshape technologies to suit their needs (Kumar, 1998; Kling, 1987, 1992; Lamb, 1997.)
Studies that indicate the “user” concept is too narrowly defined, often point out that ICT use projections
based on “user” studies, do not accurately predict use outside laboratory contexts. Many “user” study
findings simply don’t scale up to the organizational or industry level. For example, Baldwin and Rice
(1997) have found that, among financial analysts, their interactions in financial institution settings – not
their individual preferences -- determine “user” selection of information sources, such as online services.
Lamb (1997) has found that this phenomenon is not unique to financial analysts and their investment
brokerages. People who gather information within a variety of industries are similarly constrained by
organizational contexts in their use of online services. Within the firm, individuals rarely have the
opportunity to choose the ICTs they use; instead they select among a set of resources chosen at the
organizational level.
By focusing on the larger industry context, Lamb’s study goes on to describe how the informational
environments of inter-related industries shape online use at the organization level, consequently shaping the
contexts of individual use (Lamb and King, 2000.) As the real estate brokerage example from this study
discussed earlier shows, the use of online information is embedded in communications among
organizations. These communications are shaped by industry institutions, they follow particular
13
conventions, and they have a certain legitimacy. In the biotechnology industry, as another example, people
collect materials from online services to include within thick, complex drug application documents that
their companies submit to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) when seeking approval for new
biologic products they wish to sell in the US. In biotech and other industry contexts, interorganizational
relationships and institutional influences play a much larger role than individual choice in shaping the use
of online information.
Moreover, influence on individual ICT use is not constrained to the organization level or the industry level,
but, as an article from our MISQ survey by Walsham and Sahay (1999) shows, is often cultural and global
in scope. Their study of the development and use of geographic information systems (GIS) in India
illustrates how global influences to adopt particular types of ICT “solutions” can be in conflict with cultural
systems of interaction. They describe the difficulties that beset Indian scientists and administrators who
were tasked with the adoption of GIS systems developed in the US. Critically, these systems reflected a
western viewpoint about the usefulness of maps and spatially-related data, and were intended to be used
within interactions that adhered to western protocols of rational decision-motivated coordinated action. In
this study, the non-use of GIS by administrative field officers in their day-to day work is explainable not
simply as net result of their personal preferences about the technologies themselves, but as their inability to
mobilize the huge effort that would be needed to reconstruct local interactions around use of GIS systems.
Appropriately, Walsham and Sahay’s prescriptions go beyond common participation and training remedies,
to higher-level interventions in educational processes and administrative structures of interaction.
The findings of these studies attribute traditional ICT-related “user” activities (i.e. initial ICT adoption,
and repeated selection in task-related use) to the organization, suggesting that in some ways it might make
more sense to consider the organization to be the “user” of ICTs. After all, this is the level at which
choices about ICT adoption and use are made, and at which environmental influences shape the need for
ICT use. Organizational decisions about ICTs and work contexts constrain individual ICT choices. If we
consider the organization to be the “user,” what role is then left to the organizational individual? Studies
that do not examine individual interactions within firms are silent on this point, giving the impression that
14
the individual’s role is merely to use or not use the organizationally chosen ICT. However a few studies
have described the complex ways in which individuals interact within and among organizations, and how
ICTs like online services become part of those interactions (O’Day and Jeffries, 1993; Lamb, 1997.) We
now examine how those studies can help us reconceptualize the “user” as a social interactor.
4.2 Social interactors in empirical IS research
Kumar et al’s (1998) MISQ article “The Merchant of Prato – Revisited: Toward a Third Rationality of
Information Systems” is particularly illustrative for situating ICT use (and non-use) within social
interactions. In seeking an explanation for the failure of an interorganizational system in the Prato district
of Italy, these authors focus on the rich tapestry of relationships which constitute “business” in the textile
industry. They analyze system use by determining its value to people who are social interactors building
long-term bonds of trust and foundations for future economic rewards. By examining the nature of
interactions among Prato district merchants, Kumar et al. explain why these people did not use an
interorganizational online information system as predicted. The system was designed to reduce the
transaction costs of their interactions. What system designers did not realize, because they did not analyze
merchant interactions from a sociological perspective, was that their transaction costs were already quite
low, due to the level of trust that they had built up through centuries of trading, and generations of
interfamilial ties. This presentation contrasts sharply with the cognitive/economic perspective that guided
the designers of the failed online information system, and shows poignantly what new socially rich
treatments of the “user” can offer.
Socially Rich Interaction studies frequently report that within organizations ICT use does not achieve
predicted effects. Personal computers, for example, do not by themselves empower “users” to make better
decisions or become more personally productive, especially in clerical work environments where work
tasks are highly constrained and tightly monitored, and where personal advancement is limited (Kling,
1992; Clement, 1994.) In less constrained environments, like the Internet, some “user”-based projections
have been similarly acontextual. For example, many early projections of what students would want to
15
share on the Internet, highlighted their ability to self-publish. Academics originally envisioned that
students might share their poetry, and other creative writings. Actual uses have been radically different
from those envisioned—instead of sharing poems, students are sharing class lecture notes on the web
(Blumenstyk, 1999.) Companies are reportedly paying some students to take notes in class, and are then
post them on their company web sites. The notes are freely available to any visitor to the site. Students
don’t read class notes, as they might read poetry, for their own personal pleasure; they read them in order to
meet the expectations of faculty. Some faculty members, however, view this interaction as highly
illegitimate, fearing that students will receive faulty information, and that they themselves may suffer real
losses in terms of course materials they “own” or, possibly, their positions as faculty members (Singham,
1999; Olsen, 1999.) In this example, we see that students have used Internet technologies of interaction to
proliferate the spread of an information practice (i.e. sharing notes) within their own University
organizations, and via outside company web sites, across other University organizations. These ICTenhanced networks of social interactions foreground the institutional aspects that both constrain and enable
the activities of students and faculty members as interactors. As in this example, “interactors” use
information systems in different ways than analysts expect “users” would use them, and they require
different considerations in ICT design.
But even within tightly controlled organizations, “users” find new ways to use ICTs to support interactions
with their firm’s clients, regulators, competitors and partners. Even though the individual does not often
have an opportunity to exercise much discretion in adopting an ICT, she plays an essential role in making
the chosen resource work for her firm. As Lamb (1997) reports, biotech firm members continually
develop, modify and communicate new data gathering and data management practices. These facilitate the
use of information resources that are chosen at an organizational level. Resourceful “users” have
significantly enhanced single-user productivity tools, like spreadsheets. In some cases, people have
effectively transformed them into multi-user ICTs by sharing spreadsheet templates and developing ways
of working with them so that they support key organizational interactions (Nardi, 1991.) Innovation
researchers have also noted that ICT use (and other technology use, as well) often involves inventive
16
adaptations by “users” (von Hippel, 1988.) Such “users” are effectively ICT “designers-in-use”, who take
advantage of opportunities to modify work roles and develop new information practices.
Over the years, as “users” have become more comfortable with computers, they have altered their
information systems role, doing more and more of the things developers have traditionally done. The
phenomenon of “end-user” computing began in the early 1980’s when “users” introduced PCs into their
organizations. Many of these “end-users” were tired of waiting for new applications to be developed by the
IS department, and they saw PCs and desktop applications as an opportunity to enhance their own
computing environments. The advent of “end-user” computing has enabled many “users” to become
designers and developers of their own desktop programs, simultaneously reducing the need for IS
department application development. In an ongoing study of intranet development and use, Lamb has
found that “end-user” computing is gaining new momentum as organizational professionals configure local
intranets to support the complex document management requirements of regulatory interactions (Lamb and
Davidson, forthcoming.)
These studies identify some of the complex ways in which individuals interact within and among
organizations, and how ICTs become part of those interactions. Taken altogether, they encourage us to
view people more accurately as selectors of information for embedded interorganizational communications,
and as critical facilitators of changing information infrastructures, instead of labeling them as passive ICT
“users”.
4.3 From “users” to “end-users”
Among those who directly experience the everyday exigencies of information systems development and
maintenance, there is a latent sense that “user” concepts and characterizations don’t ring true. As noted
earlier, critiques of the “user” concept have appeared in IS-related literatures (Bannon, 1991; Grudin, 1990;
Westrup, 1997.) They are motivated by experiences that systems designers and developers in the HCI and
CSCW communities have shared with systems “users.” While these authors unanimously agree that the
17
term “user” paints an inappropriate and somewhat pejorative picture of the people for whom information
systems are created, they are divided on how to remedy the situation. Bannon (1991) believes that “users”
could be better served if designers understood them as “actors…with sets of skills and shared practices
based on work experience with others” (p. 25.) He suggests that designers would do well to get out into the
workplace, and learn who the “real users” of their systems are, and the kinds of things they do. He believes
that by doing this, developers will see that “users” are not naïve “novices”, but skilled “actors” performing
complex workplace tasks, and will abandon their inappropriate conceptions. Grudin (1990a; 1990b) has
launched a sustained attack on the “user” concept, reminding us that “drug users” are the only other “users”
commonly referred to by that term. He traces the term from its earliest inception when it was coined to
differentiate computer engineers from computer “users.” Until that time, the engineers were also the users,
and there was no point in trying to make any distinction. Between then and now, however, the term has
become encumbered with the notion that “users” – in sharp contrast to their highly skilled, intelligent
developer counterparts – are technologically challenged, unskilled drones who are working individually on
well-defined tasks and must be protected from their own inevitable errors.
Of course, researchers have frequently noted that “users” don’t hold the same view of themselves that IS
analysts do, and they don’t like to be referred to as “users” (Markus and Benjamin, 1996; Beath and
Orlikowski, 1994; Grudin, 1990b; Dagwell and Weber, 1983.) In fact, “users” don’t think of themselves as
primarily having anything to do with the computer at all. They see themselves as professionals, working
with others, and using computers in support of those interactions. They are rewarded for the work they do,
not for using computers. The realtor who goes online to search for data on recent home sales is rewarded
for selling houses, not for doing online research.
One might expect that as “end-users” and developers began to share the same tasks the term “user” would
have disappeared. The very term “end-user” should indicate that the “user” concept has broken down. But
as Westrup (1997) has noted, the IS “designer” is also continually constructed in the process of IS design
and use. IS development methodologies are firmly rooted in atomic “user” concepts, and they strongly
18
reinforce the dichotomy between “users” and “designers”.3 Despite the empirical evidence which clearly
portrays “users” as people who make sophisticated adaptations of ICTs to facilitate their interactions within
interorganizational networks, and the “gut feelings” of many developers that “user” notions are inadequate
to describe information systems phenomena, common conceptualizations have only shifted from the “user”
to the “end-user.” But empirical observations, gut feelings, and impassioned critiques do not provide a
theoretical basis upon which to build a better “user” concept. We believe that a theoretically based
reconceptualization of the “user” as an “interactor” is required to move IS research beyond this impasse.
5.0 Reconceptualizing “users” as social interactors
The isolated “user” is not a particularly helpful concept in contemporary organizations. We doubt that this
is entirely unrelated to the major changes in the types of ICTs that are now available as networked
technologies. (Although even in the days of the non-networked PC, atomic “user” concepts provided only
limited insights into organizational ICT use.) As Castells (1996) argues, ICT networks are themselves
interlinked with trends towards more globalized organizations and markets. We will build on his theories
to develop our concept of the “interactor.”
5.1 The concept of “interactor”
Descriptive attempts to recast the “user” as a savvy, skilled, resourceful equal of systems analysts and
developers have made convincing arguments for reconceptualization. Better descriptions, like those of
Kumar and Lamb, not only make a case for understanding the “user” as intelligent and highly skilled, but
they also describe what people are doing when they’re using computers – they’re interacting with others on
behalf of the organization. They’re interactors. As we have shown, ideas about interactors are recurrent in
many research analyses; but they have not been systematically selected and integrated for the construction
of a guiding design concept. We now draw on the work of Manuel Castells to begin that integration.
3
Even the academic publication which focuses on this phenomenon, The Journal of End-User Computing,
19
According to Castells (1996, 1997, 1998), social networking has become the main principle of social
organization. Organizations and economies are becoming at the beginning of the millenium more
informational, more global and above all networked. Social networks are taking shape between
organizations, such as business alliances, as well as between individuals. They are reinforced through new
transportation and communication technologies, so that they often extend nationally and internationally.
ICTs, as instruments of mediation which affect social and power relations, are necessary but not sufficient
to these social transformations. Coordination is achieved through social interaction. The core
organizational activities that can work on a global scale are also enabled by deregulation, organizational
capacity and global financial transactions. An important systemic feature of networks, is that they both
connect and disconnect. On a global scale, this translates into the social inclusion and exclusion of people,
organizations and economies. This selective connectivity and reconfigurability is essential to the network
dynamic. Ultimately, Castells concludes that all networks are networks of individuals (Castells, 2000.)
However, these individuals are clearly not isolated, atomic ICT “users.” In fact, a critical part of Castells’
analysis emphasizes the ways that ethnic and other identities are being heightened, rather than diminishing
in this era.
Even this brutally brief summary of Castells’ network society theory presents a multi-dimensional view of
ICT use (see Table 2), that resonates with the findings of the empirical studies that we cited earlier. It also
joins neatly with certain perspectives and methodologies that have provided valuable insights to IS
researchers. The insights that we highlight in this discussion come largely from new institutionalists 4 who
does not seem to challenge “user” concepts.
4
We could have linked Castells’ theory to ICT studies guided by structuration theory, social network
analysis, or actor-network theory, but each of these choices presents some difficulties. Structuration
theory, like institutionalism, does not theorize directly about ICTs or networks; although new
institutionalism does strongly incorporate symbolic interactionist concepts which lead more easily to
networked explanations of ICT use. Social networks theory has a direct link to Castells’ work, and these
studies have provided much of the data for his theorizing. However, we find that social network analyses
adopt a social realist perspective about the networks under study, when in our view these networks are
more often potential, and informally communicated, rather than manifest. Some studies cited here have
found that actor network theory (ANT) provides helpful explanations of network level phenomena. But as
we have argued elsewhere, theory and methodology are inextricably linked. ANT methodology has been
used to explore activities that are at a level of projects and relatively modest scale networks, rather than
whole social sectors or societies. (A study of the pasteurization of France, for example, does not entail the
20
have been helpful in situating the use of information and new technologies within the social structure of
organizations in ways that incorporate many of the key ideas from other theories, such as structuration
theory and symbolic interactionism. In addition, the empirical studies of new institutionalist researchers
have provided socially rich accounts of the interactions which shape technology use and the roles of
interactors. Although new institutional theorists have not theorized explicitly about ICTs, interactions
through social networks are fundamental to their theories.
New institutional theorists reject the rational-actor models that shape the “user” concept. They focus,
instead, on the properties of groups, organizations, industries, and societies that cannot be reduced to
aggregations or direct consequences of individuals’ attributes, preferences or motives (DiMaggio and
Powell, 1991.) They contend that, with respect to the adoption, development and use of technologies, the
actions of organizations are shaped by the institutional environment (Meyer & Rowan, 1977.) As a result,
Friedland and Alford (1991) state that it is not possible to understand individual or organizational behavior
without locating it in a societal context. People are pressured to perform legitimate actions and interactions
within institutionalized arrangements. Therefore, people are not guided by preferences that are exogenous,
ordered, and stable; but relative to the changing situation.
Thus, interactors seek to communicate with others in socially legitimated ways, and often through
networked ICTs. Their selection of information media for interorganizational communications is often
influenced by institutional norms, rather than their personal preferences. Academics, for example, have
been slow to publish their research in electronic media, partly because they are not sure how these
publications will be evaluated in the tenure process (Kling and Covi, 1995.) At a recent meeting of
information system scholars to discuss publishing in electronic journals, tenure concerns were repeatedly
raised.5 Many of these scholars expressed concern that the research they published in electronic journals
would be strongly discounted by faculty in other fields who would be reviewing their cases for promotion.
same scope as a study of the industrialization of France.) And network society theorists do not look to ANT
for explanations that can help us understand the network society (Castells, personal communication, March,
2000.)
5
This meeting was part of the AMCIS ’99 Conference in Milwaukee, WI.
21
Such discussions show how examining the perceived legitimacy of ICTs, like e-journals, by various groups
who interact with the faculty as authors helps us understand ICT use and non-use. These groups include
tenure committees and deans, who themselves may never read or publish in electronic journals.
Understandings of e-journal adoption and use must engage perceptions of legitimacy, particularly the
interactions between faculty authors and tenure committee members who are far from their sites of online
authorship and ICT use.
Members of professional networks commonly construct shared views of what is legitimate. Those views
may discourage ICT use, as with academic authors. They can also make the use of ICTs highly attractive,
as we noted earlier in the case of commercial real estate brokers who must compile statistical evidence for
investments that will satisfy the legitimacy concerns of underwriters. Firms may be pressured by a number
of different stakeholders to use or not use ICTs in their interactions with other organizations. Individuals
and organizations are simultaneously influenced in different ways to use ICTs, because they belong to
multiple, somewhat overlapping, networks, that may differ in their shared views of what is legitimate. The
merchants of Prato, for example, would not require the 3-inch report of statistical support that institutional
investment underwriters require, because the interconnected networks that shape their actions include
familial networks where legitimacy rests on history and trust, in addition to commercial networks that
establish legitimacy through information exchange.
Despite the institutional character of information systems, interactors do not merely resist or accept change,
they are also critical facilitators of changing information infrastructures who take advantage of
opportunities to modify work roles and develop new information practices (Kling and Iacono, 1989.) The
institutional structures that constrain individual actions also provide new avenues of communication,
allowing members to use the strong ties of their organization’s formal networks as well as the weak ties of
their informal networks of interpersonal relations to effect outcomes (Krackhardt, 1992; Granovetter,
1973.) They may, also, promote interactions that involve ICTs in very different ways from those that the
“user” concept would suggest, as evidenced by studies cited earlier. Institutional concepts, when combined
with network society theories, can provide insightful analyses of how people change their interaction
22
practices, not only in response to the changing efficiencies of new technologies, but also in response to the
expectations of others in their social networks (Clegg, 1990.) They help us construct a multi-dimensional
view of people working with ICTs as “interactors” rather than as “users” (see Table 2.)
Table 2: Multi-dimensional View of the “Interactor”
INTERACTOR DIMENSIONS
CHARACTERISTICS of a connected and situated individual
Affiliations
1.
Relationships driven by context
(networked associations)
2.
Dynamic, change with “flows” of capital, information, etc.
3.
Multi-level, multi-valent, multi-network (global/local,
local/global, group, organization, intergroup, interorganization,
culture)
Interactions
1.
Perform socially embedded, highly contextual actions
2.
Seek to communicate in legitimate ways
3.
Transform and embed available informational resources into
connections and interactions (ICTs are part of the interaction
process, “interaction technologies”)
Identities
4.
Build, design, develop interactions that facilitate “flow” changes
1.
Connections transcend roles
2.
Ethnic and multiple other identities heightened
Based on the foregoing network society theories and new institutionalist insights, we define an “interactor”
as an individual who is responsible for communicating and interacting with others through a social
network. Interactors often belong to multiple social networks, such as collegial networks within their
organizations, and professional and family network s that may extend outside their organizations.
Interactors often have conflicting and ambiguous requirements about the activities they perform, and the
socially legitimate ways in which to perform them. Many interactors exercise limited discretion in ICT
choice and use, since they are constrained by organizational and institutional contexts. The place for the
“interactor” is within a social network, where interactions center on the exchange of symbolic information
23
between members of organizations. They may use computers and information products as part of their
activities to support interorganizational and interpersonal relationships. However, interactors are not
primarily “users” of information systems – that focus is secondary, at best. They may work as attorneys,
biotechnology researchers, inspectors, plant managers, real estate agents, investors, students, teachers, and
others, primarily interacting with one another, and sometimes using ICTs in some of those interactions.
6.0 The implications of a reconceptualization
We believe that a shift from the concept of "user" to the concept of "interactor" will sharpen IS researchers'
perceptions of how organizational contexts shape online practices, and will more accurately recast people
as critical facilitators of changing information infrastructures.
6.1 Considerations for “interactive design”
Researchers who recognize people’s capacity for innovative uses of ICTs have suggested that one way to
tap that wellspring is to provide them with highly configurable systems (von Hippel, 1998.) However,
others have criticized this approach for adhering to the “ICT as a tool” perspective which undergirds the
“user” concept (Westrup, 1997.) A shift from the “user” to the “interactor” can move IS designers beyond
this sticking point, and should be helpful for thinking and talking about the whole information systems
context, allowing interaction to play a role in that discussion. Such discussions will lead not to different
ICT designs, but to different “information system and organization” designs. A comparison of the
introduction of Lotus Notes into two different consulting firms illustrates this point (taken from Kling and
Lamb, 1999.)
ALPHA6 is an international consulting firm with tens of thousands of employees worldwide, and about
10,000 of them in the U.S. In 1989, the vice-president of information systems bought 10,000 copies of
Lotus Notes. Depending upon how Notes is used, it can act as an e-mail system, a discussion system, an
electronic publishing system, and/or a set of digital libraries. At that time, Lotus Notes was superficially
24
similar to an Internet-like system with bulletin boards and posting mechanisms, discussion groups and
electronic mail. The vice president believed that the firm’s line consultants, who worked on similar
projects in offices all over North America (but, none of whom were located in his corporate office), could
use some kind of computerized communication and information system to store what they knew, and to
share it. He also believed that Lotus Notes 1.0 was such a powerful new technology that it would sell itself.
No consulting applications of Lotus Notes existed yet, but the VP did not see this as a problem. To the
contrary, he thought that examples might hinder inventive new uses--the main thing to do was to rapidly
roll it out to the consulting staff and let them use it to find creative ways to share information.
The information technology staff tended to use fairly aggressively for sharing information about their own
projects. The tax consultants in Washington, D.C. also used Lotus Notes as they monitored the behavior of
the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Congress, and disseminated tax advisories to ALPHA offices
around the country about shifting changes in tax legislation that might affect their clients (Mehler, 1992).
The line consultants, who were supposed to become Lotus Notes’ primary users, often seemed uninterested
in learning how to use Notes, readily gave up if they faced early frustrations with Notes, and, as a group did
not spend much time with it. The senior line consultants, who were partners in the firm, tended to be
modest “users”. The more numerous junior line consultants, called associates, were low “users.”
This outcome might puzzle technology enthusiasts, like the ALPHA VP, who hold a “user” view. An
“interactor”-focused view, in contrast, reveals more detail about the interactions of those who used and
those who did not use Notes. The partners, who had substantial job security, could afford to experiment
with Notes. Many of the information technology staff were technophiles who were also willing to work
with an interesting new application. The tax consultants, who were located in Washington D.C., had a
significant incentive to show that they were visible and valuable in the firm. Lotus gave them the ability, in
effect, to electronically publish their advice, and make it quickly available to many of the consultants
around the firm who wanted to read the Notes database. They hoped it would enhance their visibility, and
thus show that the Washington office was not just overhead, but an important contributing part of the firm.
6
A pseudonym for a large, international consulting firm.
25
It was not clear to the line consultants, however, how Notes help them interact with managers, clients and
other consultants. ALPHA -- and many other large consulting firms in North America -- reviews its
consultants every two years, for “up or out” promotions. At major firms about half of the associates are
fired at each review, while the few consultants who are promoted up through the ranks to the status of
partners can expect annual incomes over $300,000. ALPHA’s associates were valued for their billable
hours, and were effectively required to bill almost all of their time. “Billable hours” means they have an
account that they can charge their time to. Consultants who wanted to use Notes had to have an account to
charge their time against, and the initial learning time was in the order of 20 to 30 hours. In 1991, the
consultants were billed at about $150 an hour, so they had to find a client who would be willing to pay
$3,000 to $4,500 for them to learn a system whose value wasn’t yet clear to them -- there were no
exemplary demonstrations showing them how other successful line consultants used Notes. Consequently,
relatively few associates saw value in Notes.
Ernst and Young (E&Y), another major consulting firm, implemented Notes very differently. E & Y’s
organizational charter was to organize consultants’ know-how in specific high profile areas. By 1997,
E&Y had developed 22 cross-office networks of consultants with expertise about certain industries,
organizational reforms, and technologies that were a focus of E&Y’s business (Davenport, 1997; Gierkink
and Ruggles, n.d.). Each network was assigned one line consultant, on a short term half-time basis, to
codify in Notes databases the group's insights from specific consulting projects, to prompt line consultants
to add their own insights, and to edit and prune a project’s discussion and document databases. Some
developed topical "Power Packs" in Notes -- structured and filtered sets of online materials, including sales
presentations and proposal templates. Davenport (1997) observed that these “knowledge networkers”
became network domain experts whose consulting services were in demand throughout the firm, and that
Lotus Notes served as their information support system.
The case of E&Y illustrates an important idea – an idea we might call “interactive design” – that is,
conceptualizing the design of computer and networked systems as a set of interrelated decisions about
26
technology and the organization of work. Unfortunately, thinking and talking about computerization as the
development of new interactions rather than as simply installing and using a new technology is not
commonplace. It is common for managers and technologists to discuss some social repercussions of new
technologies, such as the sponsorship of projects, training people to use new systems, and controls over
access to information. However, these discussions usually treat all or most social interactions as separable
from the technologies, whereas the E&Y case suggests how a more integrated “interactor”-focused view is
critical.
6.2 Going beyond “users” and expanding “IT”
Network society scale expansion and reduction dynamics generate some powerful cultural contradictions,
such as those noted by Bell (1973, 1976) in terms of globalized/local and localized/global interactions –
profoundly reshaping national, cultural and personal identities. “The new power lies in the codes of
information and in the images of representation around which societies organize their institutions, and
people build their lives, and decide their behavior. The sites of this power are people’s minds” (Castells,
1997, p. 359.) “People increasingly organize their meaning not around what they do but on the basis of
what they believe they are” (p. 8, 1997.) People don’t believe they are “users.” They don’t think of
themselves or refer to themselves as “users.”
E & Y managers were able to effect a successful Notes implementation, because they thought about
“interactors” rather than “users.” Perhaps the rest of the IS community can go beyond “users” by dropping
the term “user” from information systems development vocabularies. “The power of words is not total, but
they may subtly and indirectly inhibit the adoption of new areas of research and approaches to
development” (Grudin, 1990b p. 269.) Based on the works we have cited, it seems clear that the term
“user” has helped to reinforce the “user” concept, and we believe it should be replaced by more specific
labels. As a first step toward adopting the “interactor” concept, we invite IS researchers to radically reduce
their use of the term “user” -- only resorting to it when no other role or term, such as “social interactor,” is
workable. We don’t expect people to simply perform a mental “search-and-replace” operation. In our
27
MIS Quarterly article review, we noticed that several papers effectively avoid the term “user” by referring
to people by their role – e.g. managers, group members, clerical staff, nurses and librarians – and how they
interact with others in their work contexts. We have actually tried to follow this advice ourselves, but we
have sometimes slipped back to using the term “user.” Nevertheless, this exercise is effective: when we try
to eliminate the term “user” we have to be more explicit about interactions among people, organizations
and their technologies. As Hirscheim et al. (1996) have pointed out, within the domains of IS development
change, language change is the least difficult to effect. Perhaps then a second, relatively easy step in going
beyond “users” would be to replace the commonly used expansion of the acronym “IT” (i.e. information
technologies) with one that is better suited to a network society: “interaction technologies.”
In closing, we would also invite IS colleagues to consider and discuss how your systems designs and design
concepts support and strategically enable organizations and their interactors—that is, we invite you to
engage in “interactive design.” One way to initiate that dialogue would be to continue the discussion about
electronic journals that attracted so much attention at the recent AMCIS conference. We know from our
own empirical research with enterprise-wide resource planning, that large scale change cannot be
understood through the aggregation of individualistic attitudes. Institutional change requires a viewpoint
that helps designers envision the whole system—to see that implementation occurs within networks of
consensus, like tenure committees, that shape the actions of individuals, like academic authors, more
strongly than their own preferences for easier and faster publishing venues. The “interactor” concept
provides a socially rich basis for examining exactly this type of change and for designing the kind of
electronic publishing system that can support dynamic organizations, like twenty-first century Universities,
and academic interactors, like ourselves.
Epilogue
Clearly, more can be said about organizational interactors than we were able to develop at length here. We
only touched on the idea that ICT use, when associated with the organization rather than the individual,
takes on a very different set of considerations. These require careful analysis of the various social actors
28
that may be involved as stakeholders in ICT use or non-use, and the ways in which each may obtain valueadded benefits from these technologies or from the reconfiguration of organizational alliances that support
ICT use. Our focus in this initial presentation of the "interactor" concept has been to indicate how the
concept of "user" is too limiting for developing an understanding of ICT use in a network society. In future
discussions, we expect to push this line of thinking further by extending the "interactor" concept to higher
levels of analysis, such as groups, organizations, and even networks.
29
Appendix: MIS Quarterly Article Contents Analysis
MISQ Article
Conceptual Focus
No Mention: IS/IT use was not a focus of the article
Individualistic Focus: IS/IT use characterized by "user"-based, task-based, cognitive perspective
Socially Thin Interaction: IS/IT use alludes to interactions, human actors, organizational economic goals
Socially Rich Interaction: IS/IT use discussion strongly interaction-focused, interorganizational concerns
Volume 20, Number 1, March, 1996
Issues and Concerns About Computer-Supported Meetings: The Facilitator's
Socially Thin Interaction
Perspective Fred Niederman, Catherine M. Beise, and Peggy M. Beranek
Determinants of Commitment to Information Systems Development: A Longitudinal
Individualistic Focus
Investigation Michael Newman and Rajiv Sabherwal
Measuring the Linkage Between Business and Information Technology Objectives
Individualistic Focus
Blaize Horner Reich and Izak Benbasat
An Empirical Examination of the Value of Creativity Support Systems on Idea
Individualistic Focus
Generation Brenda Massetti
Volume 20, Number 2, June, 1996
Productivity, Business Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: Three Different Measures No Mention
of Information Technology Value Lorin Hitt and Erik Brynjolfsson
Relational Development in Computer-Supported Groups
Socially Thin Interaction
Laku Chidambaram
Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals' Concerns About Organizational
Individualistic Focus
Practices H. Jeff Smith, Sandra J. Milberg, and Sandra J. Burke
Information Technology for Local Administration Support: The Governorates Project Socially Thin Interaction
in Egypt
Sarma R. Nidumolu, Seymour E. Goodman, Douglas R. Vogel, and Ann K. Danowitz
Key Issues in Information Systems Management: 1994-95 SIM Delphi Results
No Mention
James C. Brancheau, Brian D. Janz, and James C. Wetherbe
Volume 20, Number 3, September, 1996
The Effect of Codes of Ethics and Personal Denial of Responsibility on Computer
Individualistic Focus
Abuse Judgments and Intentions Susan J. Harrington
Sustainable Collaboration: Managing Conflict and Cooperation in Interorganizational Socially Rich Interaction
Systems Kuldeep Kumar and Han G. van Dissel
Expert Systems Usage: Task Change and Intrinsic Motivation
Individualistic Focus
T. Grandon Gill
Measuring the Extent of EDI Usage in Complex Organizations: Strategies and
No Mention
Illustrative Examples Brenda Massetti and Robert W. Zmud
Teledemocracy: Using Information Technology to Enhance Political Work
Socially Thin Interaction
Pål Ytterstad, Sigmund Akselsen, Gunnvald Svendsen, and Richard T. Watson
Sustaining Process Improvement and Innovation in the Information Services
Socially Thin Interaction
Function: Lessons Learned at the Bose Corporation
Warren L. Harkness, William J. Kettinger, and Albert H. Segars
Volume 20, Number 4, December 1996
Change Agentry -- The Next IS Frontier
Socially Rich Interaction
M. Lynne Markus and Robert I. Benjamin
The Contribution of Shared Knowledge to IS Group Performance
Socially Thin Interaction
Kay M. Nelson and Jay G. Cooprider
Information Exchange and Use in Group Decision Making: You Can Lead a Group to Individualistic Focus
Information, but You Can't Make It Think
Alan R. Dennis
Computer-Based Monitoring: Common Perceptions and Empirical Results
Socially Rich Interaction
Joey F. George
30
MISQ Article
Conceptual Focus
No Mention: IS/IT use was not a focus of the article
Individualistic Focus: IS/IT use characterized by "user"-based, task-based, cognitive perspective
Socially Thin Interaction: IS/IT use alludes to interactions, human actors, organizational economic goals
Socially Rich Interaction: IS/IT use discussion strongly interaction-focused, interorganizational concerns
Controlling Prototype Development Through Risk Analysis
Socially Rich Interaction
Richard L. Baskerville and Jan Stage
Volume 21, Number 1, March 1997
Factors Affecting the Adoption of Open Systems: An Exploratory Study
No Mention
Patrick Y. K. Chau and Kar Yan Tam
Information Specificity and Environmental Scanning: An Economic Perspective
Individualistic Focus
Vivek Choudhury and Jeffrey L. Sampler
Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools
No Mention
William J. Kettinger, James T.C. Teng, and Subashish Guha
Searching and Scanning: How Executives Obtain Information From Executive
Socially Thin Interaction
Information Systems Betty Vandenbosch and Sid L. Huff
Discovery and Representation of Causal Relationships in MIS Research: A
No Mention
Methodological Framework Byungtae Lee, Anitesh Barua, and Andrew B. Whinston
Volume 21, Number 2, June 1997
Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the
Socially Rich Interaction
Contextuality of Meaning Ojelanki Ngwenyama and Allen S. Lee
Can Humans Detect Errors in Data? Impact of Base Rates, Incentives, and Goals
Individualistic Focus
Barbara D. Klein, Dale L. Goodhue, and Gordon B. Davis
Measuring Information Systems Service Quality: Concerns on the Use of the
Socially Thin InteractionSERVQUAL Questionnaire
Thomas P. Van Dyke, Leon A. Kappelman, and Victor R. Prybutok
Measuring Information Systems Service Quality: Concerns for a Complete Canvas
Socially Thin InteractionLeyland F. Pitt, Richard T. Watson, and C. Bruce Kavan
Pragmatic Perspectives on the Measurement of Information Systems Service Quality
Socially Thin InteractionWilliam J. Kettinger and Choong C. Lee
Qualitative Research in Information Systems
No Mention
Michael D. Myers
Volume 21, Number 3, September 1997
Special Abstract for Three "History" Papers on MIS Research Methods
Socially Rich Interaction
Developing an Historical Tradition in MIS Research
Richard O. Mason, James L. McKenney, and Duncan G. Copeland
Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation
Socially Thin Interaction
Model Magid Igbaria, Nancy Zinatelli, Paul Cragg, and Angele L. M. Cavaye
An Historical Method for MIS Research: Steps and Assumptions
Socially Rich Interaction
Richard O. Mason, James L. McKenney, and Duncan G. Copeland
Bank of America: The Crest and Trough of Technological Leadership
Socially Rich Interaction
James L. McKenney, Richard O. Mason, and Duncan G. Copeland
Volume 21, Number 4, December 1997
Effects of User Participation in Systems Development: A Longitudinal Field
Individualistic Focus
Experiment James E. Hunton and Jesse D. Beeler
Transformation of the IT Function at British Petroleum
Socially Thin Interaction
John Cross, Michael J. Earl, and Jeffrey L. Sampler
Building Change-Readiness Capabilities in the IS Organization: Insights From the
Individualistic Focus
Bell Atlantic Experience
Charles E. Clark, Nancy C. Cavanaugh, Carol V. Brown, and V. Sambamurthy
Redesigning the Customer Support Process for the Electronic Economy: Insights
Socially Thin Interaction
From Storage Dimensions
Omar A. El Sawy and Gene Bowles
31
MISQ Article
Conceptual Focus
No Mention: IS/IT use was not a focus of the article
Individualistic Focus: IS/IT use characterized by "user"-based, task-based, cognitive perspective
Socially Thin Interaction: IS/IT use alludes to interactions, human actors, organizational economic goals
Socially Rich Interaction: IS/IT use discussion strongly interaction-focused, interorganizational concerns
Gender Differences in the Perception and Use of E-Mail: An Extension to the
Individualistic Focus
Technology Acceptance Model
David Gefen and Detmar W. Straub
Volume 22, Number 1, March 1998
Success of Data Resource Management in Distributed Environments: An Empirical
No Mention
Investigation
Hemant Jain, K. Ramamurthy, Hwa-Suk Ryu, and Masoud Yasai-Ardekani
Modeling IT Ethics: A Study in Situational Ethics
Socially Thin Interaction
Debasish Banerjee, Timothy Paul Cronan, and Thomas W. Jones
Measuring Information Systems Service Quality: Lessons From Two Longitudinal
Socially Thin Interaction
Case Studies Richard T. Watson, Leyland F. Pitt, and C. Bruce Kavan
The Dependent Variable in Research Into the Effects of Creativity Support Systems:
Socially Thin Interaction
Quality and Quantity of Ideas Berend Wierenga and Gerrit H. van Bruggen
An Ounce of Preventative Research Design Is Worth a Ton of Statistical Analysis
Individualistic Focus
Cure Brenda Massetti
Volume 22, Number 2, June 1998
The Effects of Customizability and Reusability on Perceived Process and Competitive No Mention
Performance of Software Firms Sarma R. Nidumolu and Gary W. Knotts
Strategic Information Systems Planning Success: An Investigation of the Construct
No Mention
and Its Measurement Albert H. Segars and Varun Grover
Polarization and Persuasive Argumentation: A Study of Decision Making in Group
Individualistic Focus
Settings Maha El-Shinnawy and Ajay S. Vinze
The Merchant of Prato -- Revisited: Toward a Third Rationality of Information
Socially Rich Interaction
Systems Kuldeep Kumar, Han G. van Dissel, and Paola Bielli
Information Technology and Worker Composition: Determinants of Productivity in
Socially Thin Interaction
the Life Insurance Industry Chiara Francalanci and Hossam Galal
Volume 22, Number 3, September 1998
Desktop Videoconferencing: Experiences of Complete Users, Wary Users, and NonIndividualistic Focus
Users Jane Webster
Information Technology and the Nature of Managerial Work: From the Productivity
Socially Rich Interaction
Paradox to the Icarus Paradox? Alain Pinsonneault and Suzanne Rivard
A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness
Individualistic Focus
Ilze Zigurs and Bonnie K. Buckland
An Investigation of Media Selection Among Directors and Managers: From "Self" to
Socially Thin Interaction
"Other" Orientation Patricia J. Carlson and Gordon B. Davis
An Empirical Investigation of Information Technology Sourcing Practices: Lessons
No Mention
From Experience
Mary C. Lacity and Leslie P. Willcocks
Volume 22, Number 4, December 1998
Computer-Aided Systems and Communities:
Socially Rich Interaction
Mechanisms for Organizational Learning in Distributed Environments
Paul S. Goodman and Eric D. Darr
Coping With Systems Risk: Security Planning Models for Management Decision
Socially Thin Interaction
Making Detmar W. Straub and Richard J. Welke
Uses and Consequences of Electronic Markets: An Empirical Investigation in the
Socially Thin Interaction
Aircraft Parts Industry
Vivek Choudhury, Kathleen S. Hartzel, and Benn R. Konsynski
Redesigning Reengineering Through Measurement-Driven Inference
No mention
Mark E. Nissen
32
MISQ Article
Conceptual Focus
No Mention: IS/IT use was not a focus of the article
Individualistic Focus: IS/IT use characterized by "user"-based, task-based, cognitive perspective
Socially Thin Interaction: IS/IT use alludes to interactions, human actors, organizational economic goals
Socially Rich Interaction: IS/IT use discussion strongly interaction-focused, interorganizational concerns
Production and Transaction Economies and IS Outsourcing: A Study of the U.S.
No Mention
Banking Industry
Soon Ang and Detmar W. Straub
Volume 23, Number 1, March 1999
Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance
No Mention
Izak Benbasat and Robert W. Zmud
GIS for District-Level Administration in India: Problems and Opportunities
Socially Rich Interaction
Geoff Walsham and Sundeep Sahay
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in
Socially Rich Interaction
Information Systems
Heinz K. Klein and Michael D. Myers
Structuring Time and Task in Electronic Brainstorming
Individualistic Focus
Alan R. Dennis, Jay E. Aronson, William G. Heninger, and Edward D. Walker II
Ethics and Information Systems: The Corporate Domain
Socially Rich Interaction
H. Jeff Smith and John Hasnas
Volume 23, Number 2, June 1999
Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A
Individualistic Focus
Longitudinal Study
Deborah Compeau, Christopher A. Higgins, and Sid Huff
The Implications of Information Technology Infrastructure for Business Process
No Mention
Redesign Marianne Broadbent, Peter Weill, and Don St.Clair
Information Technology Adoption Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of
Socially Thin Interaction
Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs
Elena Karahanna, Detmar W. Straub, and Norman L. Chervany
The Untapped Potential of IT Chargeback
Socially Rich Interaction
Jeanne W. Ross, Michael R. Vitale, and Cynthia Mathis Beath
Creation of Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation
Individualistic Focus
Viswanath Venkatesh
Arrangements for Information Technology Governance: A Theory of Multiple
No Mention
Contingencies V. Sambamurthy and Robert W. Zmud
Notes on classification:
We evaluated the Conceptual Focus of these articles by judging how strongly each article reflected the
“user” concept (defined elsewhere in this paper.) We made this determination, not only by looking for the
word “user,” but by examining how “users” were characterized in the article, and how the interactions of
the people that were mentioned, entered into each article’s discussion. The articles were not coded, but
each one was evaluated “in total” to have reflected one of three general perspectives:
 Individualistic Focus: IS/IT use characterized by "user"-based, task-based, cognitive perspective
 Socially Thin Interaction: IS/IT use alludes to interactions, human actors, organizational economic
goals
 Socially Rich Interaction: IS/IT use discussion strongly interaction-focused, interorganizational
concerns
Sample passages:
To help readers better understand these characterizations, we include a sample passage from articles which
reflect each of these three perspectives:
33
Individualistic Focus:
Can Humans Detect Errors in Data? Impact of Base Rates, Incentives, and Goals
Barbara D. Klein, Dale L. Goodhue, and Gordon B. Davis
“Of particular practical importance, these results suggest that prior studies that concluded that users of
information systems cannot be counted on to detect errors may have overgeneralized their results. Under
more general conditions, individuals can detect data errors and their error detection performance responds
to explicit goals and incentives in expected ways. More specifically, we have reproduced results found by
Ricketts (1990) but shown that these are representative of the special case where the error detection goal is
only implicit in the task. When error detection is an explicit goal, subjects respond by shifting their
response criteria and by devoting greater effort to the error detection task, thereby improving
discriminability.” p. 184
Socially Thin Interaction:
The Contribution of Shared Knowledge to IS Group Performance
Kay M. Nelson and Jay G. Cooprider
“IS group performance is conceptualized in two parts; operational performance and service performance.
These dimensions of performance capture two different aspects of IS performance; the “inward”
operational activities of production and development, and the “outward” service activities of customer
service (Berger, 1988; Cooprider, 1990). Operational performance is therefore operationalized as the
quality of the IS group’s work product, the ability of the IS group to meet its organizational commitments,
and the ability of the IS organization to meet its goals. Service performance is operationalized as the ability
of the IS group to react quickly to line needs, its responsiveness to the line group, and the contribution the
IS group has made to the line group’s success in meeting its strategic goals.” p. 418
Socially Rich Interaction:
Change Agentry -- The Next IS Frontier
M. Lynne Markus and Robert I. Benjamin
“Another advantage of the proactive advocate role is its emphasis on communication. In our research and
consulting, we have often been struck by the relatively infrequent communications between CIOs and
CEOs, between CIOs and the heads of other organizational units, between IS analysts and users, and so
forth. We have also heard frequent complaints about the IS function’s lack of credibility. We think these
two issues are related. One cannot be a successful advocate of major change without many, many
interactions and discussions with the change targets. To put it in sports language, change agentry is a
contact sport. According to the research literature (Bashein, 1994), credibility is often a side-effect of
frequent, pleasurable communication. Therefore, it seems quite likely that IS professional credibility
would improve substantially if IS specialists treated good communication with clients as their central role.”
p.398
34
References
See Appendix (MIS Quarterly articles 1996-1999.)
Baldwin, Nancy Sadler and Ronald E. Rice (1997.) “Information-seeking behavior of securities analysts:
Individual and institutional influences, information sources and channels, and outcomes,” Journal of
the American Society for Information Science, v48, n8, pp. 674-693.
Bannon, Liam J. (1991.) “From Human Factors to Human Actors: The Role of Psychology and HumanComputer Interaction Studies in Systems Design” in J. Greenbaum and M. Kyng (Eds.) Design at
work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 25-44.
Beath, Cynthia M. and Wanda J. Orlikowski (1994.) “The Contradictory Structure of Systems
Development Methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-User Relationship in Information Engineering,”
Information Systems Research, Dec. 1994, pp. 350-377.
Bell, Daniel (1973.) The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York:
Basic Books.
Bell, Daniel (1976.) The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. NewYork: Basic Books.
Blomberg, J., L. Suchman and R. Trigg (1994.) “Reflections on a Work-Oriented Design Project,” in R.
Trigg, S. I. Anderson, and E. Dykstra-Erickson (eds.), PDC ’94: Proceedings of the Participatory
Design Conference (pp. 99-109.) Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Palo Alto, CA.
Blumenstyk, Goldie (1999.) “Colleges Object as Companies Put Class Notes on Web Sites,” Chronicle of
Higher Education, September 10, 1999.
Carroll, John M. and Mary Beth Rosson (1987.) “The Paradox of the Active User,” in John M. Carroll
(Ed), Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction, Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Castells, Manual (1989.) The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and
the Urban-Regional Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, Manual (1996.) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol I: The Rise of the
Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, Manual (1997.) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol II: The Power of
Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, Manual (1998.) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol III: End of Millenium.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, Manual (2000.) "Universities and the Network Society," Invited Lecture March 23, 2000,
University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Clegg, Stewart R., 1990. Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Postmodern World, Sage
Publications, London.
Clement, A. (1994.) “Computing at Work: Empowering Action by ‘Low-Level Users’” in D. Schuler (ed.),
Communications of the ACM, Special Issue on Social Computing, January, 1994, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 53105.
35
Cooperrider, David L. and Suresh Srivastva (1987.) “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life,” in
Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 1, pp. 129-169.
Davidson, Elizabeth (1999.) "Joint Application Design (JAD) in Practice," Journal of Systems and
Software, 45, 215-223.
Davenport, Thomas (1997.) “Knowledge Management Case Study: Knowledge Management at Ernst &
Young.” http://www.bus.utexas.edu/kman/E&Y.htm
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell (1991.)” Introduction” in W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (eds.)
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Drucker, Peter F. (1999.) “Beyond the Information Revolution,” Atlantic Monthly, October, 1999, pp. 4757.
Friedland, Roger and Robert R. Alford (1991.) “Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices and
Institutional Contradictions,” in W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (eds.) The New Institutionalism in
Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gasser, Les (1986.) “The Integration of Computing and Routine Work,” ACM Transactions on Office
Information Systems, 4(3)(July):205-225.
Gasson, Susan (1999.) “The Reality of User-Centered Design,” Journal of End User Computing, Vol. 11,
No. 4.
Gierkink, Tia and Rudy Ruggles (URL). “Leveraging Knowledge for Business Value: Creating Living
Knowledge Representations Through the Power of Communities.”
http://www.businessinnovation.ey.com/mko/html/levera.html
Granovetter, M.S. 1973. "The strength of weak ties", American Journal of Sociology, 78, 6 (1973), 13601380.
Grudin, Jonathan (1990a.) “The Computer Reaches Out: The Historical Continuity of Interface Design”,
CHI ’90 Conference Proceedings, Seattle, WA, April 1-5, 1990, pp. 261-276.
Grudin, Jonathan (1990b.) “interface,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work,” Los Angeles, CA, October 7-10, 1990, pp. 269-278.
Hirschheim, Rudy, Heinz K. Klein, and Kalle Lyytinen (1996.) “Exploring the Intellectual Structures of
Information Systems Development: A Social Action Theoretic Analysis,” Accounting Management
and Information Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1 / 2, pp. 1-64.
Igbaria, Magid, Nancy Zinatelli, Paul Cragg and Angele L. M. Cavaye (1997.) “Personal Computing
Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3.
Kling, Rob (1977.) “The Organizational Context of User-Centered Organizational Design,” MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 1 No. 4, pp.41-52.
Kling, Rob (1987.) “Defining the Boundaries of Computing Across Complex Organizations" in R. Boland
and R. Hirschheim (eds.), Critical Issues in Information Systems, New York: John Wiley.
Kling, Rob (1992.) “Behind the Terminal: The Critical Role of Computing Infrastructure in Effective
Information Systems’ Development and Use,” in William Cotterman and James Senn (eds.),
Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, New York: John Wiley, pp. 153-201.
Kling, Rob. (1999.) “What is Social Informatics and Why Does it Matter?” D-Lib Magazine. January.
36
Kling, Rob and Covi, Lisa, (1995). "Electronic Journals and Legitimate Media in the Systems of Scholarly
Communication", The Information Society, 11(4).
Kling, Rob and Margaret Elliott (1994.) “Digital Library Design for Usability,” Digital Libraries ’94
Conference.
Kling, Rob and Roberta Lamb (1999.) “IT and Organizational Change in Digital Economies: A SocioTechnical Approach,” Understanding the Digital Economy -- Data, Tools and Research, May 25-26 at
the U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C. (http://www.ecommerce.gov/schedule.htm).
Krackhardt, D., 1992. "The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations", in Nohria,
N. and Eccles, R.G (eds) Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action., Boston: Harvard
Business School Press, 216-239.
Kumar, Kuldeep, Han G. van Dissel and Paola Bielli (1998.) “The Merchant of Prato—Revisited: Toward a
Third Rationality of Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly, June, 1998, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 199-226.
Lamb, Roberta (1997.) “Interorganizational Relationships and Information Services: How Technical and
Institutional Environments Influence Data Gathering Practices,” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of California, Irvine.
Lamb, Roberta and Elizabeth Davidson (forthcoming.) "The New Computing Archipelago: Intranet Islands
of Practice," in Proceedings of International Federation of Information Processing, Working Group 8.2,
June, 2000, Aalborg, Denmark.
Lamb, Roberta and John L. King (2000.) "Emerging Informational Environments: Technical and
Institutional Dimensions of Information and Communication Technology Use in Organizations," Working
Paper, University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Lawrence, P. R. and J. W. Lorsch (1967.) Organization and Environment, Cambridge: Harvard Graduate
School of Business Administration.
Malone, Thomas W. and Kevin Crowston (1990.) “What is Coordination Theory and How Can It Help
Design Cooperative Work Systems?” in Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, Los Angeles, CA, October 7-10, 1990, pp. 357-370.
Markus, M. Lynne and Niels Bjorn-Andersen (1987.) “Power Over Users: Its Exercise by Systems
Professionals,” Communications of the ACM, June, 1987, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 498-504.
Mehler, Mark (1992). “Notes Fanatic”, Corporate Computing, (August) 1 (2):160-164.
Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan (1977.) “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and
Ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology, 83:340-63.
Nardi, B. and J. Miller (1991.) “Twinkling Lights and Nested Loops: Distributed Problem Solving and
Spreadsheet Development,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34:161-184.
Norman, Don A. (1986.) “Cognitive Engineering” in D. A. Norman and S. W. Draper (Eds.), User-centered
system design, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
O'Day, Vicki L. and Robin Jefferies, 1993. "Information Artisans: Patterns of Result Sharing By
Information Searchers", Proc. ACM Conference on Organizational Computing Systems (COOCS '93), New
York, ACM Press.
37
Olsen, Florence (1999.) “Armed With a Web Site and Links, a Professor Takes On Lecture-Notes
Companies,” [Need full cite.]
Pfeffer, J. (1981.) Power in Organizations, Marshfield, MA: Pittman.
Porter, Michael E. (1980.) Competitive Strategy, New York: Free Press.
Rogers, Everett M. (1962.) Diffusion of Innovations, New York: Free Press.
Shneiderman, Ben (1987.) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer
Interaction, Reading MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Simon, Herbert A. (1988.) The Sciences of the Artificial, Second Edition, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Singham, Mano (1999.) “Forget about making notes,” The Plain Dealer, September 13, 1999.
Suchman, Lucy (1987.) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, Lucy (1996.) “Supporting Articulation Work” in Rob Kling (ed) Computerization and
Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, Second Edition, San Diego: Academic Press, pp.
407-423.
Todd, Peter and Isak Benbasat (1999.) “Evaluating the Impact of DSS, Cognitive Effort and Incentives On
Strategy Selection,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 10, No. 4.
von Hippel, Eric (1988.) The Sources of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, Eric (1998.) "Economics of Product Development by Users: The Impact of 'Sticky' Local
Information," Management Science, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 629-644.
Walsham, Geoff and Sahay, Sundeep (1999.) "GIS for District-Level Administration in India: Problems
and Opportunities," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 39-66.
Westrup, C. (1997.) “Constituting Users in Requirements Techniques” in Information Systems and
Qualitative Research, A. S. Lee et al. (eds.), London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 182-204.
Williamson, O. E. (1981.) “The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach,” American
Journal of Sociology, 87 (November) 548-77.
Woolgar, S. (1991.) "Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials" in J. Law (ed), A Sociology of
Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge.
38