Social Aspects of Computing Rob Kling Edifor A Cross-Cultural Comparison of IS Designer ‘Values The values of system designe rs have a significant influence on the extent to which i nformation systems meet the broad effectiveness needs of an organization. Kuldeep Kumar and Niels Bjplrn-Andersen A number of studies in the information systems li tera- ture report upon the negative organizational outcomes and/or the lack of the realizati on of potential benefits of computer-based information systems [l, 28, 32, 51, 69, 721. To some extent these failures have been attrib- uted to a lack of appropriate information systems devel- opment methodologies (ISDMs) [32, 651. However, in spite of the emergence of new ISDMs, information sys- tems design (ISD) is still largel y a complex and unstruc- tured process, usually with ambiguous goals. Accord- ingly, systems designers must make a number of choices which significantly affect the systems develop- ment process and its outcomes [55]. In the absence of explicit policies or guidelines, these choices are determined, to a large extent, by the s ys- tems designers’ personal values.? During the design pro- cess, the designer, either consciously or subconsciously, makes a series of incremental choices in the design and implementation of a system [16]. To some e xtent, there are methods or standards guiding the ISD process. How- ever, most of the time these standards do not readil y apply. The context is never exactly as assumed, and the standard procedures have to be interpreted. Further- more, these standards are far from complete and the designer has to fill in the blanks, especial ly as regards implementation and organizational design. Similarly, the management obiectives specified for the project are usually very high level and far from specific. The de- signer has to define, interpret, and operationali ze the missing objectives in the a bsence of clear directions. Accordingly, designers have to rely on their own judg- ment for making the design decisions. Hedberg and Mumfo rd [32] state: ’ “A value is a conception, implicit or explicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group. of desirable w hich influences selection from available ends and means oi action.” 1421 This study was funded in part by NATO Collaborative Research Grant Num- ber 730/84. 0 1990 ACM 0001.0782/90,‘0500-0528 $1.50 “It is reasonable to assume that values play an im- portant part in guiding the designers’ choice be- tween different design alternativ es . . . The values , needs and objective of top management and sys- tems designers will influence the kind o f technical, organizational and task structure alternatives they consider during the design process and the solu- tions they eventuall y choose.” The premise that the designers’ values influence de- sign choices also finds support in the work of scholars in the fields of management science, general, systems theory, and information systems [4, 14, 15, 16, 36, 39, 40, 41, 54, 55, 641. The designer’s values, however, may not always be instrumental in achieving systems that are consistent with organizational objectives. Indeed, a number of au- thors suggest that overly technical, rational, and eco- nomic value orientation of systems designers, accom- panied by a lack of attention to political, organizational, and psychological issues, is the cause of deficiencies in existi ng IS development practices [12, 18, 26, 29, 31, 32, 44, 55, 71, 72, 731. Once t he influence of systems designers values on design decisions is recognized, it becomes important that the values which guide these design choices must be made explicit. A better understanding of system de- signers’ values co uld provide clues for explaining design decisions in development projects. Furthermore, such an understanding is useful in order to a. Guide the design, development, and adoption of information systems development methodologies which are consistent with, and complement the system designers’ values, so that a balanced set of social and organizational, as well as technical and economic objectives may be achieved; b. Change the control and reward structures for sys- tems designers to reflect the growing concerns in organizations and societies for taking social, organi- zational, and human values into account; 520 Communications of the .4CM May 1990 Volume 33 Number 5
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/8/2019 A Cross-Cultural Comparison of is Designer Values
Designer ‘ValuesThe values of system designers have a significant influence on the extent to
which information systems meet the broad effectiveness needs of an
organization.
Kuldeep Kumar and Niels Bjplrn-Andersen
A number of studies in the information systems litera-
ture report upon the negative organizational outcomesand/or the lack of the realization of potential benefits
of computer-based information systems [l, 28, 32, 51,
69, 721. To some extent these failures have been attrib-
uted to a lack of appropriate information systems devel-
opment methodologies (ISDMs) [32, 651. However, in
spite of the emergence of new ISDMs, information sys-
tems design (ISD) is still largely a complex and unstruc-
tured process, usually with ambiguous goals. Accord-
ingly, systems designers must make a number of
choices which significantly affect the systems develop-
ment process and its outcomes [55].
In the absence of explicit policies or guidelines, these
choices are determined, to a large extent, by the sys-
tems designers’ personal values.? During the design pro-
cess, the designer, either consciously or subconsciously,
makes a series of incremental choices in the design and
implementation of a system [16]. To some extent, there
are methods or standards guiding the ISD process. How-
ever, most of the time these standards do not readily
apply. The context is never exactly as assumed, and the
standard procedures have to be interpreted. Further-
more, these standards are far from complete and the
designer has to fill in the blanks, especially as regards
implementation and organizational design. Similarly,
the management obiectives specified for the project are
usually very high level and far from specific. The de-
signer has to define, interpret, and operationalize themissing objectives in the absence of clear directions.
Accordingly, designers have to rely on their own judg-
ment for making the design decisions. Hedberg and
Mumford [32] state:
’ “A value is a conception, implicit or explicit, distinctive of an individualor characteristic of a group. of desirable which influences selection fromavailable ends and means oi action.” 1421This study was funded in part by NATO Collaborative Research Grant Num-ber 730/84.
0 1990 ACM 0001.0782/90,‘0500-0528 $1.50
“It is reasonable to assume that values play an im-
portant part in guiding the designers’ choice be-tween different design alternatives . . . The values,
needs and objective of top management and sys-
tems designers will influence the kind o f technical,
organizational and task structure alternatives they
consider during the design process and the solu-
tions they eventually choose.”
The premise that the designers’ values influence de-
sign choices also finds support in the work of scholars
in the fields of management science, general, systems
theory, and information systems [4, 14, 15, 16, 36, 39,
40, 41, 54, 55, 641.
The designer’s values, however, may not always be
instrumental in achieving systems that are consistentwith organizational objectives. Indeed, a number of au-
thors suggest that overly technical, rational, and eco-
nomic value orientation of systems designers, accom-
panied by a lack of attention to political, organizational,
and psychological issues, is the cause of deficiencies in
existing IS development practices [12, 18, 26, 29, 31, 32,
44, 55, 71, 72, 731.
Once the influence of systems designers values on
design decisions is recognized, it becomes important
that the values which guide these design choices must
be made explicit. A better understanding of system de-
signers’ values could provide clues for explaining
design decisions in development projects. Furthermore,such an understanding is useful in order to
a. Guide the design, development, and adoption of
information systems development methodologies
which are consistent with, and complement the
system designers’ values, so that a balanced set of
social and organizational, as well as technical and
economic objectives may be achieved;
b. Change the control and reward structures for sys-
tems designers to reflect the growing concerns in
organizations and societies for taking social, organi-
zational, and human values into account;
520 Communications of the .4CM May 1990 Volume 33 Number 5
8/8/2019 A Cross-Cultural Comparison of is Designer Values
was measured on a “Preferred Direction of Change” therefore the exclusion of these respondents does not
dimension. invalidate the following analysis.
In summary, for each of the value dimensions there
are three scales: importance rating (very low, low, me-
dium, high, very high); reason mode [success, right,
pleasure): direction of change (increase, neutral, de-
crease).
For the remaining respondents, each person’s value
profile was determined and BRS value profiles were
calculated for Canadian and Danish samples according
to the procedure described in the Theoretical Founda-
tion for Measuring Values.
The questionnaire was pretested on a representa-
tive group. In addition, a test-retest of the question-naire (with four weeks in between the two administra-
tions) was performed with a sample of 13 accounting
and business students. The test-retest reliability co-
efficients for the importance rating, the reason mode
and the preferred direction of change were 0.89, 0.84,
and 0.93 respectively. These reliability co-efficients are
comparable to those reported for the original England
PVQ [25].
Overview of Value Profilesin Canada and Denmark
Table I presents an overview of Canadian and Danish
designers’ value profiles. For both samples the technical
values seem to be the most behaviorally relevant, fol-
lowed closely by economic values. The socio-political
values have the lowest behavioral relevance score in
both samples and are the least likely to be translated
into behavior.
RESEARCH METHOD
The field survey was conducted in 13 Canadian and
eight Danish business and government organizations.
The organizations sampled included federal, provincialand city government departments; electric and nuclear
power utilities; manufacturing, retail, and businesses,
insurance, and universities. To obtain the sample we
contacted the highest ranking information systems ex-
ecutive in the selected organizations. However, since
only those organizations which consented to participate
in the study were included, (i.e., it was a convenience
sample), the possibility of sampling bias remains. No
major differences were found between the types of or-
ganizations within the two samples, which might other-
wise explain the differences between the two samples
reported next.
The field suvuey was conducted in 13
Canadian and eight Danish business and
government organizations. . . To obtainthe sample we contacted the highest
ranking information systems executive in
each organization.
If the two samples (i.e., the rows of the table) are
examined separately. The Canadian system designers
seem to focus strongly on technical and economic value
dimensions, while they find the socio-political values to
be the least behaviorally relevant. A similar pattern is
found in the Danish sample. However, the three value
groups have a relatively more equal potential for driv-
ing the behavior of the Danish systems designers.n each organization the IS executives were re-quested to select randomly a group o f system designers.
The ISD-PVQ was administered to the respondent
group in a meeting. To encourage the respondents to
respond according to their personal preferences, they
were told there were no right or wrong answers and
that the individual responses were confidential.
Though attempts were made to ensure equivalent ques-
tionnaire administration in both countries, the possibil-
ity of translation and interviewer bias remains,
RESULTS
The final sample contains 132 Canadian and 72 Danish
systems designers from a total of 21 organizations. Ofthe 132 Canadian respondents, 34 (26 percent) were
found to have no dominant reason mode (i.e., no over-
all preference for success, right, or pleasant as the
rationale for importance). Similarly, of the 72 Danish
designers, 21 (29 percent) were found to have a no
dominant reason mode. These respondents were ex-
cluded from further analysis because the classification
of values into the four categories (operational, adopted,
intended, and nonrelevant) requires a dominant reason
mode [23, 241. The percentage of respondents having no
dominant reason mode is similar for both countries,
If we examine the technical, economic, and socio-
political value groups (i.e., the columns of the table)
separately, we find that technical values are behavior-
ally more relevant for the Canadian system designers,
whereas socio-political values are behaviorally more
relevant for the Danish system designers. The potential
of economic values for influencing behavior is almost
equal for the two samples.
The upcoming section discusses the Development
Product-Related value dimensions (Table II). This is fol-
lowed by a discussion on the Development Process Re-
lated value dimensions (Table III). For both of these
tables, the behavioral relevance scores and the percent-age of individuals preferring a certain direction of
change is enumerated for each value dimension. The
level of significance is calculated for both, using cross-
tabulation and the chi-square statistic. For BRS, the
significance is analyzed across all four behavioral rele-
vance categories (operative, adopted, intended, and
nonrelevant). Only those value dimensions where the
BRS and/or the Preferred Direction of Change is signifi-
cantly different (alpha less than o r equal to 10 per-
cent) between the Canadian and Danish samples are
presented.
532 Communications of the ACM May 1990 Volume 33 Number 5
8/8/2019 A Cross-Cultural Comparison of is Designer Values
ogy with organizational consequences coming as a sur-
prise. In the second stage careful design is carried out
to minimize unforeseen and dysfunctional organi-
zational consequences. The third stage is characterized
by the realization that organizational goals can be
achieved through information systems change. Finally,
the fourth stage is where a participative, evolutionary
design strategy for increasing the effectiveness of the
organization and the quality of working life of the peo-ple in the organization is found.
Hedberg [30] suggests that all organizations and cul-
tures go through the same stages primarily because of
the general trends in society. Our data could be inter-
preted to mean that due to contextual factors such as a
social democratic political tradition and a strong union
influence these developments are coming earlier in the
Scandinavian countries (see [20, 26, 53, 661). If this is
true, there is a good case for the researchers and meth-
odology designers studying systems design practices in
these countries in order to learn from their successes
and failures (e.g., [9, 50, 57, 58, 651).
However, the techno-economic value orientation ofsystem designers is a major obstacle to the adoption of
organizational and socio-political design practices [34,
631. Therefore, we may need to attempt to influence
the underlying value structure of the system designers.
Three options are suggested: First, through education
and training we could attempt to increase the aware-
ness of the designers, of the organizational and human
consequences of their designs [47, 581. Second, if the
designs reflect an undesirable reward structure existing
for designers, a more concerted effort may be needed to
educate those who plan, contro l, and manage the infor-
mation systems function in the organizations [IT, 30,
43, 441. Third, the codes of ethics and good practice ofprofessional societies could be redrafted to reflect a
higher concern for socio-political dimensions.
It is our belief that a suitable combination of the
strategies we have discussed will be instrumental in
making the respective designer groups more aware o f a
balanced set of values, and would help the IS designer
community evolve toward a participatory, learning, and
evolutionary strategy.
Acknowledgments. We are indebted to Michael G.
Houghton-Larsen for his assistance in conducting the
Danish part of the survey, and to Liam M. Bannon,
William W. Cotterman, Rob Kling, Ephraim R. McLean,
Enid Mumford, Hans Oppeland, Daniel Robey, Richard
J. Welke, and three anonymous reviewers for their re-
view o f the paper and valuable comments and sugges-
tions.
REFERENCES1. Administrationsde partmentet. Kontorteknik i staten-en laereprocess
(Computer Systems in Central Government: A Learning Process-InDanish). Copenhagen. 1966.
2. Argyris. C. Management Information Systems, The Challenge to Ra-tionality and Emotionality, Manage. Sri. 17, 6 (Feb. 1971). B-275.
3. Argyris. C. and Schon. D . Theory in Pracrice. Jossey-Bass Inc., SanFran., Calif. 1974.
4. Berg, M., Chew K. and Zissis. G. A value-oriented policy generationmethodology and technology assessment, Technol. ForecastingandSK. Change8, 4 (1976), 401-420.
5. Bjbm-Andersen, N., Eason. K.D.. and Robey. D.. Martaging CompuferImpact, An ltzkwational Sfudy of Managemerrtand Organizations,Ablex P ublishers. NJ, 1986.
6. Bj@m-Andersen. N. and Hedberg. B. (1977). Design of InformationSystems in an Organizational Perspective. In Prescriptive Models ofOrganizations, P. C. Nystrom. and W. Starbuck, Eds. TIMS Studiesin the Management Sciences, 5. North-Holland . Amsterdam, 1977,p. 125-142.
7. Bjdrn-Andersen. N.. Hedberg. B., Mercer. D.. Mumford, E., andSole. A. The Impact of SystemsChange n Organizations.Sijthoff &Noordoff, Alphen aan den Rijn. The Netherlands. 1979.
8. Bjtirn-Andersen. N., and Malmvig, K. Edb-specialister som profas-sionel gruppe. In Proceedingsof Norddafa 1977 (Stockholm , 1977). pp.880-886.
9. Bjdm-Andersen, N.. and Skousen, T.S . User Driven S ystems Design.In Proceedings rom Joint ln~ernational Symposiuman Information Sys-tems. Australian Computer Society, (1984).
10. Bohrnsted , G. W. Reliability and Validity Assessment in AttitudeMeasurement. In Attitude Measurement.G. F. Summers, Ed. RandMcNally [1970].
11. Bostrom. R. A Socio-Technical Perspective on MIS Implementation.ORSA/TlMS National Conference Colorado Springs, Cola., Nov.
1960).12. Bostrom, R.P. and Heinen, J. MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-
Technical Perspective: Part I: The Causes. MIS-Q. 2, 3 (Sept. 1977).17-32.
13. B&ram. R., and Hienen. J. MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-Technical Perspective; Part II: The Application of Socio-TechnicalTheory. MIS-Q. 2. 4 (1977). 11-28.
14. Checkland, P. Systems Thinking, SystemsPractice.Wiley, NY, 1981.15. Churchman , C.W. Prediction and Optimal Decision, Philosophical
Issues of a Science f Values.Prentice-Hall. NJ, 1961.16. Churchman, C.W. SystemsApproach. Dell Publishing. NY, 1968.17. Dagwell, R., and Weber, R. Systems Designer’s User Models: A Com-
parative Study and Methodological Critique. Commun. ACM 26, 11(Nov. 1983), 987-997.
19. DeMarco, T. Sfructured Analysis and SysremsSpecification.Prentice-Hall, NY, 1978.
20. Docherty. P. User Participation in and Influence on Systems Designin Norway and Sweden in Light of Union Involvement, New Legis-lation and Joint Agreements. In The Human Sideof Znformation Pro-cessing,N. Bjbm-Andersen, Ed. North-Holland , Amsterdam. 1980.
21. Englan d, G.W. Personal Value Systems of American Managers. TheAcad. Manage. J 70 (1967), 53-68.22. England. G.W.. and Agarwal. N. Personal Values and Military Admin-
istration. Tech. Rep . No. AD711358 (Aug. 1970). Univ. of Minn.23. England, G.W., and Agarwal, N. A Manual of Development and Re-
search or fhe Personal Value Questionnaire. The Center for Compara-tive Studies in Technological Development and Social Change,Univ. of Minn., 1971.
24. England, G.W., Agarwal, N., and Dhingra, O.P. The Manager andMan, A Cross-Cultural Study of Personal Values.Kent State Univ.Press: Comparative Administration Research Institute. 1974.
25. Englan d, G.W., Agarwal. N., and Trerise, R.E. Union Leaders andManagers: A Comparison of Value Systems. Jnd. Ref. 10. 2 (May,1971). 211-226.
26. Friedman, A., Greenbaum, J.. and Jacobs, M. The Challenge of Usersand Unions. Datamation (Sept. 15, 1984). 93-100.
27. Fok. L., Kumar, K., and Wood-Harper, T. Methodologies for Socio-Technical Systems (STS) Development: A Comparison. In Proceedingsof the International Conferenceon information Systems, . DeGross and
C. Kriebel, Eds. 1987. pp. 319-334.28. Ginzberg, M. Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure.
Manage. Sci. 27, 4 459-478.29. Hawgood. L., Land, F.. and Mumford, E. A Participative Approach to
Forward Planning and Systems Change. In Inf. Syst.Methodal. G.Bracchi. and P.C. Lockemann, Eds. Proceedings of the Second Con-ference of the European Cooperation in Information, Springer-
Verlag. Venice. Italy. 1978.30. Hedberg, B. Using Computerized Information Systems to Design Bet-
ter Organizations and Jobs. In The Human Side of Znformation Process-ing, N. Bjom-Andersen. Ed. North-Holland . Amsterdam, 1980.
31. Hedberg, B., and Mumford, E. The Design of Computer Systems,Man’s V ision of Man as an Integral Part of the System De sign Pro-cess. In Human Choice and Compufers,E. Mumford and H. Sackman,Eds. North-Hollan d. Amsterdam, 1974. pp. 31-59.
May 1990 Volume 33 Number 5 Communications of the ACM 537
8/8/2019 A Cross-Cultural Comparison of is Designer Values
Hirschiem, R.A. Office Automation: A Social and Organizational Per-
spective. John 1Viley. New York. 1985.Hofsteede. G. Cultura l Co,rseque!~ces: Internafional Differences in WorkRelated Values. Sage Pub.. Beverly Hills. Calif.. 1980.Hoyer. R. User Participation-Wh y is Development So Slow. In TheInformtim Systems Env!ronmenfs, Lucas, H.C., Land. F.F.. Lincoln,T.J., and Supper. K.. Eds. North-Holland. Amsterdam. 1980.lick, T.D. Managers and Quality of Working Life: A Clash of Values?In Mnnagenxwt Under Different Value Systems. Dlugos. G. and Weier-meir, K ., Eds. Walter De Gruyter. 1981.Klein, H. K.. and Kumar, K. Information Systems Development for
Human Progress iu Orgaaizafions. North-Holla nd, Amsterdam, 1989.Klein, H.K.. Meadows, L.S.G.. and Welke, R.J. Improving the Qual-ity of Working Life through Better Design of Information Systems.ISRAM WP-13010-3.1. Faculty of Business, McMaster Univ., Hamil-ton, Ontario, Canada. III Proceedings of he International Conference onApplied S ystem Research b Cybernetics. P ergamon Press, 1980.Kling. R. Value Conflic t and Social Choice in Electronic FundsTransfer System Development. Commun. ACM. 21. 8 (Aug. 1978).642-657.
40. Kling. R. Value Conflicts in Computing Developments: Developed
and Developing Countries. Teleconrmunication Policy (March 19831,12-34.
41. Kling, R. Assimilating Social Values in Computer-Based Technolo-gies. Telecommunications Policy (June 1984), 127-147.
42. Kluckhohn. C. Value and Value Orientations in the Theory of Ac-tion: An Exploration in Definition and Classification. In Toward a
General Theory of Action, Parsons, Talcott. and Shils, A.E.. Eds. Har-per and Row, 1951.
43. Kumar. K. Participant Values in Information Systems Development.Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Management Sciences/Systems,McMaster Univ., 1984.
44. Kumar, K.. and Welke, R.J . Implementation Failure and System De-veloper Values: Assumptions . Truisms and Empirical Evidence. Pro-ceedings of the Fifth international Conference on Information System(Tucson, Ariz., 1984). pp. l-12.
45. Kumar. K.. and Welke. R.J. Methodology Engineering : A Proposal forContext Dependent Methodology Construct ion. In Systems Analysisand Design: A Research .4gerrda, W.W. Cotterman, and J.A. Senn. E ds.Forthcoming.
46. Land, F. Evolutionary Information Systems: Concepts and Perspec-tives: A Review. In Evolutionary Information Systems, j, Hawgood, Ed.North-Holla nd. A mstmdam. 1982.
47. Land, F., Mumford, E., and Hawgood, J, Systems Analyst of the1980’s: Four Analytical Procedures to Assist the Design Process. InThe Information System:; Environment. H.C. Lucas, F. Land, T.J.Lincoln. and K. Supper, Eds. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.
48. Lawrence. and Larch. Organiza tion and Environment. Harvard Univ.,Boston, Mass., 1967.49. Lindecamp , D. Personal V alues 6 Business Success of Small Indepen-
dent Retailers. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1981.50. Lundeberg. M., Goldkuhl, G., and Anders. N. Information Systems
Development-A Systematic Approach. Prentice-Hall, NJ., 1981.51. Lyytinen. K.. and Hirshheim, R. Information Systems Failures-
A Survey and Classification of Empirical Literature. Oxford Univ.Press 4 (1987). 257-309.
52. Markus. L.. and B@rn-Andersen , N. Power Over Users: Its Exerciseby Systems Professionals. Commun. ACM 30. 6 (June 19871, 498-504.
53. Mathiassen, L., Rolskov. B.. and Vedel. E. Regulating the Use of EDPby Law and AgreemeEts. In Systems Design For, With, and By theUsers, Briefs, U., Ciborra, C., and Schneider, L.. Eds. North-Holland ,Amsterdam. 1983.
54. Mattessich. R. Instrumen tal Reasoning and Systems Mefhodology. D.
Reidel. Dordrecht, Holland, 1978.55. Mumford, E. Values, Technology and Work. Martinus Nijhoff. The
Hague. Netherlands , 1981.
56. Mumford, E. Designing Human Systems. Manchester University Press.Manchester, UK, 1983.
57. Munk-Madsen, A. System Analysis With Users. In Systems DesignFor, With, and By the Users, U. Briefs, C. Ciborra, and L. Schneider,Eds. North-Hollan d, Amsterdam, 1983.
58. Nyygard. K. The Iron and Metal Project: Trade Union Participation.In Compufers Diuidirrg Man and Work. A. Sandberg. Ed. Swedish Cen-ter for Working Life, Malmo. Sweden, 1979.
59. Osgood. E.C.. Suci. G.C., and Tannenbaum. P.C. The Measurement ofMeaning. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill., 1957.
60. Peters, T.J., and Waterman, R.H. In Search of Excellence. Harper andRow, NY. 1984.
61. Pepper, SC. The Source of Values. Univ. of California. Berkeley. Calif.62. Rokeach. M. The Nature of Human Values. The Free Press. New Y ork.
NY. 1973.63. Sackman, H. Problems an d Promise of Participative Information Sys-
tems Design. In Systems Design For, With, attd By the Users. Briefs, U..Ciborra. C., and Schneider, L., Eds. North-Holland. Amsterdam,1983.
64. Sage. A.P. Methodology for Large Scale Sysferns. McGraw-Hill, NY,1977.
65. Schafer, G. Functiomz l Analysis of Office Requirements: A Muffiperspec-five Approach. John Wiley, NY. 1988.
66. Schneider, L.. and Ciborra. C. Technology Bargaining in Norway. InSystems Design For, With, aud By the Users. U. Briefs, C. Ciborra. andL. Schneider, Eds. North-Holla nd, Amsterdam. 1983.
67. Sjogren, D., England, G.W. and Meltzer. 1. Development of an Instru-ment for Assessing the Personal V alues of Educationa l Administrators.Final Report Project No. 8-H-016. Colorado State Univ. [April, 19691.
66. Sproul, and Hofmeister. Implementat ion: A Cognitive Approach.Working Paper, Dept. of Social Sciences. Carnegie-Mellon Univ..Pittsburgh, Pa.. 1982.
71. Turner. J.A. Computers and Clerical Jobs: The Missed O pportunit yfor Work Redesign. W orking Paper CRIS #24, GBA #81-32 (CR),Center for Research on Information Systems. New York Univ.. NewYork, NY, 1981.
69. Strassman. P.A. lnformafion Payoff: The Transformation of Work iI1 theElectric Age. The Free Press, New York, 1985.
70. Taylor, J.C. Job Design Criteria Twenty Years Later. In Design ofJobs, David, L.E. and Taylor, J.C., Eds. Goodyear Publishing Com-pany, Santa Monica, Calif., 1979.
72. Welke, R.J. User Oriented Approaches to MIS. CA Magazine 112, 6(Aug. 1979). 62-68.
73. Zmud. R.W. CBIS Success and Failure. In Zrrformafiorl Sys tems inOrganizations . Scott, Foresman and Co., Glenview, Ill., 1983.
CR Categories and Subject Descriptors: K.4.m [Computers and Soci-ety]: Miscellaneous; K.6.1 [Management of Computing and InformationSystems] : People and Project Management
General Terms : Design, ManagementAdditional Key Words and Phrases: Cross-cultural comparisons. de-
signer values, information systems design, organizational issues,
socio-technical design
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
KULDEEP KUMAR is an assistant professor of computer infor-
mation systems at Georgia State University. His current re-
search interests inclu de the management, plannin g, evaluation
and development of information systems. Author’s Present Ad-
dress: Computer Information Systems, College of Business,
Georgia State University, Atlanta. GA 30303.
NIELS BJQ)RN-ANDERSEN is professor of information systems
at the Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. His current re-
search interests include the social and organizational aspects of
development, management and use of information systems, es-
pecially quality of life issues. Author’s Present Address : Insti-
tute of Informatics and fvianagement Accounting , Copenhagen
Business Scho ol, Howitzvej 60. DK 2000 Frederiksberg, Den-