Much of the research on MIS implementation which has been conducted in the past decade has focused on identifying and measuring the organizational characteristics which appear to be particularly conducive to either success or failure of system development efforts. While such research is useful in providing insight about the implementation problem, it provides little guidance for the management of ongoing implementation efforts. The study described in this paper attempts to address the implementation management question by exploring the use of MIS users' pre-implementation expectations about a system as indicators of the likely success of that system. System development efforts can be viewed as multi-stage processes. During the first of the stages, Definition, most of the key decisions about the system as the user will see it are made, e.g., system goals, scope, overall approach. The Definition stage, however, typically accounts for no more than 25% of the resources required for system development. Thus, the decisions which will have the greatest effect on the users' acceptance or rejection of a system are made prior to the bulk of spending on the project, and an assessment of the project's probability of success or failure should be possible at that time. The results of a number of implementation studies suggest that implementation failure is more likely when users hold unrealistic expectations about a system. Research in other areas, especially product evaluation and job satisfaction, also shows a connection between realism of expectations and outcomes (e.g., satisfaction). Thus, user expectations held at the end of the Definition stage might serve as early warning indicators of MIS implementation outcomes. If these expectations prove to be reliable indicators of subsequent success or failure, it would enable system developers to diagnose likely problems and to take corrective action at an early project stage. This paper reports on a longitudinal study of user expectations as predictors of project success or failure. The results strongly suggest that users who hold realistic expectations prior to implementation are more satisfied with the system and use it more than users whose pre-implementation expectations are unrealistic. While the results are encouraging, further research is necessary in a number of areas---e.g., better definition of key expectations, simpler tools for measuring expectations, proper timing of expectations measurement---before reliable instruments for measuring expectations in ongoing projects will be available. The paper outlines, however, some steps which can be taken now to help assure that potential system users develop realistic expectations.management science implementation

MIS personnel historically have exhibited a disturbingly high rate of turnover, and the job of the MIS manager is increasingly oriented to personnel and staffing problems. The MIS careers literature consistently suggests that what is needed to improve this situation is (1) more attention to formal career planning, and (2) the implementation of a dual career ladder system within the DP/IS organization. A look at the broader literature on organizational careers suggests that these suggestions may not in fact make sense. By considering only a subset of the relevant concepts about careers, we have reached conclusions that are quite possibly erroneous, and have made suggestioiis that will not likely help. Until further research on MIS personnel and their career needs is accomplished, we will have no valid basis for prescribing solutions to MIS careers problems. Suggestions for needed research are outlined.

No abstract

Page 1Current DSS research is rather fragmentary, and typically ayopic--it centers either on the decision situation which DSS s u~w r t , or on DSS tools or generators. In this paper we adopt a comprehensive view of DSS emphasizing their svstemic nature.This entails identifying the links among the five aspects that classically characterize a system: 1, the environment, i,e., decision situations and access patterns;2. the function (within this environment), i.e., types and levels of decision support;3. the functional components that ~k e it up, i.e., dialog, data, and model management; 4. the arrangement, i .e., the linkages among the components and the assignment of functions to modules; and 5. the resources consumed, i.e., hardware, software, human skills, and data,The systeaic view provides a concrete framework for the effective design of DSS, and serves as a basis for accumulating DSS research results. The premise of the systemic view of DSS is that understanding these systems requires the simultaneous consideration of the five system aspects, i.e., environment, role, components, arrangement of components, and resources required to support the system [Churchman 681, A seaningful DSS design must explicitly link all these aspects so that characteristics of the system's environment and role will be reflected in its components and their arrangement. Center for Digital EconomyThe m e DSS implies that the objects we are discussing are indeed Center for Digital Economy Research Stem School of Business IVorking Paper IS-84-8 1 systems, y e t t h i s perspective has been l o s t i n much of the DSS l i t e r a t u r e . The purpose of t h i s paper is to present a comprehensive view of DSS, using the systemic framework as an organizing concept. No new terminology is introduced. Rather, the paper attempts t o i n t e g r a t e the disparate perspectives found i n the DSS l i t e r a t u r e i n t o a consistent and coherent body of knowledge. This integrated view indeed reveals new insights.Section 2 defines the classical aspects of a system, Sections 3 through 7 apply these definitions t o DSS, explicating the meaning of each aspect i n t h e DSS context, Section 8 examines more closely t h e relationships among the systemic aspects of DSS, p a r t i c u l a r l y the ways r o l e and environment determine components, arrangement, and resources.Finally, section 9 considers the implications of a systemic view f o r DSS design, design research, and curricula. The Aspects of a SystemThe fundamental premise of systems theory (or the systems approach) is t h a t systems, regardless of t h e i r specific context, share a conunon set of aspects or elements [Churchman 681. The systems view, however , is an abstract model, as systems exist only i n the mind of the beholder, Well designed man-made systems are constructed t o resemble t h a t view, as it provides a methodical j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a set of corponents and t h e i r arrangesen t . order to answer wfiy an object is structured as it is, or how it ...

No abstract