Author List: Kaiser, Kate M.; Bostrom, Robert P.;
MIS Quarterly, 1982, Volume 6, Issue 4, Page 43-60.
In formation systems for large firms are typically designed by a team comprised of both users and systems personnel. The Management Information System (MIS) literature discusses a communication gap between the organization oriented users and the more technical systems staff. It is often hypothesized that systems personnel and users are different in terms of personality and behavior characteristics and that these differences are one of the primary reasons for the existence of a communication gap. This article summarizes a two-phased study. The first phase investigated personality characteristics of respondents from thirty-two large organizations who worked on design teams. The second phase examines, in detail, a system success and failure in one organization. Analysis was performed to see if there are significant differences on personality dimensions between users and systems personnel and to explore the relationship between these differences and system success. An denationalization of Jung's personality typology (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) was employed. The results show that the users involved in the systems design are very similar to their systems counterparts. Even more surprising is that the characteristics of these users are closer to the popular descriptions of systems staff than the analysts are. They also suggest that these similarities in personality types may have an impact on system success. The general implications of these findings in terms of the management of project teams and the MIS designs they create are discussed.
Keywords: action-research; cognitive style; communication gap; Information systems; MIS design; sociotechnical systems; user involvement
Algorithm:

List of Topics

#240 0.209 systems information management development presented function article discussed model personnel general organization described presents finally computer-based role examined functional components
#220 0.179 research study different context findings types prior results focused studies empirical examine work previous little knowledge sources implications specifically provide
#145 0.105 differences analysis different similar study findings based significant highly groups popular samples comparison similarities non-is variety reveals imitation versus suggests
#205 0.097 cognitive style research rules styles human individual personality indicates stopping users composition analysis linguistic contextual certain differences preferred theoretical activity
#87 0.089 team teams virtual members communication distributed performance global role task cognition develop technology involved time individual's affects project geographically individuals
#286 0.064 success model failure information impact variables failures delone suggested dimensions mclean reasons variable finally categories years recommendations benefits studies identify