A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS

BETWEEN USER-MANAGERS AND INFORMATION SERVICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL

by

JIMMY WAYNE SPENCE, B.B.A., M.B.A.

A DISSERTATION

IN

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Approved

December, 1978

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply indebted to Professor Norman R. Lyons for his

acceptance of the chairmanship of this dissertation and to the

other members of my committee. Professors Larry Austin, Duane

Hoover, and Douglas Andrews, for their helpful criticism. I

give a special note of thanks to Professor Douglas Andrews

without whose guidance and direction this study would not have

been possible. Finally, to my wife, Jan, I give a very special

thanks for the constant encouragement and assistance in the

preparation of the final draft.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

ABSTRACT 1

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS vii

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem 2

Purpose of the Study A

Definition of Terms 7

Limitations 9

Organization of the Study 10

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 12

General Contributions to Management Involvement 12

Research Contributions to Management

Involvement 19

Contributions to Interpersonal and Organizational Communication 23

Summary 39

III. METHODOLOGY 42

The Pilot Study 42

Creation of the Questionnaires 43

Characteristics of the Pilot Study Sample 44

Pretest of the Questionnaires 44

iii

Construction of Communication Success Models . 49

Analysis of the Pilot Study Data 50

Construction of the Management

Communication Success Model 53

Construction of the ISD Communication

Success Model 58

The Post Study 62

The Post Study Questionnaire 63

Characteristics of the Post Study Sample . 64

Statement of Hypotheses 68

Statistical Analysis of Data 76

Summary 80

IV. RESULTS OF THE STUDY 82

The Post Study Sample 82

Analysis of Hypotheses 83

Analysis of the Management Communication

Success Model 89

Analysis of the ISD Communication Success Model 99

Comparison of Management and ISD Responses . . 103

Summary ^^2

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 115

Conclusions 117

Recommendations l^^

LIST OF REFERENCES ^23

iv

APPENDIX 131

A. Pilot Study Questionnaires 132

B. Results of Factor Analysis 149

C. Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test for Questionnaire Stability 156

D. Modification of Questionnaires 160

E. Results of Data Analysis for Communication Success

Models 162

F. Post Study Questionnaires 167

G. Computational Procedure for Question Indexes 179

H. Index Conversion into Categories for Chi Square Tests . 181

I. Analysis of Hypotheses 183 J. Analysis of Variables in the Management Perceived


K. Analysis of Variables in the ISD Perceived


L. Comparative Analysis of Management Versus ISD Responses 199

M. Rationale for the Selection of the Berlo Communication

Model 203 N. Preliminary Testing of Questionnaires 211

LIST OF TABLES

1. Variables and Questions 46

2. Communication-Oriented Questions 51

3. Summary of Significant Variables in the Management Perceived Communication Success Model 98

4. Summary of Significant Variables in the ISD Perceived Communication Success Model 104

5. A Summary of the Significant Variables in Management and ISD Perceived Communication Success Models . . . . Ill

VI

LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

1. A Basic Model of Communication 25

2. Communication Success Model (As Perceived by Managers) . 55

3. Communication Success Model (As Perceived by ISD Personnel) 59

Vll

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The involvement of management in the development of management

information systems (MIS) is suggested as one of the key factors of a

"successful" business system. As Sollenberger indicates:

Management involvement is . . . concerned with the participation of nonsystems personnel in shaping information systems development activities. VJhile the need for top-management involvement has been widely and convincingly argued, less familiar is the view that management involvement also means the participation of operating line managers and all other management users of data services in the company. Active collaboration between these users and systems personnel . . . is of key significance for success in every phase of system work. (31: 7)

Sollenberger is not alone in arguing for management involvement. Other

authors, including Hershman (63; 27) and Sanders (29; 141), have labeled

top management support of and participation in MIS development as one

of the key success variables. This "principle" has been extended by

Dearden and McFarlan (6: 49) and Canning (45: 4-10) to include middle

and operating-level managers.

Most authors who list the steps to successful MIS include manager

ial involvement in the development of a system; one has even labeled

this involvement as a "platitude." (33: 191) Concomitantly, several

authors cite the lack of managerial involvement as a principal cause for

the failure of management information systems. (78: 71-74; 40: 26, 29)

Thus, there appears to be a general agreement in the MIS field that an

organization's managerial personnel must participate in the development

of the MIS.

Statement of the Problem

While many of the leading authorities in the MIS field agree that

management involvement is an important consideration during systems

development, there are numerous opinions about the depth, form, and

degree of that involvement. Luthans has formulated a rather inclusive

definition of involvement:

Participation (involvement) as a technique means that an individual or group are involved in the decisionmaking process. It can be formal or informal, and it entails intellectual and emotional as well as physical involvement. (20: 277)

Although expressed in terms of involvement by employees in a superior-

subordinate relationship, this definition is also a useful frame of

reference for managerial involvement in systems development work. While

there is agreement that the "specialist must not dominate the installa

tion (of systems), and more responsibility should be given to the . . .

manager" (56: 10), the depth and form of involvement by managers

warrants additional investigation.

As an additional form of classification, the development of an

MIS will be divided into four phases: (1) system feasibility;

(2) system analysis, design, and planning; (3) system implementation;

and (4) system modification and maintenance. These four phases

generally may be referred to as the "Information Systems Application

Development Life Cycle." (5: 413)

The literature seems to indicate that the level of involvement

varies somewhat between the design and implementation phases, and it

varies even more between implementation and modification and mainten

ance phases. If a manager is involved only up to and including the

design phase, the implication drawn from the literature is that the

manager would have no contact with the system again until he received

the first reports. If the manager is involved through the implemen

tation phase, it is assumed he is actively participating in the systems

development up to the point that system results are verified. There

is little in the literature, however, that suggests the manager should

be involved through the maintenance and modification phase. While

not generally typical of the MIS literature, a statement from Gallagher

lends support to the fact that managers are expected to provide feed

back to the "Information Systems Manager" when changes in the system

are desired, i.e., modification and maintenance:

The user expresses his needs, wants, preference, etc. to the Information Systems Manager who compares these with the information systems' capabilities. Thereafter, the user provides feedback on deficiencies, changes, needs, etc. If all goes well, the system should, in theory, work well. (92: 6)

Because perceptions of involvement vary, the depth and degree of

management's participation in systems development lack concise defini

tion. This study will view involvement from two perspectives:

"pre-involvement," representing managerial involvement through the

implementation phase of the systems' life cycle; and "post-involvement,"

representing managerial involvement during the modification and main

tenance stage. Both pre- and post-involvement are combined in most

contemporary definitions of participation.

Additionally, several studies have been conducted to investigate

the impact of involvement on management satisfaction with an MIS.

These studies (discussed in Chapter II) are not in complete agreement

regarding the relationship between involvement and satisfaction. This

study will examine the impact of management satisfaction on pre- and

post-involvement. Finally, on the assumption that involvement in any

dimension may not be an adequate barometer of manager satisfaction, an

additional variable will be investigated: the impact of organizational

communication during systems development on management satisfaction.

Purpose of the Study

This study investigates five areas. First, the relationship of

pre-implementation involvement (pre-involvement) and post-implementation

involvement (post-involvement) to management satisfaction will be

examined. The first two research questions explore this involvement.

1. Is there a relationship between the manager's level of satisfaction with a management information system and the level of involvement exhibited by managers during the development of a system?

and

2. Is there a relationship between the manager's level of satisfaction with a management information system and the level of involvement exhibited by the manager after it has been implemented?

The relationship between involvement (both pre and post) has been

the subject of prior research. The preceding research questions (and

supporting analysis) are included in the study as a benchmark measure

ment—i.e., the answers to these questions will help determine the

relationship betv/een the results of this study and prior research.

The second area addresses the relationship between organizational

communication that takes place during the development and operation

of an MIS and management satisfaction. As explained in Chapter II,

effective organizational communication can improve job satisfaction

in superior-subordinate relations, and it also is employed to reduce

conflict in line-staff interaction. It has been suggested that reduc

tion of the "communication gap" would improve management satisfaction

and system performance. Because no supporting research exists, the

third research question asks

3. Is there a relationship between the effectiveness of management and Information Service Department personnel communication and the level of management satisfaction with an MIS?

The third area of the study examines those variables which may

promote or detract from effective organizational communication. If a

relationship between organizational communication and management satis

faction can be demonstrated, knowledge regarding those factors which

improve or deter effective communication would be important. Knowing

which factors improve communication could lead to a communication

strategy for system implementation. The fourth research question is:

4. Can a model be developed which indicates the success of organizational communication between managers and Information Service Department personnel during the "systems' life cycle?"

The scope of this portion of the study is limited to the identifica

tion of these factors, rather than presenting any generalized state

ments about the relationship of the factors to organizational communi

cation success. Consequently, the model may provide a basis for more

indepth research into the cause and effect relationships between

communication factors and communication success.

Finally, this study examines the responses of the two major

parties involved in MIS development: managers and systems personnel.

Because managers and systems personnel often seem to lack a shared

frame of reference with regard to building systems, the responses of

systems personnel will be compared with the responses of managers to

determine if they agree about any of the previously specified variables

and factors. Thus, the final research question:

5. Do managers and Information Service Department personnel tend to agree about: a) the level of pre-involvement of the manager? b) the level of post-involvement of the manager? c) the level of communication effectiveness

exhibited between managers and Information Service Department personnel?

d) the level of satisfaction of the managers with the MIS?

e) any of the communication factors which contribute to effective organizational communication?

Analysis of these questions will provide information which could

identify a common basis for the creation of successful MIS development

strategies.

This investigation contains two separate data collection and

analysis phases—a pilot study and a post study. The first phase

provides the means for testing questionnaires and refining the communi

cation models suggested by the fourth research question. The second

phase—the post study—is a case study. Though multiple cases are

involved in the analysis, the reader is cautioned against general

izing the results beyond the companies participating in the study.

Furthermore, this study is investigatory; it should be viewed as an

indication of variables and relationships that could be tested with

more rigorous methodological approaches to yield greater

generalizability.

Definition of Terms

To insure that terminology used in this study is clear, a brief

description of some of the key terms and concepts related to management

information systems is provided.

A management information system (MIS) is any computerized business

system created to supply managerial personnel within an organization

with decision-making information.

A programmed decision is a business decision made by an MIS

without human intervention. A programmed decision is any business

decision requiring some action on the part of the manager. Programmed

decisions are made directly by an MIS on the basis of a series of

decision rules. In a non-programmed, decision-making environment,

the manager is provided decision-making information from the MIS

because of the absence of decision rules within the MIS. More non-

programmed decisions are being made in a business environment than

are programmed decisions.

A user-manager (manager) is an individual within the firm

responsible for making decisions based, either totally or in part, on

the information provided by an MIS.

The Information Services Department (ISD) of the firm is the

organizational unit responsible for developing the MIS at the

direction of managers.

ISD personnel refers to individuals within the ISD possessing

the technical knowledge of computers and/or information systems

needed to perform the physical effort required to develop portions

of an MIS. This title includes the Information Analyst and the

System Designer positions. (5: 370-371)

The data administrator is the individual within the company

responsible for control of the company's data resources.

Involvement includes all acts of interaction between management

and ISD personnel during MIS development and is used interchangeably

with participation. Terms that apply more specifically to this study

are pre-involvement and post-involvement. Pre-involvement is that

interaction which takes place prior to the system becoming operational-

i.e., involvement during the system phases of feasibility; analysis,

design, and planning; and implementation. Post-involvement is that

interaction which takes place after a system has been placed into

operation—i.e., involvement during the modification and maintenance

phase.

The process of interpersonal communication involves the exchange

of understanding between two or more individuals. Organizational

communication, a subset of interpersonal communication, is the exchange

of knowledge between two or more employees of the same business entity.

Limitations

Because this study focuses on the involvement of the user-manager

in the development and modification of an organization's MIS, these

systems must be examined in their natural environment. That environ

ment is an MIS existing within a business enterprise. Firms included

in the study satisfy the following requirements.

1. The firm has an operational MIS which has been in existence for not less than five years.

2. The top, middle, and operating management of the firm have been involved in the MIS development effort.

3. The managers of the firm are receiving information from the MIS for decision-making purposes.

4. Both user-managers and ISD personnel are present at the same location.

5. There is a "sufficient" number of individuals in the company within the ISD.

6. There is a "sufficient" number of user-managers receiving information from the MIS.

10

Since human participants are involved, and they will be asked

their opinions about their involvement in the MIS development, the

possibility of bias exists. Part of this bias may result from try

ing to quantify qualitative factors; it also may be a result of past

experiences. (Some questions deal with the respondents' experiences

over a period of time; i.e., human memory may be a factor in measur

ing previous managerial involvement.)

While previous research efforts have been directed toward

assigning a value to the information provided by an MIS (92) , no

attempt will be made to quantify the value of the MIS or the informa

tion it produces. Rather, the user-managers' use of and "belief" in

the system and its information (as measured by his level of satisfac

tion) will be used to measure the performance of the system.

Organization of the Study

Chapter II reviews the literature relevant to the study. Included

in this chapter are literature of a general nature to introduce the

basic concepts of MIS, a review of research and non-research oriented

material of particular importance to this study, and literature related

to interpersonal and organizational communication. Chapter III presents

an indicative model of communication success on the bases of the liter

ature presented in Chapter II and refined through the pilot study. The

model will be used to create a communication framework. Chapter III

also includes a thorough presentation of the methodology to be employed

in the post study phase. In addition. Chapter III provides a discussion

11

on the creation and testing of questionnaires, the data collection

scheme employed, the expansion of the research questions into testable

hypotheses (where appropriate), and the statistical techniques utilized

in the analysis of post study data.

Chapter IV presents the results of the investigation. Included

in this presentation is a description of the level of response to the

questionnaires and individual discussion of the results achieved

for each of the five research questions, each broken down into the

results for the management group and the ISD group. The final chapter,

Chapter V, provides a summary of the findings of the study, conclusions

drawn from the study, and recommendations for further research.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature of

MIS and of organizational communication with particular attention

to those parts of the literature that address the problem of

communication inherent in the MIS-Management equation.

Section one is an examination of the general, rather than

research-based ideas, opinions, or concepts that appear in the

current MIS literature. Section two is an examination of research-

based conclusions relative to MIS. The final section is an exami

nation of literature related to organizational communication.

General Contributions to Management Involvement

An often-quoted article by Russel Ackoff offers a point of

departure for this consideration of general MIS literature. In

"Management Misinformation Systems," he presents a list of assump

tions that are often irrelevant to the design of an MIS:

1. A manager needs more information, when it is more probable that he needs more relevant information and a reduction in the quantity of unused or useless reports.

2. A manager needs the information he wants, when it could be that he may not know what he needs and is thus willing to accept any and all information.

12

13

3. By providing the information,a manager needs, decision-making will improve; yet the manager may still rely heavily on experience, judgment, or intuition even when the information from the system is used.

4. More interdepartmental communication will result in better decision-making and will improve organizational performance. Ackoff, however, observes that more interdepartmental communication is seldom the result.

5. A manager does not have to understand how an information system works, only how to use it; but this lack of understanding and inability to control the system may contribute to the failure of the MIS. (3: B147)

Ackoff also describes the personnel requirements for a successful

system.

. . . three groups should collaborate: information systems specialists, operations researchers and management. The participation of the managers in the design of a system that is to serve them, assures their ability to evaluate its performance by comparing its outputs with what was predicted. Managers who are not willing to invest some of their time in this process are not likely to use a management control system well, and their systems in turn are likely to abuse them. (35: B156)

While the participation of operations research personnel was con

sidered during the pilot study phase, it was eliminated from the

post study because of a lack of significant results. (See Appendix E.)

Often present during the development of an MIS is the data base

administrator (DBA). The DBA's function has been outlined by

CODASYL's Data Base Task Group (4: 11), the GUIDE/SHARE Committee

on Data Base Management Systems Requirements (4: 22), Nolan

14

(74: 112-113), and Everest (90). While there is disagreement about

the function of the DBA, most sources seem to agree that the DBA

could have some contact with managerial and/or systems personnel

during MIS development. The DBA might provide a description of

currently available data and the possibilities of defining, acquiring,

and storing new data elements; this information could have an

influence on systems development.

The major parties involved in the MIS developmental process

are managers and ISD personnel. This study focuses on the interaction

of these two parties, but it is conceivable that the DBA function

might exist within any given firm. If the DBA function does exist

and is involved in the MIS development cycle, it could have a

definite impact on manager-ISD interaction. (The impact of DBA

contact on perceived communication success will be sought.)

There are several reasons for selecting and charging ISD

personnel with the design of new systems. Thurston lists several

reasons why the staff man should develop new systems: (1) systems

people are the principal source of new ideas due to their position;

they do not have to show an immediate return on investment and their

jobs are based upon examining and changing systems; (2) specialists

tend to be more highly trained in new methods and data-handling

equipment; and (3) there may be a commitment to systems development

by top management. (84)

Thurston adds that the appointment of specialists to handle

systems development is subject to a series of limitations including

15

(1) resistance by operating personnel to planning in which they have

no part; (2) the uniqueness of managerial positions, which tends to

limit the analyst's effectiveness due to his lack of familiarity with

the position; and (3) a disregard for practical considerations or

timing and cost aspects of a situation by systems personnel. (84: 137)

Dickson and Simmons point out that systems people, while acting

as change agents themselves, generally do not exhibit dysfuntional

behavior patterns; however, they have demonstrated an ability to

induce dysfunctional patterns in management personnel. (56: 8)

In part, these feelings come from inaccurate perceptions by users

of what the real impact of a new system will be, a fear of the unknown,

a threat to economic security, a fear of additional responsibility,

a threat to organizational status and a disruption of interpersonal

relationships. (49: 16)

Lucas provides a list of potential areas of conflict between

systems and managerial personnel including mutual dependence,

asymmetrical work relationships, differentiation and specialization

caused by system implementations, ambiguities and uncertainties

caused by the design process, competition for limited resources, and

obstacles in communication. (18: 30-31; 87: 327-328: 91: 3-4)

Stewart, Dalton, and Dickson and Simmons add conflict caused by dif

ferences in age, education, and outlook: these conflicts also are

found in line-staff relationships. (33: 196-198; 51: 344; 56: 8)

Dalton adds that " . . . complications arising from staff efforts

to justify its existence" and "incumbency of higher staff officers

16

were dependent on line approval." (51: 344) While some line mana

gers fear new techniques and systems, staff personnel fear the lack

of approval of their ideas. When line personnel resist their ideas,

staff personnel will attempt to acquire acceptance of their pro

posals in any form—even if the original idea has been so altered

that it no longer represents a solution to the problem. Staff per

sonnel may perform other acts of accommodation, including "keeping

quiet" about line practices or procedures.

Dalton also indicates that staff is cognizant of the authority

relationship between themselves and line personnel. Since the organ

izational structure of staff functions is "flat" (having few levels)

relative to line organizations, staff relies on line personnel for

promotions within staff departments or for lateral movement of staff

personnel into line positions. (51: 346) Reverse circumstances

rarely exist for line personnel, i.e., line managers generally do not

depend on staff officers for promotions or seek staff positions.

Browne and Golembiewski suggest that "essential collaboration

between these organizational subunits (line and staff) often results

in competition and conflict between departments rather than coopera

tion in working toward shared organizational goals." (44: 407) They

further demonstrate that differences between line and staff personnel

are real; that while little difference exists between line and staff

demographically (e.g. age, education, etc.), there are perceptual

differences on an "organizational image" dimension. They found that

line units characterized themselves as having:

17

1. high unit esteem or importance;

2. superior power and influence over other units;

3. low centrality (tend to be outer directed);

4. high affect (tend to like their department); and

5. high complexity (have a large number of dimensions by which departmental activities are measured). (44: 414)

Staff units, on the other hand, have low esteem, power, centrality,

affect, and complexity.

To minimize line-staff differentiation, Browne and Golembiewski

suggest that line and staff personnel should attend "workshops"

designed to inform them of the differences in organizational subunits

so that one group can better understand the other. (44: 416) Ainsworth

suggests that the data processing staff should attend departmental

meetings of their "clients." (38: 51) Furthermore, Browne and Golem

biewski suggest the consideration of alternate organizational patterns

which "encourage the integration and co-equal participation of both

line and staff units." (44: 416)

T fhile it generally is agreed that the staff specialist should

not have a free hand in designing systems for management, one should

consider having the manager totally control information inputs into

his own decision making environment. Thurston points out a number

of obvious advantages to this approach, including: (1) the manager's

knowledge of the job; (2) his greater capability to effect the required

changes in subordinates; and (3) his generally superior manpower

18

supply and acquisition capability. (84: 137-138) Thurston adds,

however, that making the manager his own systems designer also

presents problems: his limited knowledge of the methods of hand

ling data or other systems technologies; and his focus on his

own sphere of responsibility. (84: 138)

The involvement of management is necessary, but is not a

sufficient condition for the development of an MIS. (36) The

presence of the technical knowledge of ISD personnel also is

necessary, but by itself is not sufficient to successfully develop

systems. As a result of these limitations, managers and systems

personnel must work together to develop new systems, but their dif

ferences create a "communication gap" or a "lack of understanding"

between them. (38; 51; 84)

Diebold reported that "skill in motivating and communicating—

not technical knowledge—is the most important to executives in

fulfilling their responsibilities in data processing." (11: 10) In

addition Soden and Tucker indicated that the top two objectives of

MIS executives were to improve user communication and cooperation,

and to improve top management communication and support. (82: 29)

These objectives also are defined in a study by Gibson. (59: 21)

Thus, at least at the executive level, both management and systems

personnel seem to recognize the importance of communication.

All the responsibility for inadequate communication cannot be

placed on systems personnel. As Coleman points out, communication

difficulties are due, in part, to shortcomings of management:

19

A communication gap is . . . a reason for failure to obtain economic profits (from an MIS). We have a long way to go before the computer can speak management's language, and managers, by and large, are not about to speak the language of the computer (or the computer specialist). The result is a communication gap.

On the other hand, the analyst has little concept of the process of management or of the problems of management. Operation of the machine is their "thing", and their objective is frequently seen in terms of processing speed or pages of output. They have little knowledge of, or interest in, how the information is used to improve relations. (77: 56-57)

Dickson and Simmons also point out that effective communication and

user training by the ISD personnel assist in reducing dysfunctional

behavioral reactions to new systems. (56: 12)

In summary, it is probable that management and systems personnel

will interact when new systems or system extensions are necessary.

This interaction may produce dysfunctional behavioral patterns for

managers or conflict between managers and ISD personnel. This

conflict could stem from the organizational environment surrounding

line-staff relationships, demographic differences, or differences

in the "organizational image" of line and staff participants.

Effective communication has been found to be a useful weapon in

combating dysfunctional behavior and in closing the "gap" between

line and staff personnel.

Research Contributions to Management Involvement

This section discusses research-based evidence concerning the

concept of management involvement and its relationship to management

20

satisfaction. It should be noted that the findings presented do

not universally support a positive relationship between these

variables. Dickson and Powers indicate the necessity and depth of

user invo1vement.

User participation is crucial to the success of the MIS project. However, user participation must be taken literally: the actual manager who is to receive and use the products for the project, not staff personnel, should be the participants. (76: 149)

Sollenberger and Ainsworth support this position. (31: 41; 37: 47)

Furthermore, Anderson et provide a graphic portrayal of the

consequences of a lack of user involvement. (88: 5)

The basic "construct" on which many studies are based is that

the higher the degree of (total) involvement by the manager in the

development of an MIS application, the greater the success of that

application (as measured by user satisfaction). This construct

seems to be confirmed by the results of a study by Powers. (94: 100)

The earlier work of Coch and French indicated that the higher the

degree of participation by workers in the decision making process,

the higher their level of productive output and the less they tend

to resist change brought on by technological improvements. (3: 4)

In relation to Coch and Powers' findings, evidence presented by

Gallagher, Carter and Swanson tends to support the involvement-

satisfaction "construct." (58; 92; 46; 83)

Other studies, however, do not support the relationship between

involvement and satisfaction. Guthrie reports no significant

21

evidence relating involvement to positive user attitudes about a

system. (60: 228; 93: 113) Adams found that involvement may not

be a sufficient condition to satisfy users; he states that managerial

"control" of an MIS is also an important determinant of the level

of management satisfaction. (36: 343) Control (as used by Adams)

is indicative of managerial influence on MIS through requests for

modifications of the system. This is referred to as post-involvement

in this study.

Guthrie found that increased familiarity with an MIS had no

impact on user attitudes: "Managers with MIS familiarity did not

express more favorable attitudes than those with little or no

familiarity." (93: 113; 60) Powers, on the other hand, poses the

following situation:

Users who were originally satisfied with the project results at the time the projects were completed might now be less satisfied with what they were receiving. This shift in satisfaction over time would have resulted from a user learning process which was not matched by an enhancement in the information outputs they were receiving. In other words, as the user becomes more sophisticated through working with the products of the projects in question, their information needs would shift. (94: 116-117)

Thus, Powers indicated that increased experience with a system

would result in a negative shift in the level of satisfaction for

managers. However, in Guthrie's study on the effect of experience

and familiarity on management attitudes, no relationship was

found. (93: 113; 60)

22

These findings could possibly be explained by what Lucas refers

to as a "cycle" in the development of a system:

More management support leads to increases of computer potential which results in more favorable attitudes toward the EDP staff. These attitudes encourage the user to become more involved in the design of system which tend to increase the potential he perceives for the use of the computer. . . . As long as the cycle is a favorable one, so that force creates more favorable attitudes, greater potential, etc., then conflict should b'e reduced between users and the computer department. Hov7ever, if the cycle is a negative one, then it is important for management, users and computer departments to develop a strategy which changes the direction of the forces. (67: 64-65)

Gibson reached a similar conclusion. (59: 21)

The use of a programmer/analyst position led to poor time

performance but higher user satisfaction in Powers' study. He

states, " . . . the high user satisfaction seemed to be attributed to

the ability of the user to look to one person for any problem that

arose." (94: 107) This higher rate of satisfaction could be

attributed to the manager's looking to "one person" to solve problems,

suggesting that the degree of familiarity between managers and ISD

personnel improves communication. Lucas observes that the higher

the interaction rate, the worse the user's attitudes toward the

EDP staff. (18: 40; 66: 112)

The research findings presented in this section demonstrate a

relative state of knowledge about the relationship between involve

ment and satisfaction; and it is not intended to be an exhaustive

examination of all research efforts. While the state of knowledge

is incomplete, there seem to be many points of conflict in the

23

research regarding the relationship of satisfaction and involvement.

In light of the above findings, this study will attempt to determine

(for the participating companies) what relationship exists between

the manager's level of satisfaction, his level of involvement (pre-

involvement) and his capability to influence (post-involvement) an MIS,

The research studies reviewed above make one universal assumption

regarding involvement; that is, involvement and satisfaction are

positively related. This relationship could be viewed as a quasi-

linear function, with ever higher levels of involvement being assoc

iated with higher levels of satisfaction. No evidence has been

presented in the literature to suggest that there may be some point

of "diminishing returns." Beyond some point of an "adequate" level

of satisfaction, one might expect a downward shift in the level of

satisfaction. This could explain the lack of uniform results in

previous reseaiich. If "total" involvement does not lead to "total"

satisfaction, measuring the level of involvement could lead to

erroneous conclusions about the level of satisfaction. Thus, an

investigation for an additional barometer of management satisfaction—

perhaps the effectiveness of communication—might be warranted.

Contributions to Interpersonal and Organizational Communication

In Chapter I, the term "organizational communication" was

defined as:

. . . a subset of interpersonal communication which is confined to the mutual interchange of understanding between two or more employees of the same business entity.

24

As Haney suggests, organizational communication is the coordination

of people (by communication) who are interdependently related. (9)

This study will examine the area of organization communication between

two interdependent groups of employees—managers and ISD personnel.

Pettit et^ £l^ cite the importance of further research into organiza

tional communication because current research findings are inconsis

tent and lack application in business environments. (75: 47) They

suggest that a possible reason for this is that communication activi

ties in one organization may bear only slight resemblance to those in

another because of organizational variables. (74: 47) Davis adds:

Effective communication is not a substitute for other needed management qualities. It will not, for example, make up for poor planning. But the point is that even good plans must eventually be communicated to others in order to become effective. Communication is the bottleneck through which effective management ideas must pass, so it often is a key managerial problem. (52: 308)

Furthermore, management is sometimes prone to attack the symptoms

of communication problems, rather than make a direct attempt to

improve communication. (64: 680)

The discussion of the communication literature will be developed

around the Berlo model. The "SMCR" communication model, shown in

Figure 1, includes several components: the sender, the message, the

channel, and the receiver. (1: 30-72) In addition, Berlo suggested

that feedback is an important dimension (or "ingredient") of communi

cation. (1: 102) Finally, message filtering will be discussed in

relation to its impact on communication. (For further details see

Appendix M.)

25

H J

u § ^ u

w o <: en cy2 Ix]

2

C^ M

M c c M C -H -H C - H ^ , - t

•H S-i O i H 0) CO 3 0) (U (U O E

CO PC H C/D

<9 O 9 O

W cx; D H -U

o c i=) 4J OJ Pi C £ H (U -U CO 4J cd 0) "->» C tU -a cn o j o H U H U

M • 9 «

W

0£ C

•H 4-1 CO CO

•

cc; M H H-1 M ( j ^

Pi i i

> M

U

Pi

S ^ +J CO CO CO CD 0) >^ O CO OJ 60 CO rH

•H i H 13 ^3 CO C i H 3 (U rH >-l 3 -H 4J T H CO 3 £ .i<; - H 5 -H +J £ CO 4J O a r-i O 4-1 C O 3

U < : tKi CO U

1 • •

^ C

. Pi w Q 2

w CO

« • 9

^ J r: 3 3 J J H

f= (U

^ c e •!-» O OJ CO

•H 4-J >^ 4J CO C/2 CO CO OJ >% cj CO a; &01/5 t - i

•H i H x ) "TS cO

3 .H 4-t i H to 3 g ^ -H > -H 4-t 6 CO 4J O O i H o 4J c a 3

O < ^ CO CJ

• • 9 <9 9

c o

•H 4-1 CO CJ

• H

c

o u <4-i

o

cu

o

o • H CO CO

pa

0)

3 ClO

•H

26

Figure 1 also includes the properties of communication identi

fied by Hunsicker. (64: 681) He indicated that communication is

related to three levels of analysis—technical, behavioral, and

structural. The technical level involves the media and methods of

message transmission, including communication skills. The behavioral

level incorporates an examination of attitudes and the dynamics of

interpersonal relationships. The structural level of analysis deals

with communication properties and problems which stem from the

formal organization structure.

The sender and receiver components of the model share many

properties—communication skills, attitudes, knowledge, and the

social-cultural system. Berlo identified at least five basic verbal

communication skills: writing, speaking, reading, listening, and

thought or reasoning. (1: 41-42) Although these communication

skills will not be investigated directly in this study, they are

imbedded in the message and channel components of the model. Thus,

the physical manifestations of these skills, rather than the skills

themselves, will be examined.

The second factor related to the sender is the attitude of

the sender—a predisposition or tendency. Berlo mentions attitudes

toward self, subject material, and receiver as being embodied in this

factor. (1: 46) The latter two are seen to have the greatest impact

on this study. It is obvious that new systems represent change,

and managers may resist change. That is, they may avoid the subject

matter. Also, Lucas has pointed out that there may be predispositions

27

on the part of managers toward ISD personnel—attitudes toward

receivers. (67)

The third factor is sender's knowledge level. Berlo succinctly

describes the problem:

It is obvious that the amount of knowledge a source (sender) has about his subject matter will affect his message. One cannot communicate what one does not know; one cannot communicate with maximum effectiveness content material that one does not understand. On the other hand if the source (sender) knows "too much", if he is overspecialized, he might err in that his particular communication skills are employed in so technical a manner that his receiver cannot understand him. (1: 48)

However, both Powers and Guthrie indicate that system experience

had little influence on project success. (94; 60; 93) In addition.

Powers, Schewe and Wiek noted that high formal education had an

inverse relationship to successful computer operations thus suppor

ting Berlo's position that "too much" knowledge might be detrimental.

(94; 80)

The social-cultural system is the next factor discussed by

Berlo. The social system of the sender is composed of organiza

tional variables such as rank, prestige, status, role, group member

ships, and so forth. The cultural system is composed of variables

such as nationality, religion, etc.

Some of the variables of the social-cultural system were dis

cussed in conjunction with line-staff relationships. It has been

noted that differences between line and staff personnel contribute

28

to difficulties stemming from their interaction. Thurston has

argued for training of line personnel through staff ranks to reduce

these differences. (84) \île this might be a practical objective,

it may not be desirable. Maier £jt , in a study of the backgrounds

of superiors and subordinates, point out the desirability of at

least minimal differences between line and staff personnel. (73)

In effect, subordinates had a tendency not to develop a "trusting

relationship" with superiors who had previously held their position.

(73: 9) Subordinates did not want to divulge problems to superiors

who may have faced and solved the same problem. The lack of common

experiences between a superior and his subordinate was suggested

as an environment under which a "trusting relationship" could be

more easily developed. (73: 9-10)

Differences also exist in the basic communication patterns of

line and staff personnel. Guetzkow points out that staff employees

tend to have wider or more dispersed formal communication networks

than their line counterparts. (8: 537) However, the higher level

of the individual in either line or staff, the wider his communica

tion network becomes.

Lillico indicates that "cognitive distance" plays a major role

in communication accuracy, (17) and that:

1. the higher the individual's position in a firm, the more accurate his communication; (17: 78)

2. communication parties do not tend to be as open when there is a difference between them in terms of status, prestige or power; (17: 41-44)

3. the greater the amount of trust, openness and confidence, the more accurate the communication. (17: 53-54)

29

The importance of status as a communication factor also was noted

by Guetzkow: "The larger the status differential, the more restric

ted the channels of communication, the greater the tendency of

information to flow from low to high status persons, and the more

distorted the content of messages." (8: 548)

In this study, status is dictated by two factors—organiza

tional position and technical knowledge. The manager has status

in the company due to his position and because he has an in-depth

knowledge of a particular decision-making situation. Lawrence

and Lorsch term this "position-based" influence. (14: 170) The ISD

personnel have status primarily due to their technical knowledge

of computers and systems design. Lawrence refers to this as "know

ledge-based" influence. (14: 170) In addition Lucas and Lillico

indicate that, over time, the EDP consultant may develop "trust-

based" influence. (72: 34; 17: 54) Also, influence may be gained

by initiating communication—"initiative-based" influence. (8: 536)

A study by Alter indicated that the source of MIS project initiation

is an important indicator of project success. He states that 11

of 15 non-userr-initiated systems had implementation problems, while

only 4 of 31 userr-initiated projects encountered such problems.

(39: 103)

The difficulty with communication is that if both task-oriented

and status-oriented messages are competing for reception, the

effectiveness of communication may be hampered. (16: 73) Thus,

30

status and its impact on the effectiveness of manager-ISD personnel

communication will be examined in this study.

Finally, in regard to the differences between managers and ISD

personnel, DeWhirst states that technically-oriented individuals

are not as likely to exhibit information-sharing behavior as manage

ment personnel. (53: 310-311) However, information-sharing norms

can be influenced by management by encouraging the use of interper

sonal (oral) channels—an indication of information-sharing behavior.

(53: 312)

The receiver component of the Berlo model has the same factors

as the sender component. That is, the receiver is also character

ized by communication skills, attitudes, knowledge and social-cultural

systems. More importantly, the presence of the receiver is indica

tive of a two-participant activity. That is, the sender transmits

information to the receiver. Potentially the receiver may become

the sender for the communication cycle. Thus, without a receiver

component, an analysis of the communication process would be

incomplete.

The next major component of the model is the message. Berlo

divides the message into codes, content, and treatment; each of which

has certain elements and structure. (1: 54) All codes have elements

(a vocabulary) which are organized in some meaningful manner (syntax

or structure). (1: 57) The content of messages is composed of ideas

which are arranged or ordered. (1: 59) The treatment of a message

31

relates to "the decisions which the communication source (sender)

makes in selecting and arranging both codes and contents." (1: 60)

The presence of status-oriented messages and task-oriented

messages has been mentioned. However, the focus of this study

will be on task-oriented messages—those messages which are

directly related to the development of information systems. In

that respect, task-oriented messages related to system feasibility,

analysis, design and planning, implementation, and modification

and maintenance will be examined. Status-oriented messages will

be examined only if they have an impact on successful communication.

The next model component is the channel. Berlo identifies

characteristics of the channel in terms of human senses—seeing,

hearing, touching, smelling and tasting. (1: 72) However, he

further classifies the sub-phases of the channel as the modes of

encoding and decoding messages, message vehicles, and message car

riers. (1: 64) Within the scope of this study, the human senses

of seeing and hearing are the most important; they are the primary

senses used in oral and written communication. In terms of the sub-

phases within the channel, oral and written communication fall

within the realm of message vehicles. Vehicle carriers (sound waves

traveling through the air or visual symbols appearing on paper)

are important, but do not fall within the scope of this study.

Also the modes of encoding and decoding messages will not be studied,

The necessity of incorporating the channel component into

the model is pointed out by Guetzkow:

32

As the technical base of the organization becomes more salient, problem solving communication seems to develop channels of its own . . . specialists engaged in organizational problem solving consistently evade official prescriptions in order to get the job done, especially in the matter of communication. (8: 945)

It should be evident that several modes of interaction are

possible when two parties are engaged in communication of either a

bilateral (two-way) or unilateral (one-way) form. The most often

used forms of communication are face-to-face, oral, written, and

telephone. Conrath conducted a study of these modes of interaction

and their relationship to organizational structure and found that

"not only was face-to-face traffic more likely to be associated

with task relationships, but it was the preferred mode for all

interaction." (50: 597) Also, face-to-face communication was

more frequent when the parties were within a few feet of one another,

(50: 598; 8: 536) Burns added to this by indicating that managers

spent as much as eighty percent of their time engaged in oral

communication. (75: 50)

These findings seem somewhat inconsistent with Woodward's

earlier works that indicate a greater reliance on written communica

tion in the "middle ranges" of managers in production-oriented com

panies. (34: 66-67) The extremes of the scale (top management and

operating management) tended to employ more verbal (oral) communica

tion. In addition, she reported a tendency toward written communi

cation in mechanistic (highly structured) companies. Baker also

found written communication to be used more in larger companies.

33

(8: 539) In organic (less structured) companies. Woodward found

a tendency to employ "verbal" communication utilizing face-to-face

contact and the telephone. (34: 24) Thus, the level of the communi

cation and internal structure of the organization seem to have a

direct impact on the media choice.

Included in the findings of another study by Level were indica

tions that superiors preferred oral communication when communicating

information requiring immediate action. (65) When action based on

communication was less immediate, written communication was pre

ferred. The same conclusion was reached when information was of

a general nature. The most effective form of communication for

policy changes, directives, orders, or work progress statements was

found to be oral communication with a written follow-up. Level

concluded that oral communication appeared to be best when immediacy

of action or personal contact—with on-the-spot feedback—were

required.

Davis conducted a study on downward communication between

superiors and subordinates in several levels of an organization,

and reached the same conclusion as Level. (52) Davis classified

messages as either task-oriented or non-task-oriented. He found

that oral communication (with a written follow-up) was the choice

of managerial personnel when communicating task-oriented messages

to subordinates. This form of transmission also was found through

several levels in the organization. Oral communication also was

preferred by managers for non-task-oriented messages, but those

34

messages were not as effective in reaching their final destination

as written messages.

The serial effect (the passage of information through a chain

of sender-receiver pairs in a serial or linear pattern) seems to

have a greater impact on oral communication than on written communi

cation. This conclusion is based on the observations of Merrihue.

He states that oral communication is less desirable when:

1. statements are qualified by the sender; 2. the recipient does not take notes; 3. the sender fails to ask for feedback; 4. the message is to be transmitted through

more than three levels (individuals); 5. the sender considers the message to be important; 6. the message contains complex or detailed elements;

and 7. when there is an ideological difference between

the sender and the receiver. (23: 177)

To take advantage of feedback afforded by face-to-face, oral

communication and to minimize the influence of the serial effect,

Merrihue suggests that "a combination of oral and written communi

cation must be used—with the heaviest reliance being placed on the

written media." (23: 179) However, the previously noted studies

by Level and Davis indicate the reverse is true.

DeWhirst indicates that information-seeking behavior of scien

tifically oriented professionals will "take the path of least

resistance," i.e., technically oriented individuals will seek

information from "colleagues within their own organization" and will

use oral, face-to-face channels of transmission. (53: 306)

35

Guetzkow agrees with this statement in part by observing that "the

direction of flow of messages would seem to be more one-way and ver

tical in the authority and information chains, while in expertise

chains, the flow would seem to be two-way and lateral." (8: 546)

He also states that "solicited" information is more readily retained

by the receiver than "volunteered" information. (8: 567) This is

consistent with a "theorem" stated by Berger and Calabrese that

the ''amount of communication and information-seeking behavior are

inversely related." (42: 107) That is, when specific information

is sought communication becomes more directed toward the targeted

area without the necessity of probing peripheral areas.

DeWhirst further stated that information-seekers would use

the oral channel only if the psychological "cost" of doing so is

not excessive. (53) That is, technical personnel will seek infor

mation through internal sources only if they do not encounter resis

tance. Webster indicates that there are "costs" associated with

using the written messages which clog channels with worthless, non

productive communication. (85) Also, Guetzkow points out that

written messages must compete with one another when they reach the

receiver. (8: 538)

The first component added to Berlo's model is filtering. Fil

tering generally has the effect of altering or distorting messages

as they are transmitted through an organization. "The 'content'

of a message undergoes various kinds of changes as the message is

passed along, in serial fashion, from one human 'link' to another."

(26: 105)

36

Usually several things can happen to messages as they travel serially in an organization: details are omitted (leveling), added (adding), highlighted (sharpening), modified to conform to the interest, needs and feelings of the reproducer (assimilating). (7: 17)

These reactions to messages can be classified broadly as filtering.

(8: 554)

Filtering might occur in an MIS development effort if a group

of managers is represented by one or more persons from the group

on the MIS project team, or if the ISD personnel assigned the MIS

development task are not directly responsible for translating the

manager's desire for information into the computerized procedure

for providing the information.

Davis recognized that filtering could occur, but was one of

the first to recognize that filtering occurs in both upward and

downward communication. (52: 305) He mentioned that certain task-

oriented messages transmitted from a superior to a subordinate

were assimilated by the subordinate to more clearly fit his parti

cular situation. (52: 306) This could be interpreted to mean that

all filtering is not necessarily dysfunctional.

Redding suggests that overload represents the excess of input

over the ability of the message receiver to "handle" such input.

(26: 87) Brown emphasizes that many of the filtering techniques

used in the serial transmission of (predominantly oral) messages

are also used under overload conditions. These devices include

leveling, approximating and assimilating. In addition, the

37

overloaded communicator may choose queueing (establishing a priority

for handling messages), error processing (correctly interpreting

messages, but taking an incorrect response) and escape (terminating

message flows). (43: 323-324)

Obviously, factors like queueing are more highly related to

written communication since they lend themselves more readily to

ordering and storage. For example, Hascal indicates that a pri

ority system may be used in the handling of memoranda—thereby

processing the most urgent messages, while "holding" those not

immediately required. (62: 83) Guetzkow noted the filtering

which occurs through omission (an indicator of overload) may be

circumvented through the use of specialized languages, i.e. techni

cal jargon. (8: 553) Other approaches for overcoming overload

(such as verification and redundancy of messages) tend to also add

to the overload problem. (8: 558-559)

In relation to MIS development, Dickson and Simmons emphasize

that systems designers should be careful not to overwhelm the user

with large volumes of output. (56: 12) Guthrie adds that time-

triggered and exception reports are not necessarily the answer to

"output" overload. Finally, Dickson and Chervany suggest that

statistical summarization is not the solution. (47: 1343)

The last component of the communication model is feedback.

Although not a component of his graphic model, Berlo describes the

importance of feedback in communication:

38

Feedback provides the source (sender) with information concerning his success in accomplishing his objectives. In doing this, it exerts control over future messages which the source (sender) encodes. (1: 111-112)

Bariff and Lusk found the need for feedback is not uniform

throughout the organization. They indicated that administrators

demonstrated a greater need for MIS progress reports than did

supervisory personnel. (41: 827) In the study by Powers, for

malized and regular progress reporting was not related to MIS

success. (94: 94-97) Sollenberger, however, insists that progress

reports serve as an important communication link between the

systems function and users. (31: 39)

Redding states that "the sender of a message has no way of dis

covering what kind of response his message is getting (or even

whether the message was received) except through some form of feed

back." (26: 39) Based on this concept of feedback. Redding insists

that bilateral (two-way) communication is essential. Haney indenti-

fies the following advantages of bilateral communication:

1. It tends to lead to less hostility or frustration due to the lack of restriction on feedback.

2. Due to feedback, it is more accurate. 3. It generates more confidence about the correct

interpretation of a message by the recipient. 4. It is more likely to result in a positive action

or decision. 5. It tends to stimulate morale or circumvent morale

problems. 6. It tends to reduce defensive behavior of the sender,

and to a lesser extent, the receiver. (61)

39

It also appears to be useful in the development of positive organiza

tional relationships. (8: 560) Berger and Calabrese indicate that

the more uncertainty there is in a communication situation the higher

the reciprocity (bilateral communication) rate. (42: 105) They

further indicate that dissimilarities between communicating parties

promotes uncertainty (42: 106), thus stimulating information-seeking

behavior on the part of the participants. (42: 103) Thus, a pro

cedure is demonstrated which might reduce the sources of conflict

which have been previously enumerated.

Bilateral communication has many additional characteristics.

Haney categorizes these characterstics as taking more time

1. When the sender has established a familiar and routine pattern of communicating messages to the receiver.

2. When the emotional reaction of the receiver should be minimized.

3. When orderliness is an important criterion. (61)

Leavitt and Lillico basically agree with the above statements. (15:

150-151; 17) However, Guetzkow adds to the second point by stating

that when message initiation becomes regularized between senders

and receivers, this results in more "output per input." (8: 539)

This " . . . indicates the importance of past experience in the

determination of communication flows." (8: 540)

Summary

This chapter addressed three main areas: general MIS litera

ture, research based literature, and literature related to

40

organizational communication. The first section discussed the

necessity of having both management and ISD personnel involved in

MIS development. Many areas of potential conflict exist between

management and the ISD; this conflict may stem from the introduction

of change brought about by the introduction of a new system or

through what appears to be inherent difficulties with line-staff

relationships. Improvements in communication may be at least a

partial remedy for this conflict generated during the development

of an MIS.

The second section of this chapter presented research-based

evidence concerning the involvement of management in MIS develop

mental activity. Coch and French found that in non-MIS related

activities participation of workers improves productivity and

decreases resistance to change. (3) MIS related studies by Powers,

Sollenberger, Ainsworth, Gallagher, Carter and Swanson found that

high levels of involvement are related to high levels of satisfac

tion. (94° 31; 37; 58; 92; 46; 83) However, no relationship was

found to exist between these two variables in a study by Guthrie.

(60) In the Adams study, involvement was found to be less strongly

related to management satisfaction than managerial influence over

the system after implementation. (36) Explaining the difference

in findings, Lucas suggested a negative "cycle" of development may

be present—initial negative feeling of management toward ISD per

sonnel are amplified with each successive contact. (18) Powers and

Guthrie identified an experience or maturity cycle. (93; 94) They

41

further suggested that because of experiences, what could have

once satisfied management might become less satisfying with increased

familiarity. Thus, there was some doubt about the universal effi

cacy of using involvement as a predictor of management satisfaction.

The final section was built aroung the Berlo "SMCR" model.

Research based evidence also identified variables which research

indicates to be related to effective communication. Variables such

as position, status, knowledge and initiation of contact were iden

tified in the sender component; status and task-oriented messages

were discussed. The channel component provided variables related

to the oral and written media, when these media tended to be used

and what types of messages were most effectively transmitted with

each medium.

The Berlo model also included a filter component. The effects

of leveling, adding, sharpening, and assimilating were discussed.

In addition, filtering resulting from information overload was

described. The receiver component had the same general qualities

as the sender component. Finally, the feedback component was

discussed. While not graphically presented in the SMCR model,

Berlo identified the necessity for feedback. The importance of

bilateral communication was discussed along with the impact of

variables such as information-seeking behavior on effective

communication.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This study involves both a pilot study and a post study. This

chapter describes the methodology for both studies. First, the use

of pilot study data in pretesting questionnaires, the characteristics

of the pilot study sample, and the pretest methodology are discussed.

Second, the analysis procedures used to develop the communica

tion success models from the pilot study data are described. Third,

the post study methodology is described: (1) a description of

the revised post study questionnaire, (2) the characteristics of

the post study sample, (3) a description of the three companies

studied, (4) the hypotheses tested by the study, and (5) a descrip

tion of the analysis used on the post study data. The first part

of the analysis discussion deals with testing the hypotheses, while

the remainder presents the approach used to test the communication

success models. These test results are presented in Chapter IV.

The Pilot Study

This section, dealing with the pilot study as a pretest, examines

the creation of the questionnaires used in the pilot study, describes

the pilot study sample, and provides the details of the pretest

procedure.

42

43

Creation of the Questionnaires

Questions and scaling techniques that could provide appropriate

data for this study were generated from the five research questions

stated in Chapter I. The research of Powers, Lucas, and others was

reviewed to help determine the appropriate types of questions for the

measurement of management satisfaction, pre-involvement and post-

involvement. (94; 66; 67; 69; 71) A study by Downs and Hazen was

used as a source for questions dealing with communication satisfac

tion. (57) Guidelines formulated by Pettit and superior-subordinate

communication studies conducted by Davis, Maier, and others were used

in the development of communication factor questions. (75; 52; 73)

The questions were reviewed and those providing redundant data

were eliminated. The remaining questions were divided into two cate

gories: MIS-oriented questions and communication-oriented questions.

These categories were submitted to faculty members with expertise in

the two respective areas, resulting in a further refinement of the

questions. The remaining questions were placed in a questionnaire

format and submitted to a preliminary test. In this "trial run" a

small number of managers and ISD personnel from one company were asked

to complete the questionnaires. After the questionnaires were returned,

each respondent was interviewed to determine his or her reaction to

each question. As a result of the interview responses, some of the

questions were recast to minimize misinterpretation. The final version

of the questionnaires used in the pilot study appears in Appendix A.

(For further details about the preliminary test see Appendix N.)

44

Characteristics of the Pilot Study Sample

The pilot study sample served four purposes: (1) the data

collection provided an opportunity to test the procedures used to

gather the post study data, (2) it served as a questionnaire pre

test, (3) it acted as a refining mechanism for the post-study ques

tionnaires, and (4) it produced data for constructing the communica

tion success models.

The pilot study questionnaires (shown in Appendix A) were sent

to managers and ISD personnel in five Midwestern firms. The firms

selected met the requirements listed in Chapter I. (These require

ments are examined in greater detail later in this chapter.) Each

firm received 15 questionnaires; nine to managers and six to ISD

personnel. The total number of questionnaires in the pilot study was

75 (45 managers and 30 ISD personnel). A total of 51 (68%) were

returned with usable responses (58% of the managers and 83% of the

ISD personnel). The data from these questionnaires were coded and

punched as two separate files for analysis. One file contained

management data and the other contained data from ISD personnel. The

data then were sampled for accuracy and corrected where necessary.

Pretest of the Questionnaires

Because the post study questionnaires were to be completed by

individuals in a business environment, it was desirable to conduct

a field pretest; a pretest increases both the accuracy and reliability

of the questionnaires.

45

No attempt was made to disguise the information sought. Oper

ational definitions were included (in the introduction to the ques

tionnaire, in the instructions for segments of the questionnaire,

and within specific questions) to aid the respondent in supplying the

requested data. It is presumed that a high level of face validity

is associated with the questionnaires. However, Selltiz al . point

out the pitfalls of assuming face validity, and as a remedy, they

suggest the examination of questionnaires with regard to statisti

cal reliability. (30)

Reliability has two components: (1) an equivalence measurement

or the amount of internal consistency demonstrated by the respondent

when indicating a preferred answer to a series of similar items, and

(2) the stability of responses. Stability is a reflection of the

amount of variability in responses to the same or similar items

over some period of time. (30: 168) If a measurement tends to vary

over time, the results obtained from a respondent cannot be relied

upon due to their transitory nature.

Two objectives of the equivalence measurements are related spe

cifically to the pretest and the subsequent collection of data for

later analysis. The first objective is to determine if the question

naire is exploring the dimensions the writer is addressing. These

dimensions (or variables) are listed in Table 1, along with the asso

ciated questions on the pilot study questionnaire. The second objec

tive is to use a sufficient number of questions to accurately measure

the dimensions. That is, the writer should be aware that some

46

CO

o M H CO

D o-Q

<: CO W «

M Pd <: >

w pq <:

CO OJ M

• H CO

c c o •H 4J CO

o; 3

Cf 4J CO (U 4 J OJ

u ^

o 4-1

c o

• H 4J CO

i H (U Pi

cx) < ! •

1 cn •<3-

• vt

CJO

CO

e-s

CM CM

• r t

"4-1 A

(U r H CN

• W\.

^4-1

O CN

1 (1>

O CM

J 2 M

CO CN CN

• * , Q

M

CO rH CN

• M

J^ «\

CO O CN

T J

«\ a

CN CN

• M

T J A

o i H CM

« #k

T 3 # t

O O CN

i H

•« 1

^ en

o i n

.., ON >3-

• « i n CO

1

-^ CN

• CTi r H

I as

(U r H . Q CO

• H M CO

>

C o

•H 4-)

o CO

<+-4 CO

• H 4-1 CO

CO

4-t

c (U £ S GO CO

C CO

S

4-)

c cu £ (U >

i H O > C

M 1 (U U

A4

• u

C (U £ 0) M CO CI CO

S

c OJ

£ cu >

i H

o > c

M 1

4J CO

o p

4J

c (U £ -i

o 4J

a CO

f t ,

c o

•H 4-1 CO

o • H

C 3 £ £ 0

U

CN m m

4 -»

questions may be nondiscriminatory or redundant, making it possible to

reduce the number of questions necessary to measure "management sat

isfaction," for example, to the two or three questions that provide

an ample measurement of that variable.

To achieve these objectives of equivalence measurements, the

questions in each of the categories of Table 1, except for category 5,

were factor analyzed. The communication factors are discussed,

analyzed and, in some cases, eliminated in the creation of communica

tion success models. This factor analysis generated an equivalence

measurement (and weightings) that represents the essence of those

questions (i.,e., to identify those questions that explain the

greatest amount of variance in the group of questions as a whole).

The factor analysis techniques were chosen because of their

ability to identify clustering or grouping of variables; in addition,

these techniques often are used for the purpose of data reduction.

(24; 469; 25; 289) (For the purpose of factor analysis, each question

was treated as a variable.) The specific techniques utilized the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program "FACTOR"

(factor analysis). (24: 468-514) The specific parameters applied

were for principal component (axes) factoring without iteration

(PAD and an orthogonal rotation (VARIMAX). The principal factoring

technique is designed to "improve" communality estimates (i.e. the

amount of total variance the variables have in common). (28: 103-105:

24: 480) The VARIMAX rotation maximizes the variance between factors

to make individual factors more identifiable. (24: 485) The result

48

of this process was a table of factor loadings—the correlation

between factors and the original variables—where a factor represents

a (weighted) linear combination of all variables. (25: 291) (See

Appendix B.)

The output from the procedure was index measurement based on

the questions used in the pilot study questionnaires and the factor

loadings of the pilot study data. This amounts to using a least

squares estimate as a predictor for each of the factor analyzed

categories of Table 1, based on standard factor scores and using the

factor loadings as weights for each factor. (25: 294) (See

Appendix G.)

To gather the data for the pretest, a procedure similar to

that used in the post study was used. A smaller number of respon

dents, representing five companies, was utilized to provide the

maximum possible variation. The results of this procedure provided

additional guidelines in the administration of the measurement

instrument.

The procedure followed in the pilot study differed from that

used in the post study in one other way—the respondents in the pilot

study were interviewed as a follow-up procedure. The interviews

accomplished several purposes: checking the wording of questions for

clarity; examining instructions completeness; determining the under

standing of the scaling procedures used; measuring the ease of using

the scaling devices; and establishing a level of stability for the

questionnaires as a whole.

49

Interviewing the pretest respondents involved asking the respon

dents to express their feelings about difficulties in completing the

questionnaire. A portion of the interview dealt with the stability

of responses. During the interview the respondents were again asked

to answer the questions. These oral responses were recorded and the

oral and written responses (i.e. pairs of individual question scores)

were subjected to analysis via the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test. As

Spence et^ aJL note, this test is particularly well suited to the analy

sis of the matched (dependent) samples. (32: 216) It was presumed

that the same respondent answering the same questions (once in writing

and once orally) constituted a matched sample. (For a detailed des

cription of the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test see Spence et^ al_. , Kirk,

Kurtz, Hays, or Mason (32: 216-218; 12: 500; 13: 181-183; 10: 635-637;

21: 464-467).) Generally, the test was used to determine if there

was a significant difference between two matched groups. The ques

tionnaire passed the stability test; the level of significance for

each question was .05 or less. (See Appendix C.)

Construction of Communication Success Models

In Chapter II, the impact of many identifiable factors on com

munication success was indicated. In this section, many of these

factors are analyzed and placed in the context of perceived communi

cation success models. It should be noted that these models are

indicative, not predictive, and are based on the perceptions of

the communicator as related through empirical evidence. No attempt

50

will be made to determine if a communicator's perceptions are

accurate portrayals of reality.

Analysis of the Pilot Study

The questions of interest in this section are listed in Table 2.

The data gathered through the use of these questions were analyzed

by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) programs

NONPAR CORR (which produces Spearman correlation coefficients) and

CROSSTABS (which produces a corrected chi square statistic). For

the purposes of correlating the data to "communication success,"

questions 36 through 51 were summed for each respondent and an

"average score" was determined. (This average score was significantly

correlated with the factor weighted score for communication success

at or beyond the .002 level.) These data were correlated with all

the data represented by the remaining questions in Table 2. (See

Appendix E.)

In addition, the communication success scores were divided

into "successful" and "unsuccessful" categories for chi square analy

sis. If the average score fell within any of the "adequate" classi

fications (from the questionnaire), the score was judged to represent

a successful communication sequence as perceived by the respondent.

If the score fell at the midpoint or beyond on the questionnaire

scale, it was judged to represent an "unsuccessful" communication

sequence. (See Appendix E.)

Finally, the group of managers (N = 13) which fell within the

"successful communicators" category was further analyzed using

51

TABLE 2: COMMUNICATION-ORIENTED QUESTIONS

Question Number Type of Data Sought Abbreviation

1. 2. 3. 4. 5, 6. 7. 8. 9.

11,

13.

15.

17.

18.

19.

24. 25. 26. 27,

a. b. c. a. b. c. a. b. c. a. b. c. a. b. c. d. e. f. g-h.

i.

J-k.

a. b. c. a. b. c.

Respondent level of position RL Respondent status RS Length of employment TE Length of time in position TP Level of education ED Number of individuals contacted NC Level or position of contact LC Status of contact SC Feasibility contacts—minimum CFl Feasibility contacts—average CF2 Feasibility contacts—maximum CF3 Design contacts—minimum CDl Design contacts—average CD2 Design contacts—maximum CD3 Implementation contacts—minimum CIl Implementation contacts—average CI2 Implementation contacts—maximum CI3 Maintenance contacts—minimum Cl'U Maintenance contacts—average CM2 Maintenance contacts—maximum CM3 Contact on a group basis CGO Contact on an as needed basis CNR Contact by the respondent CMO Contact frequently made CFR Contact initiated by respondent GIN Contact by oral or written media COW Contact by standard forms CFL Contact on a face-to-face basis CFT Contact frustrating CFU Contact time consuming CTM Contact costly CCO Respondent prefers oral contact POW Respondent prefers standard forms PFL Respondent prefers face-to-face contact PFT Contact is approachable APP Contact is accessible ACC Contact is understandable UND Directions need clarification DC Respondent gets wanted information GIW Respondent understands contact's department OU Contact understands respondent's department UO

52

TABLE 2: COMMUNICATION-ORIENTED QUESTIONS (Continued)

Question Number

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

38. 39.

40.

41.

42. 49. 50.

Type of Data Sought

Respondent oversteps authority Contact oversteps authority Receipt of information delayed Written clarification needed Oral clarification needed Most efficient communication form Specification are unclear Contact cannot provide information Respondent's knowledge Respondent's communication of information need to contact

Contact's knowledge Contact's understanding of respondent's need

Contact's communication of capability to satisfy need

Respondent's understanding of contact's capability

Contact's relative status Data administrator contact Operations research staff contact

Abbreviation

lOA TOA TDO WC oc MEG SU CNP CSl CS2

CS3 CS4

CS5

CS6

SRM CDA COR

53

measures of correlation of "successful communication" to the other

questions in Table 2. The purpose of this analysis was to determine

whether a specific factor contributed to successful communication or

resulted in perceived communication difficulties. The results of

this analysis also are shown in Appendix E.

Construction of the Management Communication Model

The results shown in Appendix E were used in the construction

of the indicative communication success model for managers. To

construct the model, the results of analysis were coupled with the

Berlo model presented in Chapter II. The reader will recall the

components of the model were: the sender, the message, the channel,

the filter, the receiver, and feedback. Recall also that the filter

and feedback were added to Berlo's basic model. For the purpose of

the model, the factors listed in Table 2 will be placed in one of

these six component categories.

Not all factors present in the pilot study were found to be

significant. Thus, only those factors that were significant at the

.200 level or below were included in the model. (The .200 level was

chosen as the cut-off point so that any factor which was "relatively"

significant could be further examined in the post study.) The treat

ment of the analysis follows the pattern described below. (See

Appendix E.

If either the Spearman correlation coefficient or the chi

square statistic was significant at the .200 to the .150 level, it

is indicated in the model as a weak detractor from communication

54

success, and it received a code of -1. If the factor was significant

at the .149 to the .100 level, it received a code of -2, indicating

a moderately weak detractor from communication success. Significance

at the .099 to the .050 level is coded at -3, a moderately strong

detractor. Finally, a factor which was significant at the .049 level

or higher is coded at -4, representing a strong detractor.

The same coding sequence was employed for the Spearman correla

tion coefficients for the "successfully" communicating respondents,

with a plus sign rather than a minus sign. Thus, +1 is a weak

promoter of successful communication, +2 is moderately weak, +3

is moderately strong, and -f-4 is a strong promoter of communication

success.

The results of this process were used to produce Figure 2 (a

communication success model for managers). It should be pointed out

that those factors which are accompanied by a plus sign (a factor

perceived to contribute to successful communication) are of greatest

importance. Furthermore, those factors with higher codes are viewed

as being more important on the basis of a higher level of significance.

In Figure 2, the characteristics of the sender that were found

to be of greatest importance (listed by the strength of their rela

tionship to communication success) were:

1) the manager does not perceive himself as overstepping his authority when engaged in a contact with ISD personnel (-H4) ;

2) communication with ISD personnel is more successful when the manager is his own spokesman, rather than having someone act as his surrogate (+3);

55

H J

NNE

S o

Pd O <: CO CO w 2

^-s

<r u 1 o

v-^ CO

' O CU . ^ cu 4J CN CO o -f-

cO ••> 'O •H q! 0) ^3 , 4J

r messa

) relat

sibilit

lementa

Pi M

M fe

/ ^ r - l

1 v,^

CO

c o •H 4J CO O

• H 14-1 •H O (U

^~\ C < r O 1

•H - ^ 4J >J-to -h

•H / - v <4-l <!• T ) •H 1 (U M - ^ £ CO CN 3

i H -f- CO

o ^ c , - s o 3 CN C CJ (U 1 o 4-t ->>, - H CU 4-1 s r -M £

a -H - f CO -H t o

}-i CO (U

t H CJ C

D

/-~v CO -1-N—'

C O (U

•H O •u C CO CO

Modifi

Mainte

<U £ CO cu t 3 T) 5 3 CO CU 4-1

i H CO

^ 5 o o

H J H J

4-1

a CO

4-1

c o a

o 4J CO

4J CO

•H C

•H

£ TD CO

CO 4-1 CO

Q

/~s CN

-1-s_^

4J

(U £ >> o i H O. £ s tsO c o

H J

^ - N

CM 1

1 > , ^-^ rH

4J CO CO 3 O 4-1 O CO 4J Q CO CO

M CU

> .c •H 4-1 4-1 -H CO 5

rH (U 4J ^ o

.--N CO CM 0) 4-1

1 U C V-' o o

S u

/—\ O CO M

»^ Pi

> M

w CJ

w Pi

CO 1

1—1

-1-V w '

rH (U > (U

i H

4^ 00

•H IXl

/—\

n (+1)

(+1)

1)

act (-1

ms (-1)

O - H C -t- 4J }^ •H (U -H -^ C O 4J > O M-l •H (U TJ 4J O CO rH CO C J-i a , 3 rH 4-1 OJ CO

O o r ^ C 4-1 TJ 3 -H > CO O -u 3

•H 4-1 £3 -1 - O -H CO CO -H ^ ^ }-l 4-1

^ 4-» OJ

•H T3 rH O -Ul CO CO 4-1 (U -P CO CO .j M

O 4-1 -H 0) OJ

tsox: -i O -H CU <1> O -H -H O (3 M t-i

H3 ffi Q (H PL, PL,

/--N

^ 1 / - s

•<r 1

m ^^ <r 1 -1-

N~,' a) >—' i H

CO .Q (U 3 CO rH 4-1 43 J3 CO O -H 4-1 CO CD CD O CO

U (U :? a o O D- o t - i < J <

ISD's

TJ

c &, CO (U 4-J 4J / ^ CO CO < t >-l V -h (U 0) ^—' ^3 > c O >^ 3 4-1 4-1 - H 4J O J^ O

c o c CO 4-1 CD 0) 3 (U O CO o Q Q

>» 4J •H

o ' ^ x: < r 4-1

1 3 " - - CO

-f a •>—' 

T3 O c CO -U / - s U O <f CO 3 1 V< ^-^ CU CO -<i-

-O CU 4-C O ^ '

: = Q

/"-v < t

1 N ^

c o •H 4J •H CO

o a

CD

^ CU C>0 CO 3 0) CO £ £ -H

4J 13 C O CO 4-1 / - ^ 4J CVJ CO (U 1 }-l / - v 3 ^ ^ -l 3 i J v-l i J

•H CO CO CO CO > 3 en 5 ^-^ o 1

! - i

4-1 3 a . d QJ O O txO -H 4-1 -H

4J O 4J 4J CO 3 CO

o £ d £ d V4 CO ^

G O O CO M-l '-I-I 

•H 0) O u cu p

CM CD

< V4 3 <-\ bO (U

•H T3 Pn O

CD CD (U o o 3

CO

d o

•H 4-1 CO CJ

• H

d 3

o CJ

56

3) the longer a manager is employed by a company, the more successful his communication (+2); and

4) the longer the manager holds a position, the higher his level of education with respect to "computers" and "information systems," and the more he initiates contact with ISD personnel, the more likely his communication is to be successful (-f-1).

Those factors found to be negatively correlated with communication

success for the manager were:

1) not understanding the position of the ISD personnel (-4);

2) a lower level and status in the organization (-2); and

3) a preference for written forms of communication, especially standard forms and reports (-1).

Between the manager and ISD personnel, successful communicators

tend toward fewer messages (especially at the maximum level)

related to feasibility, design, or implementation of systems (+3).

The same basic pattern also was present for system modification and

maintenance messages.

In the third component—the channel—management respondents

indicated that when a written mode of communication was employed,

successful managers preferred notes or letters over standard report

formats (+2). However, the use of written media versus other media

choices was highly associated with unsuccessful communication (-4).

The fourth component of the model was the filter. Filtering

does have an impact on communication, as noted in Chapter II. The

57

manager's model indicates that successful communicators found little

need to have written messages clarified, and they felt the time

spent with ISD personnel was minimal. They also felt little

frustration (+2).

Unsuccessful communicators found contact with ISD personnel

frustrating and time consuming (-4). They further indicated that

contact was costly, written messages needed clarification, and

communication with a data administrator was counter-productive

(-2). They also suggested that system specifications were unclear,

and if they held a status superiority over the ISD personnel,

communication suffered (-1).

The receiver characteristics the successful manager found

associated with ISD personnel were that they are accessible, approach

able, understandable, and do not overstep the limits of their

authority (-f-4). If managers felt ISD personnel did not possess these

characteristics, it was extremely detrimental to communication

success (-4). The managers perceived that a high level ISD indivi

dual contributed more to communication success (-t-1) than an indivi

dual at a lower rank (-3). The manager perceived communication

difficulties stemming from a lack of knowledge of ISD personnel about

the manager's position (-4). In addition, managers felt communication

problems arose when the ISD personnel held low status (-3) and were

unavailable for interaction because their jobs required them to

perform other duties (-2).

58

The final component—feedback—also was added to Berlo's model.

It was not found to have any positive impact on communication success

as perceived by the managers. Managers felt that communication prob

lems were associated with not receiving information they had requested

from ISD personnel (-4) or the inability of ISD personnel to provide

requested information (-3). This could be interpreted to mean that

managers expect adequate feedback and were influenced only if the

anticipated feedback was not forthcoming.

Construction of the ISD Communication Model

The preceding discussion dealt with the creation of the manage

ment communication success model. During the analysis of data

provided by managers and ISD personnel, it was discovered that the

responses of these two groups were similar, but not the same.

Slightly different patterns of association were found between communi

cation success and the variable set. As a consequence, the ISD

communication success model was developed separate from the

management model.

The questions used in the analysis of ISD data were the same

questions presented in Table 2 for management respondents. The

analysis procedure used on the management data was duplicated for the

ISD data. (See Appendix E.) The results were coded (using plus,

minus, and levels of significance) in the same manner as described

for management data.

The consequences of this procedure are reflected in Figure 3 —

the ISD communication success model. As seen in this illustration.

59 NEL

2: <3 P3 CJ

w o < CO CO

w S

^—s r - l

sr -1-- ^

O A-^ U T-i CO CD 1

o -• 13

•H d d >» CO

• H 4-1 £ 'H ••>

t H / ^ CO ' H <d-

, Q 1 4J - H '^-^ CO CD

^-^ CO d (U o

CO Et. - H

message

ted to

ementat

CO r-^

A~\

CN

+ V — '

4-t

tac

d o o

ne-to-one

o

/ ^ N

C J 13 1 d "^ CO

d

tenance

ficatio

d -H 0) rH CL«H 13 ^t -i M S

CO O S S

Pi w H rJ M ^

<^ /-^ ^ ^ -vT r- (

-d- CD I I I d --- --^

— . O CO > ^

^ -H 4- -1-4 - 4J Nw' v_^ ^ - ^ O r H / - N

tU CO 1 3 >3- 1 3 M ;-i S-I (U 1 CU CO ' H O 1 3 — £ (U 1 3 CU <J- 3

r H M CU -f- CD

a MH o d "^ d o o CD d d d CJ

d d -t a >-i 4-t O O 13 -H 4J

•H -H 13 M-l CD rH <4-l <4-l (U -i J-I £ O >-l (U 4J CO IM -H (U CO 0) 4-1 rH d Q. rH d -H CJ O -H CO CJ HJ Z S

/ ^ CN

1 > ^ U o CO

ar cont

r-i 3 00 4-t

-—N CO (U O CN 4-t O rH CO -1- d CJ- +J ^-^ CU C C

E d o o CO > . -H "H O

igh statu

ong emplo

ong time

ow educat

nitiates

ffi HJ HJ hJ M

>s r-t

4-1 4-1

CJ CD CO O 4J O

d O CO

a u 0)

U 00 O CO •u d CO CO U £

4.1

CD . d •H 4J d -H

£ 1 3 4J CO O

/ - ^ CO A-^ CO CO -U CN

•p -t- d 1 CO N - ' o ^ - ' p a

/—s Pi w CJ <3 2

s_^

Pi

>

CEI

w Pi

—\ CO

/ - N 1 < ) • > ^ ^—X

1 ^r • ^ QJ 1 < • r H - > ^

A^ + ^ <t CO ^-' CO -H

1 43 ^^ v ^ CO o

3 CO 0) rH 4J O rH 0) CO M XI > 4J a -H OJ CD CU CO

rH CO CO J3 QJ

IS 00 4J a O -H O CJ

H4 s z <:

-i-CD

4-t -O >-l CO d . D.

4J • H CO >-l -O P

x : CO

3 CO CO

1 3 CO d O . CO /'-^ Q) 4J - 3 -4-1 CO 1 CO !-l ^ > ^ l-l QJ ^ QJ 1 3 -H

c ^ : ^ ^

CO 4-1 d

• H CO U 4J CD

d o o 0)

tim

^—s 14-1 ^ r O 1

M <r a -1-cO ^ - '

r4

•

QJ d d o CD u Q)

PU

P CO

1 3 QJ >

•H 0) a

• • j - i CO QJ

QJ U CD 3 < 0 0 ^ - '

•H fi^ rH

QJ 1 3

O

60

ISD personnel perceived communication to be more successful

1. if they had been employed and held their position for a long period of time (-H4) , they preferred oral contact (-1-4); and

2. if they had high status, initiated contact with managers, and understood the manager's position (+2)

The ISD personnel perceived communication to be less successful

1. if they had been employed only a short time and did not understand the manager's position (-4); and

2. if their level of education about "management" was low (-3).

ISD personnel indicated that several factors of composition

and message orientation were related to communication problems.

These factors included messages related to system implementation

(-4), system feasibility and design (-3), and system modification

and maintenance (-2). That is, communication deteriorated when

more messages containing these elements were transmitted. Finally,

poor communication and lack of regular contact with managers was

perceived as being related (-2).

The variables of the channel component were found to be highly

significant for successful communicators. Successful communication

was marked by a high use of oral messages (-1-4) , while poor communi

cation was associated with the written media (-1) . -Jhen written

media were used, successful communicators used letters or notes (-1-4),

while less successful ISD personnel used standardized forms or reports

61

(-1). Finally, those ISD personnel indicating the use of a one-to-

one interface with managers also perceived their communication to

be more successful (-1-2).

The filtering which seemed to be present in the ISD data sug

gests that communication success is related to clear system speci

fications, little frustration and a minimal amount of time consumed

in the communication process (4-4). Communication also was viewed

as being successful when contact was made with the data administra

tor and written or oral messages from management needed little

clarification (-1-3).

Communication difficulties arose when specifications were

unclear, directions and written or oral messages needed clarifica

tion, and when frustration was present (-4). Perceived high cost

of contact with managers (-2) and interaction being viewed as a

time consuming process (-1) were less detrimental.

ISD personnel perceived that the reception of their messages

was improved when the manager was accessible, understood the position

of ISD personnel, and when the manager was not constrained by

other demands on his time (-1-4). Improved message reception was also

slightly associated with high levels of status of the manager (-Hi) .

All of the above factors were reversed when communication difficul

ties occurred. In addition, when the manager held a low level

position or was unapproachable, communication performance decreased

(-3). Finally, communication was not as successful when ISD personnel

were overstepping their authority (-2).

62

The impact of feedback on communication success for the ISD

model is very similar to that demonstrated in the management model.

That is, feedback is accepted as a "given" unless it is not present.

Both the lack of information from the manager and his inability to

provide some types of information had a negative effect on communi

cation. However, ISD personnel did indicate that the manager's

ability to provide information acted as a limited plus for success

ful communication (-1-2) .

The objective of this section has been to create communication

models that reflect the perceptions of the respondents in the pilot

study. The data were subjected to analyses that indicate there

are some fundamental differences between the perceptions of

managers and ISD personnel.

The data were subdivided into a management group and an ISD

group. The management data were analyzed and further subdivided

into a "successful" communicating group and a "less successful" group.

The model used was Berlo's communication model, with filter and feed

back components added. The data representing significant factors of

communication success were placed within the framework for the comple

tion of the management communication success model. The same proce

dure was followed for the ISD data to derive the communication success

model for ISD personnel.

The Post Study

As previously stated, the pilot study was used to develop, test,

and refine the questionnaires used in the post study; in addition.

63

pilot study data permitted the construction of the communication

success models tested in the post study, \ fhile much of the post

study development occurred during the pilot study, a few additional

details need explanation: (1) the development of the post study

questionnaire; (2) the general characteristics of the post study

sample accompanied by a brief description of each of the participating

companies; (3) a list of hypotheses to be tested, stated in terms of

relationships among management satisfaction, pre-involvement, post-

involvement, and communication success; and (4) a description of

the methods used to analyze the hypotheses and communication

success models.

The Post Study Questionnaire

A portion of the pretest was dedicated to a factor analytic

study of the questions placed in the management satisfaction, pre-

involvement, post-involvement, and communication success categories.

The results of the factor analysis are provided in Appendix B.

Thus, the battery of questions in each of the four categories on the

pilot study questionnaire were condensed to a list that provided

the most discriminating results.

The final category on the pilot study questionnaire dealt with

communication factors; these questions were analyzed in conjunction

with communication success. Only those questions (communication

factors) which were relatively significant in relation to communica

tion success were retained for the post study questionnaire. As a

64

consequence of the pretest and model construction, a rather lengthy

pilot study questionnaire was condensed into the more manageable

post study questionnaire.

Characteristics of the Post Study Sample

In Chapter I, several limitations were mentioned in relation

to the companies which took part in the post study. The firms were

selected on the basis of the following limitations.

First, all firms had had an operational MIS for a portion of

their organization for a period of not less than five years; managers

had had the reports from the MIS for not less than five years. There

are three reasons for this limitation:

1. with the initial installation of an MIS there may be some technical adjustments in the system while both managers and ISD personnel become accustomed to a new, "modified" environment. Such internal dynamics could alter behavior patterns in an unpredictable manner. Therefore, a firm which has had a chance to "mature with a new environment"—a firm in which equilibrium adjustments have been made— is viewed by this writer as a more stable source of data;

2. although a manager may have been involved in the development of a system, this does not mean he has worked with the resulting system. Five years should provide the manager with an opportunity to work with and make decisions from MIS-produced reports; and

3. a portion of this research deals with the feedback of information after the MIS has been used and the capability of the manager to influence the system. Thus, some time period must be set aside for the manager to react to what is produced by an MIS.

65

Second, all levels of management (top, middle, and operating

level managers) should be receiving some product of the MIS. The

receipt of MIS-generated reports is a prerequisite to managerial

involvement (i.e., if a manager is not receiving reports, it is

unlikely he has been involved in any MIS development efforts).

Third, since the objective of an MIS is to assist the manager

in his decision-making activities by providing information, it is

necessary for the manager to take some action on the basis of the

MIS products; i.e., using the information. Although there was no

way of assuring that managers were using the information, the

management participants received the information and were presumed

to have used it to make decisions.

Fourth, both managers and ISD personnel were working at the

same location. This requirement was necessary so that oral, face-

to-face contact might be analyzed with a minimum of obstruction.

Physical distance between communicating parties represents one

possible obstruction, as noted in Chapter II.

The fifth and sixth limitation dealt with the number of managers

in an organization receiving MIS reports and the number of ISD per

sonnel employed by the firm, respectively. An arbitrary acceptable

minimum of 100 managers and 25 members of the ISD for each firm was

established so a number of alternative forms of system development

might be possible, i.e., from project teams to one-to-one relation

ships. That is, individual managers may not always come in contact

66

with the same representative from the ISD. These numbers for managers

and ISD personnel also increase the likelihood that the data admin

istrator function would be present in the companies.

The three companies selected to participate in the study meet

or exceed each of the above criteria. In addition, all of the firms

in the post study sample could be classified as large corporations—

they are among the 500 largest corporations operating in the United

States. However, additional characteristics are important to note

for at least two reasons. First, the models developed earlier in

this chapter were based on a "composite" company; i.e., the data

used in the creation of the models came from five separate companies.

Consequently, the models themselves are not based on any one exist

ing company. The data gathered in the post study provided the oppor

tunity to compare the models with three existing companies, thus allow

ing a comparison of the conceptual aggregate model with existing

organizations.

Second, as mentioned in Chapter II, ". . . due to organizational

variables, communication activities in one organization may bear only

slight resemblance to those in another." (76: 47) The three companies

used for model comparison purposes have different organizational

characteristics. This provided the opportunity to compare the

models with firms which operate in different organizational environ

ments. Thus, the three companies of the post study provided the

opportunity to test the models with three separate sets of data.

67

The basic characterisitcs of the three companies are as follows:

Company A is a vertically integrated petrochemical firm specializing predominantly in consumer products. The participants are currently employed at the corporate headquarters. The computer staff is highly structured and traditionally organized around the "systems analyst pool." In the development of systems, analyst-teams are generally used on major projects. The head of the firm's computer systems area classified the communication during systems development as "average to slightly below average."

Company B is actually the regional headquarters of a chemical company. All of the chemicals produced by this firm are raw materials for their customers (i.e. the firm produces no consumer goods). The company's systems personnel are not organized into a pool, but are permanently assigned to specific departments or functions. The accounting department is the specific function to be analyzed in this study. The manager of the accounting department classified system-oriented communication as "excellent."

Company C is the corporate headquarters of a firm producing electronic equipment and components. While primarily a producer of goods not directly sold to the public, the company has expanded product lines into the consumer goods category with the production of electronic calculators. This company is also arranged along the traditional lines of the "systems analyst pool." However, this pool of personnel is not as highly structured as in Company A. In addition, the director of systems development of this firm classified the communication within the systems area as "very good."

68

Statement of Hypotheses

In Chapter I, five research questions were presented to explain

the purpose of the study, but those questions are not sufficiently

explicit to represent testable hypotheses. Thus, it was necessary to

construct testable hypotheses that represent the essence of the

previously stated research questions. It also was necessary to

establish the relationship between the hypotheses and the questions

that appear on the measurement instrument.

From Chapter I, the first research question was:

Is there a relationship between the manager's level of satisfaction with a management information system and the level of involvement exhibited by the manager during the development of a system?

As pointed out in Chapter II, there is some current research that

suggests this relationship does exist. There are three reasons,

however, for examining this relationship. First, it was important

to determine if the post sample had properties which are related

to the samples of previous studies. Second, the communication

factors (presented in the communication models) may have some rela

tionship to pre-involvement and its effect on satisfaction; conse

quently, this relationship has an impact on other portions of the

study and cannot be assumed. Finally, each hypothesis will be

checked against two sets of data—one set of data from managers and

one from ISD personnel—to determine the level of agreement. This

is a departure from the approach used in most studies. In this manner

69

the fifth research question will be operationalized. The reader

may recall from Chapter I that the fifth research question was:

5. Do managers and Information Service Department Personnel tend to agree about: a) the level of pre-involvement of the manager? b) the level of post-involvement of the manager? c) the level of communication effectiveness

exhibited between managers and Information Service Department personnel?

d) the level of satisfaction of the managers with the MIS?

e) any of the communication factors which contribute to effective organizational communication?

Parellel testing of hypotheses on two sets of data from the same

source (company) is one way to determine the amount of agreement.

In addition to parallel tests of hypotheses, the data will be com

bined in another set of tests that will be referred to as the

"agreement" hypotheses.

The writer feels that conducting the study in this manner may

yield two important conclusions. First, if there is a wide disparity

between the manager's viewpoint and the feelings of ISD personnel

this could mean managers and ISD personnel are not communicating

effectively. If this is true, then any future research into the

"manager-analyst" interface problem should consider the viewpoint

of both parties rather than only the manager or only systems per

sonnel. If there is a difference between the viewpoints of managers

and ISD personnel, then selecting only one group for analysis may

yield biased results.

70

The null hypothesis, alternate hypothesis, and the entries on

the questionnaire employed to evaluate the hypothesis generated

from the first research question are stated below. The null hypo

thesis is:

HI-A: There is no relationship between the manager's level of satisfaction with a management information system and the manager's level of pre-involvement in the development of the system.

The alternate hypothesis is:

HI-A': There is a positive relationship between management pre-involvement in the development of a system and his level of satisfaction with that system.

The entries on the questionnaire used to investigate this hypothesis

are provided in the form of two indexes. The indexes used are the

"Management Satisfaction" index (I^) and the "l>lanagement Pre-involve

ment" index (I< ). (See Appendix G.)

On the basis of an analysis of pilot study data, the alternate

hypothesis (Hl-A') is supported. Both managers and ISD personnel

feel there is a relatively significant positive relationship between

management satisfaction and managerial pre-involvement in the MIS

development effort. However, pre-involvement and satisfaction are

somewhat more strongly related for managers than for ISD personnel.

The null hypothesis for the agreement between managers and

ISD personnel with regard to satisfaction is:

71

Hl-B: The manager's view about his level of satisfaction with an MIS is not related to the view of ISD personnel.


Hl-B': Managers and ISD personnel disagree about the manager's satisfaction with an MIS.

To evaluate this hypothesis, two sets of I will be used (one set

from management respondents and one from ISD personnel). The null

hypothesis for pre-involvement is:

Hl-C: The manager's view about his level of involvement in MIS development is not related to the view of ISD personnel.


Hl-B': Managers and ISD personnel disagree about the manager's satisfaction with an MIS.

The second research question for this study was:

Is there a relationship between the manager's level of satisfaction with a management information system and the level of involvement exhibited by the manager over the system after it has been implemented?

There is limited research evidence which indicates a positive rela

tionship between post-involvement and satisfaction as measured by

the manager's ability to make specific modifications to an existing

MIS. (35)

72

Since there is some evidence that post-involvement may be an

indicator of management satisfaction, its presence or absence in

the sample is important. This condition also could have an impact

on the communication between managers and the ISD. In addition, if

there is a disparity between managers and ISD personnel regarding

the adequacy of post-involvement, both managers and the ISD should

be made aware of the problem.

The null hypothesis, alternate hypothesis and the means of

evaluation for the second research question are stated below. The

null hypothesis is:

H2-A: There is no relationship between the manager's level of satisfaction with a management information system and his post-involvement with an existing system.


H2-A': There is a positive relationship between post-involvement and the manager's level of satisfaction with a system.

The entries on the questionnaire used to analyze this hypothesis

are represented by the "Management Satisfaction" index (I.) and

the "Management Influence Capability" index (I-). (See Appendix G.)

The pilot study data suggest that management's post-involvement

is somewhat related to management satisfaction. However, this rela

tion was positively correlated only for managers, while ISD personnel

demonstrated a negative correlation.

73

The null hypothesis for the agreement of managers and ISD per

sonnel with respect to post-involvement is: .

H2-B: The manager's view of their post-involvement with an MIS is not related to the view of ISD personnel.

The alternate hypothesis is

H2-B': Managers and ISD personnel disagree about the level of post-involvement of managers with an MIS.

The evaluation of this hypothesis is based on two sets of I_,

The third research question, on which no direct research-based

evidence exists, and the fourth research question, represent the

main focus of the study. The third research question is:

Is there a relationship between the effectiveness of management and Information Service Department personnel communication and the level of management satisfaction with an MIS?

The writer contends that the effectiveness of communication between

managers and ISD personnel may be as much a determinant of manage

ment satisfaction as a high level of pre- or post-involvement. Thus,

communication may be a more essential concern than either pre- or

post-involvement. There is a definite need for the opinions of

both managers and ISD personnel, since they are the major participants

in the development of systems. To get a clear picture of the com

munication pattern, both senders and receivers need to be studied.

74

The null hypothesis, alternate hypothesis and basis for measure

ment of the third research question are stated below. The null hypo

thesis is:

H3-A: There is no relationship between a manager's level of satisfaction with a management information system and the perceived effectiveness of his communication with ISD personnel.


H3-A': There is a positive relationship between the perceived effectiveness of communication between managers and ISD personnel and the manager's level of satisfaction.

This hypothesis is evaluated through the "Management Satisfaction"

index (I^) and the "Communication Success" index (I,). (See

Appendix G.)

Analysis of pilot study data produced some interesting findings,

The responses by managers indicated a slight relationship between

management satisfaction and successful communication, but ISD

personnel perceived satisfaction and communication success as being

very highly related. This could represent a possible split between

managers and ISD personnel with regard to the third hypothesis.

The agreement between the manager and ISD personnel on the

relationship between communication success and satisfaction could

suggest a number of important conclusions. For example, if the

manager feels a good relationship exists, and this is not the view

75

of the ISD personnel, the effort expended toward effective communi

cation by the ISD could well improve the manager's level of satis

faction. The null hypothesis for this agreement is:

H3-B: The manager's view of his communication success is not related to the view of ISD personnel.


H3-B': Managers and ISD personnel disagree about the effectiveness of their communication.

This hypothesis is evaluated on the basis of two sets of I,.

As indicated above, management respondents in the pilot study

indicated a slight relationship between the level of management

satisfaction and their perceived communication success. ISD personnel

produced a much stronger interaction between management satisfaction

and successful communication. This difference suggests the possibility

of disagreement between managers and ISD personnel in this area.

If there is a relationship between communication success and

satisfaction, knowing the factors which contribute to communication

success is desirable. The fourth research question investigates

those factors related to communication success between managers and

ISD personnel. No hypotheses are stated for this portion of the

study. Instead, models of perceived communication success were

developed. The models will be examined on an exploratory basis;

thus, the investigation is designed to identify those variables

which appear to contribute to communication success.

76

Statistical Analysis of Data

The statistical techniques which are generally employed and

considered acceptable in research activities can be grouped accord

ing to the dichotomy of parametric or non-parametric statistical

methods. Non-parametric techniques were selected for use in the

study because of the difficulty in meeting all the underlying assump

tions of parametric methods. (The reader who is unfamiliar with

these techniques is referred to Bradley, Haynes, Mills, Spence et al.,

or Cochran for a comparison of parametric and non-parametric

techniques.) (2; 10; 22; 32; 49)

As the reader will recall from the previous section, measure

ments used to evaluate hypotheses are in two forms. The first form

represents the use of measurements directly from the questionnaire

(for example, questions 1, 3, and 4). The questions yield categor

ized data, and this should be taken into account in the selection of

an appropriate technique for statistically evaluating the hypotheses.

The second form of measurement is represented as indexes. (See

Appendix G.) These indexes were created through the combination

of several questions from the measurement instrument (and appropriate

weighting as indicated by the factor analysis of the pilot study ques

tionnaires). The results of these "profiles" is translated into

rank-ordered data. Thus, the fact that "ranked" data will be used in

the evaluation of the hypotheses is another important consideration

in the selection of appropriate statistical tools.

77

On the basis of the above observations, three non-parametric

techniques were selected to analyze the data. The three techniques

are the chi square test, the Mann-Whitney "U" test, and Spearman's

coefficient of rank correlation. The chi-square test is employed

in the analysis of all hypotheses. The Mann-Whitney "U" test is

used in the analysis of the communication success models. Spearman's

correlation coefficients are computed in conjunction with each use

of chi square and the Mann-Whitney statistic.

For the chi square test, a 2 X 2 table was constructed to test

the significance of the relationship between two indexes. An example

of how the test was applied is given below in terms of the first

hypothesis (Hl-A). In this hypothesis, the purpose of the statistical

test is to determine whether or not a significant relationship exists

between the manager's level of pre-involvement and his level of satis

faction with a management information system. Thus, a 2 X 2 table

could be represented as:

Management

Pre-involvement

(from index I)

Involved

Unin-

volved

Management Satisfaction (from index I,)

Satisfied

Involved

and

Satisfied

Uninvolved

and

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Involved

and

Dissatisfied

Uninvolved

and

Dissatisfied

78

On the basis of this design, each possible index would have to be

divided into "positive" and "negative" categories. This division

process was performed for each index used in the study. For each

index (in Appendix G), the maximum and minimum values were computed.

This range was divided by two to determine the mid-point. For all

indexes, the positive measure is from the maximum value to the mid

point; the negative values are from the mid-point to the minimum

value. (See Appendix H.)

The Mann-Whitney "U" test is used in the analysis of the communi

cation success models. The Mann-I Hiitney test is used to determine,

from ranked data, whether two samples come from the same parent

population. Ths U statistic computed in the Mann-Whitney procedure

is translated into a standard "z" score (since the statistic is

approximately normally distributed with a sample size over 20) for

determining the significance of the U statistic. The basic analysis

will be to compare the data of the "composite" company from the

pilot study with each of the three companies in the post study.

This approach determines the presence or absence of agreement between

the characteristics of the models and the characteristics of each of

the three companies in the post study.

As an illustration of how the data are analyzed by the Mann-

Whitney procedure, the pilot study "respondent level" data are com

pared with the "respondent level" data of the participants from

Company A. This arrangement of data is demonstrated below.

79

Composite Company Company A

(Pilot Study) (Post Study)

Respondent Respondent Level Rank Level Rank

The U statistic and the z score are also computed for Company B and

C. Furthermore, all factors presented in the communication success

models are tested using the same procedure.

After it was determined if each company in the post study came

from the same parent population as the pilot study (i.e., if there

is an agreement between the models and the actual companies), the

data in the post study were divided into "successful" and "unsuccess

ful" categories (as was done with the pilot study data). This

allows an analysis of the communication success "promoters" as

presented in the models. That is, is there an agreement between

pilot study and post study companies with regard to those communi

cation factors which tend to be associated with communication suc

cess? The procedure for the computation of the U statistic and the

z score was repeated for the successful communicators as described

above.

The final statistical technique applied in the study is the

calculation of the Spearman correlation coefficient. The coefficient

is computed for each h3rpothesis and for each application of the Mann-

Whitney test. The sole purpose for the computation of the correlation

coefficient is to determine the direction of association for the

80

variable (or index) under consideration. Thus, for the hypotheses,

the correlation coefficient was used to determine whether the alter

native hypothesis (as stated) is supported, or perhaps an alternative

hypothesis which was not stated.

The level of significance used for acceptance/rejection of

the null hypotheses is the .05 level. If the null hypothesis was

initially rejected, the level of significance at which it would be

accepted is stated. If, on the other hand, the null hypothesis

was initially accepted, the level of significance necessary to

reject the null hypothesis is stated. This is done to establish

an acceptance/rejection "region" for each of the hypotheses. The

same approach was also used for testing communication factors in

the models. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the correla

tion coefficients were used only to determine the direction of

association between two variables and were not the basis for deter

mining the acceptance or rejection of hypotheses or communication

factors.

Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of the methodology used

in the study. The study is divided into two phases—the pilot study

and the post study. The discussion of the pilot study provided a

description of the study itself and the construction of the perceived

communication success models for managers and ISD personnel. The

description of the pilot study included references to creating the

81

questionnaire, characteristics of the sample, and pretesting the

questionnaire. The pilot study data were then used in the construc

tion of the communication success models. The discussion of the

models included the type of analysis used and the separate deriva

tions of management and ISD models.

The second phase of the study is the post study. The chapter

discusses the creation of the post-study questionnaire, character

istics of the sample, statement of hypotheses and the selection of

analysis techniques. The results of this analysis are presented

in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

This chapter contains the analysis and interpretation of

data generated by the testing of hypotheses that examine relation

ships among management satisfaction, managerial pre-implementation

involvement (pre-involvement), post-operation involvement (post-

involvement) and communication success. Following some brief

comments about the post study sample, this chapter provides

the results of these tests for both the management and ISD groups

of each company, the tests of the variables comprising the per

ceived management communication success model, a similar analysis

of the ISD-perceived communication success model, and a comparison

of management and ISD data (e.g., each of the variables tested in

the first section—satisfaction, pre-involvement, post-involvement

and communication success—plus all variables found jointly in the

management- and ISD-perceived communication success models were

compared to uncover divergent views between managers and ISD

personnel).

The Post Study Sample

It should be reiterated that this is a case study. Three com

panies were selected for participation on the basis of certain pre

requisites outlined in Chapter II.

82

83

Each company received questionnaires for both management

and ISD personnel. Company A received 100 management questionnaires

and 25 ISD questionnaires. Of these, 65 (65 percent) of the manage

ment questionnaires were returned and 23 (92 percent) of the ISD

questionnaires were returned. Company B management returned 12 of

25 questionnaires (48 percent) and ISD personnel returned 13 of 25

questionnaires (52 percent). In Company C, 50 managers and 25 ISD

personnel received questionnaires. Management personnel returned

three questionnaires (6 percent), while ISD personnel returned 15

of 25 questionnaires (60 percent).

Because of the low return rate for Company C management, this

group was eliminated from the study. ISD data from Company C were

retained for testing hypotheses regarding satisfaction, pre-involve

ment, post-involvement and communication success and for testing

the variables of the ISD-perceived communication success model. With

the elimination of the management respondents of Company C, the

overall management response rate was 61.6 percent (78 of 125 ques

tionnaires returned). The overall ISD response rate was 68 percent

(51 of 75 questionnaires returned).

Analysis of Hypotheses

In Chapter III, hypotheses were stated in terms of the relation

ship between management satisfaction and pre-involvement, post-

involvement, and communication success. This section presents the

results of chi square tests used in the analysis of these hypotheses,

(See Appendix I.)

84

The first null hypothesis (Hl-A) was stated as:

There is no relationship between the manager's level of satisfaction with a management information system and the manager's level of pre-involvement in the development of the system.

The analysis of Company A management data suggests that satisfaction

and pre-implementation involvement are positively related, but this

relationship is not statistically significant ( «< = .135). In Com

pany B, even less of a relationship between satisfaction and pre-

involvement was demonstrated. Thus, for the management of these

two companies, the null hypothesis is supported. There was no statis

tically significant relationship between management satisfaction with

an MIS and pre-implementation involvement with the system.

The second hypothesis (H2-A) expressed a relationship between

management satisfaction and post-operation involvement. The null

hypothesis was:

There is no relationship between the manager's level of satisfaction with a management information system and his post-involvement with an existing system.

The analysis of management data from Company A does not reject the

null hypothesis. A similar, but less significant, pattern is

demonstrated by Company B. Thus, the null hypothesis is confirmed

by the management group of both companies.

These findings are contrary to the majority of evidence pre

sented in Chapter II. Powers, Gallagher, Carter and Swanson

85

supported the relationship between satisfaction and pre-involvement.

(94; 58; 92; 46; 83) In addition, while Adams argues that satisfac

tion and pre-involvement are not related, he does indicate the pre

sence of a satisfaction/post-involvement relationship. (36) Thus,

the findings presented above tend to be in agreement only with

Guthrie. (60: 93) Because the research of Guthrie was a case study

(all others represented aggregate analysis), it may be that the

significance of relationships between satisfaction, pre-involvement,

and post-involvement are composite relationships and are not neces

sarily significant for the individual organization.

The final hypothesis provides for an examination of the rela

tionship between management satisfaction and perceived communication

success. This null hypothesis states:

There is no relationship between a manager's level of satisfaction with a management information system and the perceived effectiveness of his communication with ISD personnel.

The analysis of management data of both Company A and Company B

indicates that the null hypothesis is supported. Thus, the pilot

study suggestion of a possible relationship between satisfaction

and communication success was not confirmed by either participating

post study company. Pettit's suggestion that the communication

environment in one organization might bear only slight resemblance

to that in another organization seems a reasonable statement

considering the data provided by Companies A and B. (75)

86

While not stated in terms of hypotheses in Chapter III, some

relationships were found among pre-involvement, post-involvement,

and communication success. In the first test, the relationship

between pre-involvement and post-involvement was examined. Company

B data revealed no relationship. However, the management respon

dents from Company A expressed an extremely intense relationship

(c< = .006). That is, the Company A managers who were highly

involved in the development of an MIS up to the point of implemen

tation were the same managers involved in the continued operation

and maintenance of the system. Managers who demonstrated less

pre-involvement indicated less post-involvement.

The second test examined the relationship between pre-involve

ment and communication success. The same pattern was present for

this test as was demonstrated for the previous examination. For

Company B, although the variables were highly correlated, the rela

tionship as indicated by the chi square test was not significant,

but for Company A a strong, significant relationship was found

(o< = .006). For the management personnel of Company A, those

managers who were more highly involved during the development of an

MIS also perceived their communication to be successful. Less invol

ved managers perceived their communication to be less successful.

The final test examined the relationship between post-involve

ment and communication success. As before, the management of Company

A indicated a significant relationship between the two variables

(^ = .030), while for Company B no relationship was indicated.

87

Thus, the managers of Company A indicated that the higher their level

of involvement with an MIS during operation and maintenance, the more

successful they perceived their communication with ISD personnel to

be. Low level post-involvement was associated with less successful

communicat ion.

In summary, the management personnel of the two participating

companies present different images. In Company A, with a separate

ISD staff function, management personnel appeared to have more

successful communication with respect to both involvement factors.

In Company B, the ISD personnel were members of line-oriented depart

ments, but the "closeness" to the situation of ISD personnel did not

appear to improve the communication between managers and ISD personnel

(as viewed by the managers). Finally, the management satisfaction

variable was not statistically related to either dimension of involve

ment or communication success. Thus, it appears that the interrela

tionships between management satisfaction, pre-involvement, post-

involvement, and communication success are highly situation-dependent.

The previously stated hypotheses were also examined for ISD

personnel. For ISD personnel, data from all three participating

companies were used. In testing the null hypothesis regarding the

relationship between management satisfaction and pre-involvement, all

three companies responded with a similar pattern. The data from

Company A, Company B, and Company C support the null hypothesis.

Thus, ISD personnel perceived no statistically significant relation

ship between the manager's satisfaction with an MIS and the involvement

of management during the development of such a system.

88

The second hypothesis examined the relationship between manage

ment satisfaction and post-involvement. Following the same pattern

as demonstrated for the first test, the second null hypothesis was

supported. ISD personnel of all three companies felt that there

was no relationship between the manager's level of satisfaction with

an MIS and the level of involvement of management personnel during

the operation and maintenance phase of the project.

The third hypothesis stated a relationship between management

satisfacion and communication success. All companies were in agree

ment that there was no significant relationship between the manager's

satisfaction with an MIS and ISD personnel's perceived communication

success during the development and operation of the system.

The interrelationships between pre-involvement, post-involvement,

and communication success which were analyzed for management respon

dents were also examined for ISD personnel. In testing the relation

ship between pre-involvement and post-involvement, ISD personnel of

all three companies indicated that there was no relationship between

the manager's level of involvement during the development of a system

and the manager's involvement after the system was implemented.

The second interrelationship examined tested the interaction

between pre-involvement and communication success. This relationship

was not statistically significant for any of the three firms. No

relationship between the manager's involvement during the development

of an MIS and the perceived communication success of ISD personnel

was found.

89

The final test examined the interrelationship between post-

involvement and communication success. None of the ISD personnel

of the three firms indicated a significant relationship between

the manager's level of involvement with an MIS during the post-

implementation phase and the perceived communication success

during system development.

In summary, ISD personnel of all three firms indicated the

lack of any significant relationship among management satisfaction,

pre-involvement, post-involvement, and communication success.

Analysis of the Management Communication Success Model

In this section, the perceived communication success model is

examined on the basis of post study data from the participating

companies. Recall that management data from only Company A and

Company B were available. Thus, only two cases are presented in

the analysis of the management communication success model. In

Chapter III, the pilot study data were divided into two groups. The

first group was referred to as the less successful communicator

group and the second group was labeled the successful communicator

group. The less successful communicator group was composed of all

respondents, while the successful communicator group was represented

by only those respondents indicating the top two response categories

to the communication success question. The same pattern was also

used in the analysis of the model with respect to the participating

90

post study companies. Also recall that the Mann-Whitney U test is

used for tests of significance. (See Appendix J.)

The sender component of the management model was composed of

variables representing the level (position), status, length of

employment, time in position, and education level of the manager.

The model also included variables representing the type and initia

tion of contact, media preference, exceeding authority limits, and

understanding of the ISD's position.

The level of the manager was presented as a detractor in com

munication success. That is, if the manager held a low level

position within the company, he felt his communication was less

successful. This was confirmed to exist in both Company A (-i = .018)

and Company B (•-< = .020). The findings indicate that the higher

one's position in an organization, the more accurate his communica

tion. (17) The complement of this is supported by the post study.

It was found that a low level position was related to poor perceived

communication success.

The second variable of the sender component was the organiza

tional status of the sender. This variable had a negative impact

on communication success in the model. This relationship was con

firmed to exist for Company A (< = .001), but was not significant

for Company B. Thus, Company A indicated that low organizational

status detracts from communication success. In addition, a rela

tionship between high status and communication success was found

to exist for Company A (>=< = .020); however, the direction of

91

this association was unclear due to a low correlation coefficient.

Thus, if the manager views his position as having low status

significance, his perceived communication success rate is likely

to be poor.

The length of emplo3mient was presented in the model as a

variable which promotes communication success. This was not con

firmed by the successful group of either company, but the reverse

relationship was supported for the less successful group of Company

A (" = .004). The respondents of Company A indicated that a short

employment period was detrimental to communication success.

Direct involvement in the communication by the manager (as

opposed to having others perform the communication) was not supported

by the successful group of either company. However, the less suc

cessful group of Company B indicated a relationship between direct

contact and communication success («K = .010), but again the corre

lation coefficient was low. The model also indicated that sender-

initiated communication was more successful. The successful

groups of both companies indicated no relationship; however, the

less successful group of Company B indicated that communication

initiated by ISD personnel was associated with less successful

communication (- = .020). This result is similar to the success

rate of user-initiated projects presented by Alter. (39)

The next two sender variables dealt with a preference for

types of communication media. Managers indicated no significant

preference for the written or oral media, despite the earlier

92

findings of Baker, Burns, Conrath, Davis, Level, and Woodward.

(8; 75; 50; 52; 65; 34)

The final variable in the sender component indicated that a

lack of understanding of the ISD by managers was related to less

successful communication. The less successful groups of both

companies failed to support this relationship. However, the test

was significant for the successful group of Company B (' = .050),

indicating for this firm that greater understanding of the ISD

promoted more successful communication.

In summary, different results were obtained from the two

companies. For Company A, communication was less successful when

the manager held a low level position, had low status, or was

employed for only a short time. For Company B, communication was

less successful where the manager held a low position, was not

directly involved in the communication, or did not initiate the

contact. Thus, with the exception of the role played by status,

no variable in the sender component of the model was sustained by

the post study analysis.

The second component of the communication success model was the

message component. The messages were classified in this subsystem

according to basic content; i.e., feasibility, implementation, and

modification and maintenance. The model suggested that when fewer

messages of these types were transmitted, more successful communi

cation resulted. For the more successful group of managers from

Company A, the number of messages at all levels regarding feasibility

93

were found to be significantly related to communication success

(highest «t value = .020). However, the correlation coefficients

for all three feasibility categories were negative. The relation

ship for the less successful group was even more pronounced (highest

•X value = .0004) and negatively correlated. This means that for

Company A, managers associate higher levels of feasibility message

transmission with more successful communication. For Company B,

none of the levels of feasibility message transmission were found

to be significant.

The second type of message dealt with system implementation.

The only significant U statistic produced was for the minimum level

of implementation messages for Company A (^ = .050). Again, a

negative correlation coefficient suggests that more implementation

messages were related to communication success. For Company B,

none of the U statistics produced a significant result.

The last category dealt with modification and maintenance

messages. Company A demonstrated the strongest set of relation

ships. At the average and maximum levels of message transmission.

Company A indicated a relationship between the number of messages

and communication success (in both cases^^ = .050); and the corre

lation coefficients were negative. Thus, the more messages trans

mitted the greater the communication success. For Company B, no

relationship was suggested.

Although not included in the model, one of the most interesting

relationships between numbers of messages and communication success

94

came from an examination of analysis and design-oriented messages.

For the less successful groups of both companies, U statistics were

found to be significant. For Company A, significance was found at

the minimum and average levels. For Company B, the statistic was

significant at all three levels. However, it is important to note

that the correlation coefficients for Company A were negative, while

positive for Company B.

Overall, Company A indicated the strongest set of relation

ships between the number of messages transmitted and perceived

communication success. The type of message (i.e. feasibility,

implementation, or maintenance and modification) did not appear to

have any particular impact on significance for the two companies.

However, the individuality of companies was again demonstrated

when Company B showed no significance between communication success

^nd any type of message transmission.

The next model component was the channel. The first variable

suggested that the use of written media to transmit messages detrac

ted from communication success. The relationship was found to be

significant for Company B's successful group (*= = .050), which

indicated that more successful communication was negatively related

to the use of written communication. Thus, the findings of Baker

and Woodward seem to be confirmed for Company B. (8; 34) The channel

component also indicated that the use of less formal written com

munication was related to communication success. This variable was

significant for the less successful group of Company A ( = .05).

95

For Company A, more formal standard forms and reports detracted

from communication success. Thus, formalized documents were found

to be related to poor communication in Company A, and the use of

written media was negatively related to successful communication

in Company B.

The fourth component of the communication success model was

the filter. The model suggested that both successful and less suc

cessful groups felt the need for clarification of written messages.

The successful group in the model felt that the need for written

clarification was inversely related to communication success. The

model was supported on this point by only Company B ('A = .05).

However, the less successful group of Company A (- = .027), and

Company B ("^ = .010) suggested that the greater the need for clari

fication of written messages, the less successful the communication.

Frustration was presented in the filter component as having

an impact on communication success. The less successful group repre

sented by the model indicated that frustration was associated with

less successful communication. This was supported by Company B

(« = .01), but failed to be supported by Company A.

The filter component also included an indication of relative

status between managers and ISD personnel. The relationship indicated

in the model was that if managers perceived ISD personnel as having

greater status, communication suffered. The less successful group

of Company A (' = .001) and Company B (- = .010) supported this

relationship. This seems to confirm Guetzkow's findings that the

96

larger the status differential, the more distorted the content of

messages. (8) This seems to be especially true when managers per

ceive ISD personnel as having greater status.

The final variable of the filter component was the cost of con

tact with ISD personnel. The less successful group of the model

indicated that high cost was related to less successful communica

tion. This relationship was supported by only Company B («-<' = .02).

For Company A, the need for clarification of written messages

and the relative status of the parties had an impact on communica

tion success. For Company B, frustration and the cost of contact

were added to the list. Thus, both "psychological" and "real"

costs seem to play a part in promoting poor communication. Fur

thermore, there was more agreement between the two companies on the

variables of the filter component than any other component. Despite

this agreement, there remained a lack of agreement between the

two companies on the frustration and cost variables.

The fifth component of the communication success model was the

receiver. Although relationships were presented for both groups

in the model, none of the groups from either post-study company sug

gested the presence of a relationship on any variable.

The final component of the communication success model was

feedback. Feedback was stated in terms of two variables—the

manager's getting the information he wanted and ISD's ability to

provide the information requested by management. Both were pre

sented in the model as having a negative impact on communication.

97

In the post study. Company B (- = .050) supported the model in

that the more often the manager failed to receive wanted informa

tion, the less successful his communication. The relationship

between communication success and the inability of the ISD to

provide wanted information was also supported by the successful

group of Company B (-< = .020). This group indicated an extremely

strong relationship between communication success and the perfor

mance of the ISD in providing requested information. Neither var

iable was supported by Company A.

A summary of the results obtained in the analysis of the

preceived communication success model for management is presented

in Table 3. For Company A, low level positions, low status, short

periods of employment (sender component), few feasibility-oriented

messages (message component), the need for written clarification

and ISD's having greater relative status (filter component) were

associated with a lack of communication success. Greater numbers

of messages dealing with feasibility, implementation, modification

(message component), and the use of letters or notes (channel com

ponent) were found to be associated with communication success for

Company A. For Company B, low level positions, lack of direct

involvement, not initiating contact (sender component), need for

written clarification, frustration, ISD's having greater status,

cost (filter component) and not receiving wanted information (feed

back component) were associated with a lack of communication success.

Only an understanding of the ISD's function (sender component), use

98

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES IN THE MANAGEMENT PERCEIVED COMMUNICATION

SUCCESS MODEL

Company A

Sender

Company B

*Level -Status -Length of Employment

*Level -Lack of direct involvement -

Did not initiate contact -

Understands ISD +

Message

All feasibility (-1- -) Minimxim implementation -f-Average and Maximum Modification and maintenance +

(None)

Channel

Use of less formal forms 4- Use of written media +

Filter

^Written clarification -*Relative status -

*Written clarification -

Frustration -^Relative status Cost -

(None)

Receiver

Feedback

(None)

(None) Did not receive information -

ISD could provide -I-

* Variables found to be significant for both participating companies,

99

of the written media (channel component), and the ISD's providing

of wanted information (feedback component) were associated with

communication success for Company B.

Of the variables studied, only three were found to be sup

ported by both companies. In the sender component, both Companies

A and B indicated that low level positions were associated with a

lack of communication success. In the filter component, the need

for written clarification and ISD's having greater perceived status

than managers were associated with poor communication. With only

three of 51 variables supported by the participating companies,

the model of perceived communication success for the manager was

not confirmed by this study.

Analysis of the ISD Communication Success Model

This section is dedicated to the analysis of the ISD per

ceived communication success model. Analysis of data from all three

participating companies is presented. (See Appendix K.)

ISD personnel surveyed in the pilot study indicated that high

status was associated with communication success for the successful

group. The relationship was significant for the less successful

group of Company A («K = .001). On the basis of the correlation

coefficient, the interpretation is that greater organizational

status is related to less successful communication. I'Jhen comparing

this result to the management model, recall that poor communication

was attributed to high relative status of ISD personnel (filter

100

component). The model also indicated that the successful group

felt a relationship existed between the length of time a person

held his position and communication success. Only Company A

(-<: = .050) supported the relationship; i.e. longer time spans in

a position were related to better communication.

The next variable of the sender component, the length of time

in a position, demonstrated a weak relationship to communication

success. This relationship was supported by the successful group

of Company A (c = .050). For Company A, the longer ISD personnel

held a position the greater was their communication success.

The education level variable of the model indicated the

tendency to detract from communication success. Only Company C

(o*' = .050) indicated a significant relationship between the two

variables. For this company, a low education level was related to

less successful communication. That is, the less ISD personnel

know about management, the less successful their communication.

In the sender component, there was no agreement among the

three companies regarding those variables which contribute to or

detract from communication success. No variables were found to be

statistically significant for Company B. Three variables were sig

nificant for Company A—status, length of employment and length

of time in a position. Only education level was found to be signifi

cant for Company C. Thus, the individuality of companies is dem

onstrated in this analysis of sender component variables for ISD

personnel.

101

The channel component of the ISD model included variables

related to the type of media used and the width of the channel. The

first variable indicated that both successful and less successful

groups in the pilot study felt a relationship existed between the

use of oral media and communication success. Both the successful

group (-< = .020) and the less successful group {-^ = .020) of

Company B supported this relationship. That is, the use of oral

media was associated with communication success for the successful

group. Written media tended to be related to a lack of communica

tion success by the less successful group. Further, recall that

the management group of Company B indicated that the use of the

written media was associated with communication success.

The next variable in the channel component was based on the

type of written media used. In the model, the use of letters and

no>tes (less formalized written communication) was related to success

ful coimnunication, while the use of standardized forms was associated

with less successful communication. The successful group (Companies

A and B) indicated the presence of such a relationship. For Company

A (°< = .050), the indication was an association between the use

of letters and notes and communication success ( the same associa

tion found for Company A's management). However, for Company B

(c = .050), the use of standard reports was related to successful

communication.

In summary, none of the channel variables was found to be

related to communication success for Company C. For Company A,

102

only the use of non-standard reports (letters or notes) was found

to be significant. Company B indicated that more successful communi

cation was related to the use of standard forms. However, they

further suggested that oral communication was more successful than

written communication. The filter component of the ISD model

contained variables related to the clarity of messages and to

"screening" messages through frustration, time usage, cost, and

other communication participants. None of these variables was

found to be statistically related to communication success.

The first variable of the receiver component suggested that if

ISD personnel perceived the manager as having a low level position,

communication was negatively affected. This relationship was

supported by Company A («: = .019), The status variable in the

model suggested that high status of the receiver had a positive

influence on communication success. Low status was only slightly

associated with a lack of communication success. Only the less

successful group (Company A) supported this relationship (=•< = ,009).

For the receiver component, no variables were found to be

significantly related to communication success for Companies B and

C. In Company A, when ISD personnel perceived managers as having

either a low level position or low status, communication was

adversely affected.

The final component of the ISD model was feedback. The variables

presented in the feedback component of the model were not found to be

statistically related to communication success in the post study.

103

To recapitulate the findings with regard to the perceived

communication success model for ISD personnel, no single variable

was supported by more than a single firm in any model component.

A summary of the results is presented in Table 4. In Company A,

the length of employment, the length of time in a position (sender

component), and the use of non-standard forms and reports were

associated with communication success. High status of ISD per

sonnel (sender component), low level position and status of the

manager (receiver component) were related to less successful commu

nication. Company B indicated that use of oral media and standard

forms of written media were related to communication success, while

use of written media per se was associated with less success (channel

component). Only one variable was found to be significant for Company

C—education level. ISD personnel indicated that a lack of knowledge

about management (sender component) was associated with less

successful communication.

On the basis of the foregoing discussion, it is not possible to

confirm the communication success model for ISD personnel. Further

more, without a single variable which was agreed upon by all partici

pating companies, the likelihood of constructing a revised model

seems remote.

Comparison of Management and ISD Responses

The final portion of the analysis presented in this chapter

deals with a comparison of the responses given by management and

104

TABLE 4: SUMllARY OF SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES IN THE ISD PERCEIVED COMMUNICATION SUCCESS MODEL

COMPANY A

High status -Long time employed + Long time in position -f

(None)

COMPANY B

Sender

(None)

Message

(None)

COMPANY C

Education -

(None)

Letters or notes -f-

Channel

Oral + Written -

Standard forms +

(None)

(None)

Low level -Low status -

(None)

Filter

(None)

Receiver

(None)

Feedback

(None)

(None)

(None)

(None)

105

ISD personnel. This analysis was made to determine (for the respond

ing companies) those areas which represent a "common ground" between

management and ISD personnel. In addition, this analysis is useful

in isolating those areas where management and ISD personnel hold

divergent points of view.

The analysis is presented in two parts. First, the hypotheses

in Chapter III were stated in terms of "part A" and "part B." The

presentation of hypotheses earlier in this chapter dealt only with

"part A." One portion of this section is dedicated to an analysis

of "part B"—those hypotheses which were stated in terms of a

relationship between the beliefs of management and those of ISD

personnel. The second part presents a comparison of those variables

which are presented jointly in the perceived communication success

model for management and the perceived communication success model

for ISD personnel. The analysis required a group of respondents

from both management and the ISD. Only Company A and Company B are

presented in this analysis. (The management group from Company C

was eliminated as previously noted.) The chi square test was used

to analyze the hypotheses, while the Mann-Whitney U test was used

for the comparison of variables in the models. (See Appendix L.)

The first hypothesis utilizing both management and ISD data

indicated a lack of agreement about management satisfaction. While

no relationship was found for Company A, the combined responses of

Company B indicated a disagreement about management satisfaction

(o< = .028). On the basis of the correlation coefficient for

106

Company B (r = -.519), ISD personnel perceived management as being

more satisfied than the managers themselves indicated. These

perceptual differences between management and ISD on the satisfac

tion variable could be highly detrimental to the future success of

their interaction. The pre-involvement variable did not indicate

a statistically significant relationship for either company.

The post-involvement variable was significant for both

Company A (-< = ,002) and Company B (o< = .018). Thus, the managers

and ISD personnel of both companies disagree about management's

level of involvement during the maintenance and modification phase.

However, the correlation coefficients failed to identify which

party felt management was more highly involved in this phase.

The final variable was communication success. The variable

was significant for both Company A (=^ = ,009) and Company B

(M = .036). The management and ISD personnel of both companies

disagreed about the success of their communication. On the basis

of correlation coefficients, ISD personnel of Company A perceived

their communication to be more successful than did management

(r = -.568), However, the reverse relationship was indicated for

Company B (r = .520)

For Company A, managers and ISD personnel disagreed about two

of the four variables—post-involvement and communication success.

Company B personnel disagreed about three of the four variables—

management satisfaction, post-involvement, and communication success

The discussion which follows considers the agreement of management

107

and ISD personnel on the variables included in both perceived

communication success models.

The sender component of the models contained references to

status, length of employment, length of time in a position, educa

tion level, initiation of contact, preference for type of (oral/

written) contact and understanding other's position variables. In

addition, the "level or position" question was included on the ISD

questionnaire for comparison purposes.

In comparing the organizational status variable, neither

Company A nor Company B indicated an agreement between managers and

ISD personnel. There was also a lack of agreement on the length of

employment variable. The third common variable was the length of time

an individual held his position. Company A (^ = .010) indicated the

response patterns were the same. Thus, for Company A both managers

and ISD personnel tended to hold a position about the same length of

time. The education variable presented no pattern for either company.

The lack of a pattern resulting from examination of the educa

tion variable was repeated for the initiation-of-contact variable.

The next variable shared by both models was the preference for

oral rather than written communication. The managers of Company A

responded the same as ISD personnel (•^<.001).

The final variable shared by the sender component of both models

was understanding the other's department. The respondents from

Company A (°< = .016) demonstrated the same response pattern.

Although the position variable was not present in the sender

108

component of the ISD model, it was present on the ISD questionnaire.

Company A («=< <.001) produced the same type of responses for both

managers and ISD personnel.

The message component of both the management and ISD models

contained the number of feasibility, analysis and design, implemen

tation and modification and maintenance message variables. For

Company A (= = .003) the responses for the minimum number of feasi

bility messages were the same for management and ISD personnel.

Although not present in either model, the level of analysis and

design-oriented messages was included on both questionnaires. The

analysis indicated the same pattern of responses for the maximum

level of message transmission for Company A ( = . 002). The

number of implementation messages at the minimum and average levels

for Company A (•=< = .008 and .006, respectively) produced the

same response patterns for managers and ISD personnel. The last

type of messages present in both models was modification and main

tenance messages. Neither company produced a significant pattern

of message transmission at any level.

The channel component of both models shared two variables—

the type of media (oral or written) most often used and the use

of letters and notes when the written media was used. No pattern

was produced for either of these variables by either company.

The next component of the models was the filter. The variables

shared by the filter component of both models were the need for

clarification of written messages, the level of frustration.

109

contact with the data administrator and the cost of contact with

the other party. The same pattern was produced by Company A

{o< less than .001) on the need for written clarification variable.

The response by managers and ISD personnel of Company A on the

frustration variable {<^ < .001) indicated the same pattern.

The variable representing the data administrator contact was

the first to be supported by both companies. For Company A (-< = .105)

the pattern was stronger than for Company B (c = .050). While

the same pattern was suggested by the U statistic of both companies,

the correlation coefficients suggested that the ISD personnel had

greater contact with the data administrator in Company A, while

managers had the more active communication in Company B.

The fifth component of the communication success models was

the receiver. The shared variables of this component included the

level and status of the receiver, receiver approachability and

accessibility, the receiver's overstepping his authority, the

receiver's understanding of the sender's position, and the avail

ability of the receiver. Analysis of the position of the receiver

variable resulted in the same pattern of responses for Company A

(c = .038). The management respondents seemed to have rated the

position of the ISD personnel higher for Company A than did the ISD

for management. The next significant variable was the approachability

of the contact. For Company A (c^ = .023), the indication was that

the response pattern for managers and ISD personnel were the same.

110

The final significant variable was the demands on the time

availability of the contact. Both Company A (=^ = .002) and Company

B (°< = .050) indicated similar responses by management and ISD

personnel.

The final component of the models was feedback. Two variables—

getting wanted information and contact providing requested informa

tion—were present in the models. Both managers and ISD personnel

of Company A (cX = .008) presented a similar pattern with respect

to getting wanted information. The final variable presented in the

model was the ability of the contact to provide wanted information.

The response pattern for managers and ISD personnel for Company A

(<»< < .001) was the same.

The results presented in this section have been summarized in

Table 5. There are 26 variables represented in this illustration

on which comparisons were made. Of these variables, the combined

management and ISD personnel of Company A agreed on 14 of the vari

ables (53,8 percent agreement). Thus, on the basis of these two

companies, there was greater agreement between managers and ISD

personnel in Company A than in Company B.

Recall from the first section of this chapter that only the

managers of Company A indicated the presence of a relationship

among pre-involvement, post-involvement, and communication success.

It is unclear from this analysis whether or not the agreement

between managers and ISD personnel of Company A was associated with

this interrelationship. Furthermore, it is unknown whether or not

Ill

TABLE 5: A SUl MARY OF THE SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES IN MANAGEMENT AND ISD PERCEIVED COMMUNICATION SUCCESS MODELS

COMPANY A

Mgt higher status Mgt employed longer Same No pattern No pattern Same Same Same

Same Same No pattern ISD transmits more

MODEL COMPONENT

Sender status

length of employment time in position

education initiation of contact

oral/written preference understanding other's dept.

COMPANY B

Mgt higher status ISD employed longer

No No No No No

position/level

Message feasibility

implementation modification/maintenance

analysis/design

pattern pattern pattern pattern pattern

ISD held higher position

No pattern No pattern No pattern No pattern

No pattern No pattern

Channel oral/written media

use of letters or notes No pattern No pattern

Same

Same Same Mgr's felt contact more costly

Filter clarification of written Mgr's sought more

messages frustration Mgr's more frustrated

data administration contact Same cost No pattern

Same Mgr greater status Same ISD oversteps Same

Receiver position of receiver

status approachable

receiver oversteps authority receiver available

No pattern Mgr greater status

No pattern ISD oversteps

Same

Same Same

Feedback get wanted information contact provided wanted

information

No pattern No pattern

112

the level of agreement between the respondent groups of Company A

is sufficiently strong or in the appropriate areas to suggest a

common basis for communication between the groups in that company.

However, the presence of this relationship could be established

through further study.

Summary

The chapter has presented the results of the study. None of

the null hypotheses for the relationships between management satis

faction and pre-involvement, post-involvement, and communication

success were rejected by any group of the participating post-

study companies. However, management respondents of Company A

indicated a positive relationship between pre-involvement and post-

involvement, pre-involvement and communication success, and post-

involvement and communication success.

In the analysis of the management perceived communication

success model, variables related to level, status, length of

employment, messages related to feasibility, implementation, and

modification and maintenance, use of less formalized forms of

communication , the need for written clarification and relative

status of communicators were found significantly related to effec

tive communication for Company A. For Company B, the respondents'

level, lack of direct involvement, not initiating contact, under

standing the ISD, use of written media, need for written clarifi

cation relative status, the cost of contact, not receiving wanted

113

information and the ISD's inability to provide information were

related to effective communication.

The analysis of the ISD perceived communication success models

indicated that status, length of employment, length of time in a

position, use of less formalized forms of communication and the

level and status of the receivers were significantly related to

effective communication for Company A. Company B ISD respondents

suggested that the use of oral and written media and the use of

standardized forms had an impact on successful communication. For

Company C only the education level of the ISD had an effect on

communication success.

As a consequence of these results, neither communication model

was confirmed. Between the two companies analyzed in conjunction

with the management model, only three variables were significant—

level of the sender, the need for written clarification and the

relative status between the communicators. In conjunction with the

ISD model, none of the variables were significant for all three

companies. (In fact, none of the variables were significant for

even two of the three companies.)

The final series of tests dealt with a comparison of the

responses of managers and ISD personnel. In Company A, managers

and ISD personnel disagreed about the manager's post-involvement

and communication success. For the communication success models.

Company A respondents were in agreement on 14 of 26 variables.

The personnel of Company B disagreed about management satisfaction.

114

post-involvement and communication success. In conjunction with

the models. Company B respondents agreed on only 2 of 26 variables.

From these observations, it was concluded that management and ISD

personnel were more in agreement with one another in Company A

than in Company B.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis presented in Chapter IV offers a number of dif

ferences between the results of this study and previous research.

While Powers, Gallagher, Carter and Swanson have documented the

positive association between management satisfaction and management

involvement, this study has revealed no apparent association between

management satisfaction and involvement. In addition, the results

of this study differ from those presented in the communication

literature with respect to the impact of effective communication

on job performance.

In this writer's opinion, these differences are the result of

using different techniques and methodologies. While a similar

technique was used to measure management satisfaction, management

involvement and communication success were based on different para

meters. First, management involvement was divided into two parts—

pre-implementation involvement and post-implementation involvement.

The only other study making such a distinction was an investigation

by Adams that indicated that while both variables were related to

management satisfaction, post-involvement was more closely associated

with satisfaction. (36) Prior research employed a count of the

number of contacts as the basic measure of involvement while this

study used a measurement of involvement activities (e.g., approving

115

116

and changing the products of an MIS). Prior communication research

measured effective communication by analyzing the flow of specific

documents or the chain of events which occurred in the oral trans

mission of a message. In effect, communication effectiveness was

based on a third party assessment of effectiveness; effectiveness

was measured on the basis of "did the message get through" or "did

the message receive the proper response." In this study, however,

the perceptions of the sender were used as the basic measurement

of effective communication. Therefore, the basic unit of measure

ment for both involvement and communication success was different

from those utilized in prior research.

Second, the studies of the relationship between management

satisfaction and involvement previously mentioned were based on an

analysis of aggregate data. The only study not included in the

above list (a case by Guthrie) agreed with this study in the lack

of verification of the relationship between management involvement

and satisfaction. (60; 93) It has been theorized that more effec

tive communication leads to more effective job performance. (11; 52;

56; 82) Studies in support of this proposition were all based on

aggregate analysis. The results of this study produced no signifi

cant relationship between perceived communication success and manage

ment satisfaction—the variable used as a surrogate of effective

MIS implementation.

Two existing conditions might explain the differences between

this case study and previous aggregate studies. First, the smoothing

117

effect of aggregation may have resulted in a sufficient reduction

in detail as to render the findings of aggregate analysis non-

applicable to a specific case. That is, the situation-dependent

factors present in each organization may have such variability that

the "hypothetical composite organization" resulting from aggregate

analysis fails to project the conditions in any individual organiza

tion. Second, differences between aggregate and case results may

be due to population differences. The environments previously men

tioned may no longer exist. Perhaps there has been a sufficient

level of change in organizations with the passage of time that new

forms of organizational behavior are now present. Or, perhaps, the

three firms examined in this study are not representative of the

population of firms. These two conditions then, might equally

contribute to differences in results based on difference in

methodology.

Conclusions

Three major areas have been investigated in this study—the

relationship between management involvement and management satisfac

tion, the impact of organizational communication on management sat

isfaction, and the development of perceived communication success

models. Management involvement was segmented into pre-involvement

and post-involvement. However, neither definition of involvement

was significantly related to management satisfaction. Thus, for

both management and ISD groups of all participating companies, the

118 level of management involvement prior to MIS implementation or

management involvement after MIS implementation has no impact

on the level of management satisfaction.

Powers and Lucas suggested that management satisfaction is

a transitory phenomenon. (94; 18; 67; 69) Management's level of

satisfaction changes over time. The reason for this variability

stems from an increase in the knowledge level of managers and their

maturity with computers in general. Managers are demanding better

infoirmation from an MIS than they received in the past; and they

expect the lead time between the inception of a new project to its

completion to be shortened. The manager's level of expectation

vis a vis ISD production is greater now than ever before.

Management involvement is not, as previously presumed, an ever-

increasing linear function. It has been argued that a higher level

of involvement will result in a higher level of management satis

faction. However, at some level of involvement, an additional

unit of involvement must result in a lower level of satisfaction.

That is, there must be some level of involvement by management beyond

which the manager views increased contact with ISD personnel as

too costly relative to expected benefits.

The second area of investigation dealt with the relationship

between communication success and managemtent satisfaction. For both

the management and ISD groups of all participating companies, there

is no relationship between management satisfaction and perceived

communication success. Previous research established a relationship

119

between effective communication and improved job performance. Thus,

with communication success as an indicator of performance, the only

conclusion which may be drawn is that the sender's perception of

communication success is not an accurate measure of actual results.

The final area investigated the possible existence of per

ceived communication success models. The variables used to create

models were separately identified in previous organizational com

munication studies and were selected, organized, tested, and refined

to develop the models for the post study. However, of the variables

in the management model, only two were found to be statistically

significant for both participating companies—the need for written

clarification and the negative impact of status differences between

senders and receivers. No variables were found to be statistically

significant in the ISD model. Thus, for the participating companies,

the indicative model of perceived communication success was not

verified.

Based on these findings, if a model of perceived communication

success does exist, it must be developed on a case-by-case (company-

by-company) basis. As evidence of the situation-dependent nature of

the variables in the model, the comparative results within the com

panies indicated a higher level of agreement between the respondents

of Company A than for Company B, Thus, each company possesses its

own set of dynamically interacting variables which dictates exami

nation of the properties of organizational communication on a

case basis.

120

Recommendations

This study has examined communication activities between manage

ment and ISD personnel in an MIS setting—a setting principally aimed

at communicating information to managers for the enhancement of the

decision-making process. In this study, a number of assumptions

have not been verified. Among these assumptions: (1) there is a

positive relationship between management satisfaction and management

involvement; (2) there is a positive relationship between management

satisfaction and communication success; and (3) there is a sufficient

similarity among organizations on organizational communication

dimensions in an MIS setting to permit the creation of communi

cation success models. The results of this study indicate a dynamic

set of variables which are highly influenced by time. This study

has identified a number of variables which are highly influenced

by the specific environment under study. Greater attention must

be paid to the characteristics of individual operating environments;

specifically future organizational communication studies with an

MIS setting should more closely examine the details of operation

(situational-dependent factors) which tend to vary from one organiza

tion to another. Areas which might be investigated could be based

on the type of application, department, management structure, inter

nal structure of the ISD and so forth. The impact of these variables

on management satisfaction, management involvement and communication

success should be investigated.

121

In addition to examining situational dependent factors, more

attention should be given to the technique of measurement. Since

the impact of management involvement on management satisfaction

seems to vary over time, involvement should be examined on a longi

tudinal, rather than a static, basis. Furthermore, the influence

of time on the effectiveness of organizational communication should

be studied on a similar basis.

The next recommendation calls for the reexamination of manage

ment satisfaction as the "MIS success" criterion. There seems to

be a number of factors which would cause management satisfaction to

shift over time. Factors such as increased familiarity with com

puters, attitude problems between management and ISD personnel,

management maturity with an application, and insight by management for

more or different information before an application has been com

pleted could cause a negative shift in satisfaction. Perhaps future

research should be aimed at the causes of dissatisfaction or perhaps

future research should strive to measure a more fundamental issue—

the factors which contribute to improved performance by management

as a result of using an MIS,

Of course, additional experimentation may not lead to generaliz-

able findings. Thus, it may be necessary to establish a test or

a battery of test designed for use by individual organizations or

organizational subunits. In the absence of "universal laws" of

organizational communication, a means should be provided whereby

122

organizations can conduct internal investigations to provide manage

ment with guidelines for the improvement of communication.

Further research has been indicated in both the MIS and the

organizational communication areas. As a result of this study, the

avenues of future research may be wider than previously believed.

Further research should proceed vigorously, but with caution. To

be of greatest value, future research must produce generalizable

findings. Short of this, research on the individual organization

level must be capable of supplying those variables which contribute

to the differences between the results from one organization to

another.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Books

1. Berlo, David K. The Process of Communication; Introduction

to Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1960.

2. Bradley, James V. Distribution-free Statistical Tests, Engle-wood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.

3. Coch, Lester and French, R, P, Leadership Patterns and Organizational Communication, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1964,

4. Conference of Data Systems Languages Special Committee, Feature Analysis of Generalized Data Base Management Systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1971.

5. Davis, Gordon B. Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974.

6. Dearden, John and McFarlan, F. Warren. Management Information Systems: Text and Cases. Homewood, Illinois; Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1966.

7. Goldhaber, Gerald M. Organizational Communication. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Publishers, 1974.

8. Guetzkow, Harold. "Communication in Organizations" in Handbook of Organizations, (ed. James G. March) Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 1965.

9. Haney, William V. Communication and Organizational Behavior. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1973.

10. Hays, William L, Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1963.

11. Joslin, Edward 0, Computer Reading Series: Management and Computer Systems. Arlington, Virginia: College Readings, Inc., 1970,

12. Kirk, Roger E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks-Cole Publishing Company, 1968,

123

124

13. Kurtz, Kenneth H. Foundations of Psychological Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1969.

14. Lawrence, Paul R. and Lorsch, Jay W. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1969.

15. Leavitt, Harold J. Managerial Psychology. (2nd Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964,

16. Lewis, Phillip V, Organizational Communication; The Essence of Effective Management. Columbus, Ohio: Grid, Inc., 1975.

17. Lillico, T. M. Managerial Communication. New York: Pergamon Press, 1972.

18. Lucas, Henry C. Toward Creative Systems Design, New York: Columbia University Press, 1974.

19. Lucas, Henry C. Why Information Systems Fail. New York: Colvmibia University Press, 1975.

20. Luthans, Fred. Organizational Behavior: A Modern Behavioral Approach to Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.

21. Mason, Robert D. Statistical Techniques in Business and Economics. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D, Irwin, Inc, 1967.

22. Mills, Frederick C. Statistical Methods. New York; Henry Holt and Company, 1955.

23. Merrihue, Willard V. Managing By Communicating, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, 1960.

24. Nie, Normal H. et al. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. (2nd Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1970.

25. Nunnally, Jum C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1969.

26. Redding, W. Charles. Communication Within the Organization. New York: Industrial Communication Council, Inc., 1972,

125

27. Rigby, Paul H. Conceptual Foundations of Business Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965.

28. Rummell, R. J. Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1970.

29. Sanders, Donald H. Computers and Management, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, 1970,

30. Selltiz, Clare, et al. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1962.

31. Sollenberger, Harold M. Management Control of Information on System Development. New York: National Association of Accountants, 1971.

32. Spence, Janet T. et al. Elementary Statistics. (2nd Ed.) New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

33. Stewart, Rosemary. How Computers Affect Management. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1971.

34. Woodward, Joan. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. New York; Oxford University Press, 1965.

Periodicals

35. Ackoff, Russel. "Management Misinformation Systems." Management Sciences, (December, 1967), B147-B156.

36. Adams, Carl R. "How Management Users View Information Systems." Decision Sciences, (April, 1975), 337-345.

37. Ainsworth, William. "The Priniacy of the User," Infosystems, (April, 1977), 46-48.

38. Ainsworth, William. "The Primacy of the User." Infosystems, (I-Iay, 1977), 50-54.

39. Alter, Steven L. "How Effective Managers Use Information Systems." Harvard Business Review, (November-December, 1976), 97-104.

40. Axelson, Charles F, "How to Avoid the Pitfalls of Information Systems Development," Financial Executive, (April, 1976), 25-31.

126

41. Bariff, M. L. and Lusk, E. J. "Cognitive and Personality Tests for the Design of Management Information Systems." Management Sciences, (April, 1977), 800-829.

42. Berger, Charles R. and Calabrese, Richard J. "Some Explorations in Initial Interaction and Beyond; Toward a Developmental Theory of Interpersonal Communication." Human Communication Research, (Winter, 1975), 98-112.

43. Brown, Warren G. "Systems, Boundaries, and Information Flow." Academy of Management Journal, (December, 1966), 318-328.

44. Browne, Philip Jr. and Golembiewski, Robert T. "The Line-Staff Concept Revisited; An Empirical Study of Organizational Images." Academy of Management Journal, (September, 1974), 406-417.

45. Canning, Richard G. "Management of Systems Analysis." EDP Analyzer, (July, 1968), 4-10.

46. Carter, Deane M. "Determining Systems Success." Journal of Systems Management, (July, 1976), 24-27.

47. Chervany, Norman L. and Dickson, Gary W. "An Experimental Evaluation of Information Overload on a Production Environment." Management Sciences, (June, 1974), 1335-1344.

48. Cochran, W. G. "Perspectives on Chi Square." Journal of Applied Mathematics, (October, 1948), 218-238,

49. Coleman, Raymond J. and Riley, M. J. "Organizational Impact of MIS." Journal of Systems Management, (March, 1972), 13-19.

50. Conrath, David W. "Communications Environment and Its Relationship to Organizational Structure." Management Sciences, (December, 1973), 586-603.

51. Dalton, Melville. "Conflict Between Staff and Line Managerial Officers." American Sociological Review, (June, 1950), 342-351.

52. Davis, Keith. "Success of Chain-of-Command Oral Communication in a Manufacturing Management Group." Academy of Management Journal, (December, 1971), 305-315.

127

53. DeWhirst, H. Dudley. "Influence of Perceived Information-Sharing Norms on Communication Channel Utilization." Academy of Management Journal, (September, 1971), 305-315.

54. Dickson, Gary W. "Management Information Decision Systems." Business Horizons, (December, 1968), 17-26.

55. Dickson, Gary W., Senn, James A., and Chervany, Norman L. "Research in Management Information Systems; The Minnesota Experiments." Management Sciences, (May, 1977), 913-923.

56. Dickson, G. W. and Simmons, Josh K. "The Behavorial Side of MIS." Business Horizons, (December, 1968), 1-13.

57. Downs, Cal W. and Hazen, Michael D. "Factor Analytic Study of Communication Satisfaction." The Journal of Business Communication, (Spring, 1977), 63-73.

58. Gallagher, Charles A. "Perceptions of the Value of a Management Information System." Academy of Management Journal, (March, 1974), 46-55.

59. Gobson, Harry L. "Determining User Involvement." Journal of System Management, (August, 1977), 20-22.

60. Guthrie, Art. "Attitudes of User-managers towards Management Information Systems." Management Informatics, (October, 1974), 221-232.

61. Haney, William V. "A Comparative Study of Unilateral and Bilateral Communication." Academy of Management Journal, (June, 1974), 128-136.

62. Hascal, Albert. "Handling Memos Efficiently." The Journal of Accountancy, (January, 1971), 82-83.

63. Hershman, Arlene. "A Mess in MIS?" Dun's Review, (January, 1968), 27-27ff.

64. Hunsicker, Frank R. "How to Approach Communication Difficulties." Personnel Journal, (September, 1972), 680-683.

65. Level, Dale A. "Communication Effectiveness: Method and Situation." Journal of Business Communication, (Spring, 1972), 19-25.

128

66. Lucas, Henry C. "An Empirical Study of a Framework for Information Systems." Decision Sciences, (January, 1974), 102-114. ""

67. Lucas, Henry C. "Measuring Employee Reaction to Computer Operations." Sloan Management Review, (Spring, 1974), 59-67.

68. Lucas, Henry C. "Performance and the Use of Information Systems." Management Sciences, (April, 1975), 908-919.

69. Lucas, Henry C. "System Quality, User Reaction and the Use of Information Systems." Management Informatics, (August, 1974), 207-212.

70. Lucas, Henry C. "Use of an Accounting Information System." Accounting Review, (October, 1975), 735-746.

71. Lucas, Henry C. "User Reactions and the Management of Information Services." Management Informatics, (August, 1973), 165-172.

72. Lucas, Henry C. and Plimpton, Rodney B. "Technological Consulting in a Grass Roots, Action Oriented Organization." Sloan Management Review, (Fall, 1972), 17-36.

73. Maier, Norman R. F., Hoffman, L. Richard, and Read, William H. "Superior-Subordinate Communication; The Relative Effectiveness of Managers \ô Held Their Subordinates' Position." Personnel Psychology, (January, 1963), 1-11.

74. Nolan, Richard L. "Computer Data Bases: The Future is Now." Harvard Business Review, (September-October, 1973), 98-114.

75. Pettit, John D. et al. "Guidelines and Suggestions for Research in Business Communication." Journal of Business Communication, (Fall, 1971), 37-60.

76. Powers, Richard F. and Dickson, Gary W. "MIS-Project Management: Myths, Opinions and Reality." California Management Review, (Spring, 1973), 147-156.

77. Ross, E. "Computers: Their Use and Misuses." Business Horizons, (April, 1970), 55-60.

129

78. Ross, Joel E. "Why Computers Fail." Business, (July, 1972), 71-74.

79. Schewe, Charles D. "The Management Information System User; An Exploratory Behavioral Analysis." Academy of Management Journal, (December, 1976), 577-590.

80. Schewe, Charles D. and Wiek, James L. "Guide to MIS User Satisfaction." Journal of Systems Management, (June, 1977), 6-10.

81. Smith, Peter C. "Resolving User/Systems Differences." Journal of Systems Management, (July, 1977), 16-21.

82. Soden, Dr. V. and Tucker, Charles C. "Long-range MIS Planning." Journal of Systems Management, (July, 1976), 28-33.

83. Swanson, E. Burton. "Management Information Systems: Appreciation and Involvement." Management Science, (October, 1974), 178-188.

84. Thurston, Philip H. "Who Should Control Information Systems?" Harvard Business Review, (January-February, 1965), 135-139,

85. Webster, Eric. "Memo Mania: Its Causes, Carriers and Cures." Management Review, (September, 1967), 32-36.

86. Weinwurn, George F. "Managing Management Information." Management International Review, (January, 1970).

Proceedings

87. Lucas, Henry C. "A User-Oriented Approach to Systems Design." Proceedings of the 1971 Annual Conference, Association for Computing Machinery, August, 1971, pp. 325-338.

88. Anderson, J., Dickson, G. and Simmons, J. Behavioral Reactions to the Introduction of a Management Information System at the U. S. Post Office: Some Empirical Observations. Minneapolis, Minnesota, March, 1973.

89. Dickson, Gary W. and Powers, Richard F. MIS Project Management Myths, Opinions and Reality. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May, 1971.

130

90. Everest, Gordon C. Database Administrator: Organizational Role and Functions. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May, 1971.

91. Lucas, Henry C. The User-Data Processing Interface. Working Paper, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 1970.

Unpublished Material

92. Gallagher, Charles A. "Measurement and Analysis of Managers' Perceptions of the Value of Selected Management Information." Unpublished D. B. A. dissertation, Florida State University, 1971.

93. Guthrie, Arthur. "Attitudes of Middle Managers toward Management Information Systems." Unpublished D. B. A. dissertation. University of Washington, 1971.

94. Powers, Richard F. "An Empirical Investigation of Selected Hypotheses Related to the Success of Management Information System Projects." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1971.

APPENDIX

131

APPENDIX A

Pilot Study Questionnaires

132

MIS RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE ,33 (MANAGEMENT RESPONDENT)

1. How would you classify your position within your company? (Check one)

Top Management Middle Management Operating Management 2. How much organizational status do you feel is attached to your

position? (Check the position which most closely represents your feelings.)

A Lot Little 3. How long have you worked for your present employer?

5 years or less 15 to 20 years 5 to 10 years over 20 years 10 to 15 years

4. How long have you held your present position? 1 year or less 3 to 4 years 1 to 2 years 4 to 5 years 2 to 3 years over 5 years

5. Have you ever had any training in the areas of "computers" or "management information systems?" YES NO

If YES, was the training provided by (multiple responses permitted);

Academic training (e.g. college or university) If so, how many classes did you take?

Training provided by your present employer? If so, how much was: On-the-job training— Weeks.

Classroom training Hours. Other (specify)

Training provided by a previous employer? If so, how much was; On-the-job training— Weeks.


MANY OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS DEAL WITH CONTACT BETWEEN YOU AND PERSONNEL IN THE INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT (ISD). THIS IS THE DEPARTMENT IN YOUR COMPANY CONTAINING THE "COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYST" FUNCTION. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHILE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS.

6. How many people in the INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT (ISD) have you come in contact within the past year? (number)

7. From your perspective, what level within the ISD is the person(s) with whom you work most closely?

Top Level Middle Level Lower Level 8. How much organizational status do you feel is attached to the

position of the ISD personnel with whom you work most closely? A Lot Little

134 9.

10.

11.

12,

13,

14,

15,

How many times did you communicate with ISD personnel (in either a written or oral form) when the main purpose of the contact was to determine the feasibility of a particular system to provide you with information? (Check one in each column.) (Feasibility is used to mean an assessment of the need, cost, benefits and impact on existing personnel of a tentative or proposed system.)

Minimum Average Maximum none 1 or 2 times 3 or 4 times 5 or 6 times over 6 times

I feel that contact with ISD personnel during system feasibility is: Important Unimportant How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was systems analysis, design and planning? (Analysis, design and planning is used to mean the determination of specific information needs, selecting a procedure to meet those needs and scheduling resources to create the procedure.)


I feel that contact with ISD personnel during systems analysis, design and planning is:

Important Unimportant How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was system implementation? (Implementation is used to mean the activities such as designing report formats, creating and testing programs and procedures, training necessary personnel and converting to the new system.)

Minimum Average Maximum none 1 or 3 or 5 or over 6

times times times times

I feel that contact with ISD personnel during system implementation is: Important Unimportant How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was system modification and maintenance? (Modification is used to mean changes to an existing system which are not part of the original plan or planned changes of a major significance. Maintenance is used to mean periodic changes to a system on a planned basis, but not of major significance.)


135 16. I feel that contact with ISD personnel during system modification

and maintenance is: Important Unimportant

THE QUESTIONS BELOW DEAL WITH YOUR CONTACT WITH ISD PERSONNEL AND THE INFORMATION WHICH YOU RECEIVE FROM YOUR FIRM'S COMPUTERIZED BUSINESS SYSTEM. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHILE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS.

17. During the development of a system for my use, contact with ISD personnel was generally (check one in each category):

by committee, group on "as needed" base

made by me frequent

initiated by me oral

by standard forms or reports

face-to-face

frustrating time consuming

costly relative to benefits

a one-to-one basis on a regular basis made by others infrequent intiated by the ISD written by letters or notes

by telephone or other devices not frustrating not time consuming inexpensive relative to benefits

18. When communicating with ISD personnel, I generally prefer:

oral communication standard forms

or reports face-to-face contact

written communication letters or notes

contact through the telephone or other device

19. I generally find ISD personnel:

approachable accessable

use terms I do not understand

unapproachable not accessable use terms I understand

20. With regard to the contents of generally:

approve it before I start receiving it feel it is important for me to approve it can change it after I start receiving it feel it is important

to be able to change feel it is accurate

a report (what it contains), I

do not approve it before I start receiving it do not feel it is important for me to approve it cannot change it after I start receiving it feel it is not important to be able to change it feel it not accurate

136 (20. Continued With regard to the contents of a report, I generally:)

feel accuracy is important

feel it is current feel it is important that the contents be current

feel accuracy is unimportant

feel it is not current feel it is not important that the contents be current

21, With regard to the format of a report (how it looks), I generally;

approve it before I start receiving it

feel it is important for me to approve it can change it after I start receiving it feel it is important to be able to change

feel satisfied with it

feel it is important to my satisfaction

22. With regard to the frequency of a report receipt), I generally:

approve it before I start receiving it

feel it is important for me to approve it can change it after I start receiving it feel it is important

to be able to change it

feel reports are delivered on time

feel it is important for reports to be delivered on time

do not approve it before I start receiving it do not feel it is important for me to approve it cannot change it after I start receiving it feel it is not important to be able to change it do not feel satisfied with it do not feel it is important to my satisfaction

(the timing of a report's

do not approve it before I start receiving it do not feel it is important for me to approve it cannot change it after I start receiving it feel it is not important to be able to change it

feel reports are not delivered on time feel it is not important for reports to be delivered on time

23. With regard to the quantity of information on reports I receive, I am generally;

satisfied dissatisfied

24. My directions to ISD personnel need clarification;

rarely often

25. When I ask ISD personnel for information, I generally;

get what I want don't get what I want

137

26. The understanding of ISD personnel of how my department or function works is;

adequate inadequate

27. My understanding of how the Information Services Department works is

adequate inadequate

28. Communications breakdown between the ISD and myself occur because I have overstepped my authority:

rarely often

29. Communications breakdown between the ISD and myself occur because the ISD overstepped its authority;

rarely often

30. I experience delays in getting information from ISD personnel because of the demands on their time by other members of the company;

rarely often

31. Written messages ot ISD personnel (which include instructions) need clarification;

rarely often

32. Spoken (oral) messages to ISD personnel (which include instructions) need clarification;

rarely often

33. On the whole, the most efficient means of communicating with ISD personnel is via a;

written message spoken (oral) message

34. When I ask the ISD for information and I do not get the information it is because the specifications were unclear:

rarely often

35. When I ask the ISD for information and I do not get the information it is because the ISD could not provide the information:

rarely often

36. For the purpose of explaining my information needs to the ISD, I feel my knowledge of "computers" and "management information systems" is;

adequate inadequate

138

37. I feel my communication of information needs to the ISD is:

adequate inadequate

38. For the purpose of understanding my information needs, I feel the ISD's knowledge of my job is:

adequate inadequate

39. Once my information needs have been communicated to the ISD, their communication of their understanding of my information needs is;

adequate inadequate

40. I feel that the ISD's communication of what they can do to satisfy my information needs is;

adequate inadequate

41. Once the ISD has communicated their capability to satisfy my information needs, I feel my communication of my understanding of their capability is:

adequate inadequate

42. Relative to my position in the company, I feel that the ISD personnel with whom I come in contact have:

more status less status

43. How long does it take to receive the first production of a report, once the initial request has been made? (Check one in each column.)

Minimum Average Maximum 1 week or less 1 to 2 weeks 2 weeks to 1 month 1 to 3 months 3 to 6 months 6 months to 1 year over 1 year

44. How long do you feel it should take? Minimum Average Maximum

1 week or less 1 to 2 weeks 2 weeks to 1 month 1 to 3 months 3 to 6 months 6 months to 1 year over 1 year

45. How important is the lag between the request for a report and its receipt?

important unimportant

139 46. Approximately how many different reports do you receive at least

once a year? 5 or less 21 to 25 6 to 10 26 to 30 11 to 15 • over 30 16 to 20

47. Approximately how many different reports do you receive at least once a year?

5 or less 21 to 25 6 to 10 26 to 30 11 to 15 over 30 16 to 20

48. How important is it that you receive the right number of reports?


49. Does your firm have a data administrator or data librarian (an individual or group who is responsible for maintaining, controlling and granting access to data)?

Yes, it is part of the Information Services Department Yes, but it is not part of the Information Services Department Yes, but I'm not sure which department it is in No, not to my knowledge I do not know

IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO QUESTION #49, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING: OTHERWISE, PROCEED TO QUESTION #50.

A. How often are you likely to have contact with the data administrator?

rarely often

B. If you have contact with the data administrator, at what stage(s) are you most likely to ahve that contact? (Multiple responses permitted.)

feasibility analysis, design and planning implementation modification and maintenance

C. I feel that contact with the data administrator during system development is;


140

50. Does your firm have an operations research, management science or applied mathematics group (in addition to or in conjunction with an engineering department)?

Yes, it is part of the Information Services Department Yes, but it is not part of the Information Services Department Yes, but I'm not sure which department it is in No, not to my knowledge I do not know

IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO QUESTION #50, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING; OTHERWISE, PROCEED TO THE INSTRUCTIONS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

A. How often are you likely to have contact with the operations research group in conjunction with the development of a computerized system?

rarely often

B. If you have contact with the operations research staff, at what stage(s) are you most likely to have that contact? (Multiple responses permitted.)


C. I feel that contact with the operations research staff during system development is:


THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. WILL YOU NOW INSERT THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE AND PLACE IT IN THE MAIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

141

MIS RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE (INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT)

1. How would you classify your position within your department? (Check one) Top Level Middle Level Lower Level

2. How much organizational status do you feel is attached to your position? (Check the position which most closely represents your feelings.)

A Lot Little

3. How long have you worked for your present employer? 5 years or less 15 to 20 years 5 to 10 years over 20 years 10 to 15 years

4. How long have you held your present position? 1 year or less 3 to 4 years 1 to 2 years 4 to 5 years 2 to 3 years over 5 years

5. Have you ever had any training in the areas of "management" or "the functions of management?" YES NO

If YES, was the training provided by (multiple responses permitted);


Training provided by you present employer? If so, how much was: On-the-job training— Weeks.


Training provided by a previous employer? If so, how much was; On-the-job training— Weeks.


MANY OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS DEAL WITH CONTACT BETWEEN YOU AND PERSONNEL IN A MANAGEMENT POSITION. THE TERM "MANAGEMENT" AS USED IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN A MANAGEMENT POSITION IN YOUR DEPARTMENT. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHILE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS.

6. How many people in a management position have you come in contact with in the past year in the performance of your job? (number)

7. From your perspective, what level within the company is the manager or group of managers with whom you work most closely? Top management Middle management Operating Management

142 8. How much organizational status do you feel is attached to the

position of the manager(s) with whom you work most closely? A Lot Little

9. How many times did you communicate with a manager (in either a written or oral form) when the main purpose of the contact was to determine the feasibility of a particular system to provide the manager with information? (Check one in each column.) (Feasibility is used to mean an assessment of the need, cost, benefits and impact on existing personnel of a tentative or proposed system.)

Minimum Average Maximum

none 1 or 3 or 5 or over

2 4 6 6


10. I feel that contact with managers during system feasibility is: important unimportant

11. How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was systems analysis, design and planning? (Analysis, design and planning is used to mean the determination of specific information needs, selecting a procedure to meet those needs and scheduling resources to create the procedure,)

Minimum Average Maximum nc 1 3 5 OS

)ne or or or

rev

2 4 6 6


12. I feel that contact with managers during systems analysis, design and planning is:


13. How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was system implementation? (Implementation is used to mean the activities such as designing report formats, creating and testing programs and procedures, training necessary personnel and converting to the new system.)

Minimum Average Maximum none 1 or 3 or 5 or over

2 4 6 6


14. I feel that contact with managers during implementation is: important unimportant

143

15. How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was system modification and maintenance? (Modification la used to mean changes to an existing system which are not part of the original plan or planned changes of a major significance. Maintenance is used to mean periodic changes to a system on a planned basis, but not of major significance.)

Minimum Average Maximum nc 1 3 5 o\

)ne or or or er

2 4 6 6


16. I feel that contact with managers during system modification and maintenance is;


THE QUESTIONS BELOW DEAL WITH YOUR CONTACT WITH MANAGERS AND THE INFORMATION WHICH MANAGERS RECEIVE FROM YOUR FIRM'S COMPUTERIZED BUSINESS SYSTEM. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHILE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS.

17. During the development of a system for the manager's use, contact with the managers was generally (check one in each category):

by committee, group on a one-to-one basis on "as needed" basis on a regular basis made by the manager made by others

frequent infrequent initiated by me intiated by the manager

oral written by standard forms by letters or notes

or reports face-to-face by telephone or other

device frustrating not frustrating

time consuming not time consuming costly relative to inexpensive relative to

benefits benefits

18. When communicating with managers, I generally prefer:

oral communication written communication standard forms letters or notes

or reports face-to-face contact contact through the telephone

or other device

19. I generally find managers:

approachable unapproachable accessable not accessable

use terms I do not use terms I understand understand

20. With regard to the contents of a report generally;

approve it before they start recei

ving it feel it is important for them to approve can change it after

they start receiving it

feel it is important to be able to change feel it is accurate

feel accuracy is important

feel it is current feel it is important

that the contents be current

144

(what it contains), managers

do not approve it before they start receiving it

do not feel it is important for them to approve it cannot change it after they start receiving it

feel it is not important to be able to change it feel it is not accurate feel accuracy is unimportant

feel it is not current feel it is not important that the contents be current

21. With regard to the generally:

approve it before they start

receiving it fe^l it is important

for them to approve it

can change it after they receive it

feel it is important to be able to

change it feel satisfied

with it feel it is important to their satisfaction

format of a report (how it looks), managers


22. With regard to the frequency of a report of a report), managers generally:


receiving it feel it is important

to approve it can change it after

they receive it feel it is important


feel reports are delivered on time

do not feel it is important for them to approve it

cannot change it after they start receiving it feel it is not important to be able to change it

do not feel satisfied with it do not feel it is important to their satisfaction

(the timing of the receipt


do not feel it is important for them to approve it cannot change it after they receive it do not feel it is important to be able to change it

feel reports are not delivered on time

145 (22. Continued. With regard to the frequency of a report (the timing

of the receipt of a report), managers generally:

feel it is important do not feel it is impor-for reports to be tant for reports to be delivered on time delivered on time

23. With regard to the quantity of information on reports managers now receive, they are generally:


24. My directions to managers need clarification:

rarely often

25. When I ask managers for information, I generally:

get what I want don't get what I want

26. The understanding of management of how my department works is;

adequate inadequate

27. My understnading of how the manager's department or function works is:

adequate inadequate

28. Communications breakdown between managers and myself occur because I have overstepped my authority;

rarely often

29. Communications breakdown between managers and myself occur because the managers have overstepped their authority:

rarely often

30. I experience delays in getting information from managers because of demands on their time by other members of the company:

rarely often

31. Written messages to managers (which include instructions) need clarification:

rarely often

32. Spoken (oral) messages to managers (which include instructions) need clarification:

rarely often

33. On the whole, the most efficient means of communicating with managers is via a:

written message spoken (oral) message

146

34. When I ask managers for information and I do not get the information it is because the specifications were unclear:

rarely often

35. When I ask managers for information and I do not get the information it is because the managers could not provide the information;

rarely often

36. For the purpose of explaining his needs for information to me, I feel the manager's knowledge of "computers" and "management information systems" is:

adequate inadequate

37. I feel the manager's communication of information needs to me is;

adequate inadequate

38. Once the manager's information needs have been communicated to me, my communication of my understanding of the manager's information needs is;

adequate inadequate

39. For the purpose of understanding the manager's information needs, I feel my knowledge of the manager's job is:

adequate inadequate

40. I feel that my communication of what I can do to satisfy the manager's information needs is:

adequate . inadequate

41. Once I have communicated my capability to satisfy the manager's information needs, I feel the manager's communication of his understanding of my capability is:

adequate inadequate

42. Relative to my position in the company, I feel that the manager's with whom I come in contact have;


43. How long does it take for the manager to receive the first production of a report once the initial request has been made?

Minimum Average Maximum 1 week or less 1 to 2 weeks 2 weeks to 1 month 1 to 3 months 3 to 6 months

^^^^^ 6 months to 1 year over 1 year

44. How long do you feel it should take? Minimum Average Maximum

1 week or less 1 to 2 weeks 2 weeks to 1 month 1 to 3 months 3 to 6 months 6 months to 1 year over 1 year

45. How important do you feel the lag between the request for a report and its receipt is to a manager?


46. Approximately how many different reports do you think the average manager receives at least once a year?

5 or less 21 to 25 6 to 10 26 to 30

11 to 15 over 30 16 to 20

47. Approximately how many reports do you feel the average manager needs to achieve the "best" results in his job?


48. How important do you feel the right number of reports is to the average manager?


49. Does your firm have a data administrator or data librarian (an individual or group who is responsible for maintaining, controlling and granting access to data)?

Yes, it is part of my department. Yes, but it is not part of my department. Yes, but I'm not sure which department it is in. No, not to my knowledge. I do not know.

IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO QUESTION #49, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING; OTHERWISE, PROCEED TO QUESTION #50.

A. How often are you likely to have contact with the data administrator?

rarely often

148

B. If you have contact with the data administrator, at what stage(s) are you most likely to have that contact? (Multiple responses permitted)


C. I feel that contact with the data administrator during system development is:


50. Does your firm have an operations research, management science or applied mathematics group (in addition to or in conjunction with an engineering department)?

Yes, it is part of my department. Yes, but it is not part of my department. Yes, but I'm not sure which department it is in. No, not to my knowledge. I do not know.

IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO QUESTION #50, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING; OTHERWISE, PROCEED TO THE INSTRUCTIONS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

A. How often are you likely to have contact with the operations research group in.conjunction with the development of a computerized system?

rarely often

B. If you have contact with the operations research staff, at what stage(s) are you most likely to have that contact? (Multiple responses permitted)


C. I feel that contact with the operations research staff during system development is:


THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. WILL YOU NOW INSERT THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE AND PLACE IT IN THE MAIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

APPENDIX B

Results of Factor Analysis

149

150

<-i

X QJ

13 d

M

d o

T-l 4J

a CO

t4-l CO

•H 4-1 CO

CO

4-1 d QJ

e QJ 00 CO d CO S QJ .d ;-) S-I

o <4H

CO 00 d

•H 13 CO O

r-i

U 0 4J

o CO

i*.i

U.4

o QJ

r-i JH CO • u

M [3^

<J >

.

i n

u o 4-1

a CO

UL4

-sP

V4

o 4-1

o CO f::

QJ O d CO

•H

CO > 00 d

ance

L

oad

!

•H

CO > OC d

•H 13 CO o

I - !

CO

u o 4-1

a CO b

QJ a r^ CO

• H

^ CO

> oo d

•H 13 CO O

r J

CN

; O 4J CJ CO

PC4

OJ CJ

d CO

>-i CO > OC d

• H 1 3 CO O »-)

r H

M O i J

a CO b

QJ O d CO

•H

CO > OC d

•H 13 CO O

1-3

d 4J O CD "H m 0) 4J QJ 4J CO X> 0) QJ £ V 3 3

OH C D ' Z

•K •K

•JC

r H O N O v O O O m o o O c N c o f o r > . i n o o C N O N O N O C N O r > > . - * O O O r H O C N i n o m r H O o o o o o o o o o o v o

i n < f v O O C N 0 N C 0 r H O O r H C N i n 0 0 r H > T P « « f O a O > 3 " r H I ^ C N C N > 3 - a N r H a O i n r H r H r - » > d - O r H O C < g C N O O O r H O r H C X :

I I I

He •K

^ T C N C N r H r O O O O O m c O O v O O r H O C 0 0 0 O O > O 0 \ C N r » r H C N O C N r H O O

o o o s r o ^ o m o o o c o o o o

m 00 r H

1

t ^ 0 0 CVJ

m -cr o

1

r-{

o r»

CO m o

1

o o r^

00 vO <-{

i n m r-»

<r CN

1

CN

m >-{

o o o

r H r^ t n

CX3 o o

1

00 CN

o

CN CN

o

•K -K He HC

O N O O O C T N r H O N r H r H C N C N v O O r ^ - ^ O » c r O r H O Q O O r H r H O O O O O f O O O r H O O r H O O O O C N O O O O O r ^ O

00 CVJ S O

a o i n

vO 0 0 CO

vO O o

vO CO r-i

o CO CO

>a-0 0 CN

vO CJN

o

m o r-i

r>. O r-^

^^ CO

m

o < •

o

o oo o

o CM

o

i n

<-\ (js

<y\ CO 0 0

CM

o o

I I I I I I

He He He He

r H r H C O C N v O C O r H v r r ^ ^ O O m O v r O O C ^ I C 0 C N v 0 l n ^ 0 C 0 C N 0 ^ O O ' > 0 O O O O r H O O O r H C v j r ^ r - ^ O O O O

O N r » » c M c o c N r H t n i n r ^ c N < T i c N r s i m v o v o m c M O a o m o o O O r H C O r H C N e N > 3 " « ^ Q O O O

I I I I I

O rH m O O r-* <r ^ O O CM o

I I

O CO r-* CO ON rH o <r

r^ O

He He He He r > - « ^ 0 0 O r H C N r H a N O O » ^

, , 0 > r H r H O O O r H 0 0 O C N \ O O v O O ^ O C v J O O O O O O

00

CO CN

in

CN CM

00

m

o CN rH o in CM 00 O O CO ^ rH r^ rH 00

0 0 ' > o O a 0 0 N r ^ < 3 N ' > 0 r H v o t H O O r H - v f - d - O C y i r H ^ i n r H r ^ O - J - O r H C N O r H C N

I I I I I

* -^ ^ J . Q J i w O O j T Q J u ^ Q J ' J - i * ^ « , ^ 2 «

O O O O r H - H r s l C N C O C O ^ ^ i n v O r - O O C M C N C M C N C M C N C N C N C N - , 3 ' « 3 - < r ^ ' ^ ' ^

d o

•H U 4-1 QJ CD J^ QJ £ 3 3

C 2 C

I d o

• H QJ 4 J >-l

CO - H QJ CO 3 d

He He He 00 d

00 •H QJ 2

151

2. VARIMAX table of factor loadings for the Management Involvement Index

Prestes Question Number

20a* 20b 21a 21b 22a 22b*

Question Number on Questionnaire

Weighting'

(l2)-

I t * *

Factor 1 Loading

.889

.016

.861

.275

.876

.172

Variance

17

.757

.790**

.000

.741**

.076

.740**

.030

-

Factor 2 Loading

.126

.641

.301

.764

.071

.859

Variance

.016

.372

.091

.584**

.005

.739**

19c

.657

3. VARIMAX table of factor loadings for the Management Influence Capability Index (I-).

Pretest Question Number

20c 20d 21c 21d 22c 22d*


Weighting***

Factor 1 Loading

.873

.003

.929

.247 ,831 .199

Variance

.762** ,000 .863 .061 .691** .040

18a

,769

Factor Loading

.105

.873

.126

.877

.183

.881

2 Variance

19b

.769

.011

.762**

.016

.769**

.033

.776

152

4. VARIMAX table of factor loadings for the Communication Success Index


36* 37 38 39 40* 41


<i, '?•

Factor Loading

.900

.820

.325

.274

.055

.168

1 Variance

20

,810** .672** ,106 .075 .000 .028

Factor Loading

.075

.297

.808

.863

.912

.765

2 Variance

21

.006

.088

.653**

.745**

.832**

.585**

Weighting*** .738 .698

* This question has the highest loading for one of the factors. (This is indicated by the factor loading which is underscored.) Having the highest loading, the question was selected to represent the factor on the final questionnaire.

** This indicates a factor loading which is higher than .500. In this case, the squared factor loading (variance) is used in the creation of the question weighting.

*** Weightings based on the geometric mean of the variances which are indicated as being significant (i.e. the variances associated with factor loadings of ,500 or more).

153

1. VARIMAX table of factor loadings for the Management Satisfaction Index


20e 20f 20g 20h* 21e 21f 22e 22f 23* 43 44* 45 47 48


(1^).

Factor Loading

.376

.725

.649

.809

.310

.782

.668

.758 -.114 .031 .012 .091 .067 .006

Weighting***

1 Variance

16c

.141

.526**

.434

.654**

.096

.612**

.446

.575

.013

.001

.000

.008

.004

.000

.590

Factor 2 Loading Variance

.692

.248

.503 -.007 .602 .062 .180

-.117 .904 .471 .166 .653 .074 .119

18

.817

.479

.062

.253

.000

.362

.004

.032

.014

.817**

.222

.028

.426

.005

.014

Factor 3 Loading

.060 -.271 -.093 -.155 .174 .219 .104 .185 .037 .787 .856 .212

-.006 -.655

Variance

.004

.033

.008

.024 ,030 ,040 .011 .034 .001 .619** .733** .045 .000 ,429

21

.674

VARIMAX table of factor loadings for the Management Involvement Index


20a 20b* 21a 21b 22a* 22b


(I2) •

Factor Loading

Weighting***

,874 .179 .840 .260 .939 .750

1 Variance

17a

.71S

.764**

.032

.706**

.068

.882**

.563**

1


.097

.944

.285

.927

.187

.283

16a

.875

.009

.891**

.081

.859**

.035

.080

3. VARIMAX table of factor loadings for the Management Influence Capability Index (I^).

154


20c* 20d 21c 22c 22d*



.053

.755

.434

.811

.962

.003

.570

.188

.658**

.925**

17b

Factor Loading

.941

.396

.766

.253

.020

2 Variance

16b

.885**

.157

.589**

.064

.000

Weighting*** 703 722

4, VARIMAX table of factor loadings for the Communication Success Index


36 37 38 39* 40 41


(I, * > •

Factor 1 Loading

,457 .701 .596

-.044 .823 .928

20

Variance

.201

.491

.355 ,002 .677** .861**

Facte Loadin

.619

.435

.621

.903

.247 -.005

•S

19

Dr 2 Variance

.383

.188

.386

.815**

.061

.000

Weighting*** .763 .815

* This question has the highest loading for one of the factors. (This is indicated by the factor loading which is underscored.) Having the highest loading, the question was selected to represent the factor on the final questionnaire.

** This indicates a factor loading which is higher than .500. In this case, the squared factor loading (variance) is used in the creation of the question weightings.

155

4. Continued.

*** Weightings based on the geometric mean of the variances which are indicated as being significant (i.e. the variances associated with factor loadings of .500 or more).

APPENDIX C

Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test for

Questionnaire Stability

156

157

Results of the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test for

Questionnaire Stability

The following table presents the findings of the Wilcoxon

Signed-Ranks test. The test analyzes the difference in responses

between the questionnaires and the results of a follow-up interview

with the respondents during the week of November 15, 1976. The total

number of respondents in the follow-up interviews was thirty-seven

participants from three companies. The indication of significance

in the table below was taken from Spence et al (23: 241).


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9a 9b 9c 10 11a lib lie 12 13a 13b 13c 14 15a 15b 15c 16 17a

Wilcoxon Ranks

Signed-Test (T)

Statis

0 5 3 6 29 13 7 7 12 10 25 18 30 38 37 20 20 25 24 9 22 16 11 13 26

tic

Significance Level (1 than or

1 5 5 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5

.ess equal)

Number of Untied Ranks

7 9 8 12 19 14 11 10 13 11 17 15 16 18 18 14 14 15 15 13 15 13 12 12 16

158


17b 17c 17d 17e 17f 17g 17h 171 17j 17k 18a 18b 18c 19a 19b 19c 20a 20b 20c 20d 20e 20f 20g 20h 21a 21b 21c 21d 21e 21f 22a 22b 22c 22d 22e 22f 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test (T)

Statistic

6 0 37 42 1 37 38 4 22 16 24 7 7 16 7 2 17 12 19 33 44 6 24 24 18 36 34 3 13 14 13 11 16 22 23 37 3 15 8 25 40 35 12 16

Significance Level (less than or equal)

5 •

1 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 5 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5


9 2 18 19 2 18 18 8 15 13 15 12 10 14 11 10 16 14 14 17 19 9 18 15 16 20 20 8 12 12 14 14 13 17 15 18 7 13 10 15 19 18 13 14

159


31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43a 43b 43c 44a 44b 44c 45 46 47 48 49 49A 49B 49C 50 50A 50B 50C

Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test (T) Statistics

16 5 35 26 42 24 10 12 23 9 20 28 25 23 20 25 28 17 24 15 18 0 0 6 12 19 0 9 8 4

Significance Level than or

5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

(less equal)


18 10 17 17 19 15 13 12 15 11 14 16 15 16 16 15 15 15 16 13 14 6 0 6 5 4 1 7 3 5

APPENDIX D

Modifications of Questionnaires

160

161

Modification of Questionnaires

As a result of the pretest of the questionnaires and the

follow-up interviews with the respondents, there was one modification

which was necessary. During the pretest, it became apparent that the

scaling used on questions 9, 11, 13 and 15 were not totally adequate.

That is, some respondents indicated that their contact with the other

party in the development of a system was well above the number ("over

6 times") provided on the questionnaire. This tended to be a greater

problem for the managers in the pretest than for ISD personnel,

with one manager indicating contacts in the 100 to 200 range. Thus,

on the final questionnaire, the scale was modified to allow a larger

upper limit. This was the only change of major consequence resulting

from the pretest.

APPENDIX E

Results of Data Analysis for

Communication Success Model

Development

162

163

He He He CO H Z

Q Z o 04 CO u

&-z

CJ5

<4-l

o CO •H CO

to c <:

CO iJ d Q)

1 3 d o a CO QJ Pi

d QJ / - v S CO QJ rH 00 CO II d CO Z S >^ 00 d

•H U CO CJ

CO r-t QJ P ) - l

O CJ

d CO £ V.I CO OJ

a CO

d 3 £ £ o

CJ

aouBo -TjTnSxs

ûaro •TJJ3O0

i n r * . O O c M a > r ^ o o s o c M O r H r H C M C N r » . c N o o o o - , * i n c N e N - * r ^ ^ s I • o o > 3 • o o ^ » . r * « > 3 • o o o ^ L n r ^ r H o o o ^ o ^ c o ^ o O l n s l • C O C M O O O C O C M C O s r > 3 - C M C M C N r H C O C O r - i C N « J - r O - 3 - C M C N

O 00 O O rH rH m m

r-^ CM ^ r rH rH

f ^ o ^ CM < r r>> vO o o o » r

r H o o m o o ^ O v o m o r ^ O C M C M r H O C N r H O r H O C N CN

I I I I I I I

CO 4J d

I QJ rH 13 < d

o O CO vO

QJ CM CD oi

• H U CO 4 J >s d z

rH QJ ^ ^ CO £ d QJ

< 00 CO

d CO

S

QJ U CO 3

cri CO

d o

T 4 4-1 CO

rH QJ U U o u d CO £ u CO QJ

CM CO

aouBo -TjTnSTS

OT:IST: IB3S

aouBo

-TJTnSxs

ûaro -TJjaoQ

r H t ^ e N r H C 0 « a - i n i n v O O 0 0 r H i n % 3 - C M r H 0 0 r - 4 . ^ O r H r - . r ^ o ^ c o o c M t n r H ^ » » c o c o c o o ^ l n c o r » » O l n o ^ c N l n o o c M l n c 3 ^ r H c o o ^ a ^ c o v O f O l n r ^ v o ^ l n l n r » • o ^ l n ^ o a ^ c o v o o c N r ^

He He He

CN m rH ON CN CJN 00 <3N O O ON CM r^ CO

C O m v O O O O O C N v O m r H v O l ^ r H O O r * . C N r H C O C O O O C O r H O O O r H O C M O

O r

O C N O N > d " ^ v O i n r H - ^ C M r H O v O i — ( s r O N O N v O ^ r H v O r H i n O N O N r H c o o N O N i n o N v r i ^ o o o N r ^ v O v o ^ o o c o o o v o o o o O O C O r H C M C O r H O C O < r C N > T C O C O C O C O C O > * C O < - < - C O C O

d o

d -H O 4J

•H CO 4J -H CO > OJ QJ 3 Ul

C J3 .O

r«« CM

vO CN

o r-i

CO CN

r-{ r-\

m O

<-{ CN

vO CM

00 O

r-^

o c o m r o r x - r ^ r ^ O c o v O C N ^ r H O O O O O r H O O O O

I I I I

rJ CO M CU a OS cai H H W

rH CM CO r, TH CN CO r-4 CN CO C J C J O C f a C i w f a Q C a Q M Z H J C O C J C J C J C J C J U U C J U

CM f^ O

s s s o CJ CJ CJ CJ

CBS O

z s CJ CJ

164

l n v o < r c N r > » c N r H r » o o ^ l n s r o ^ ^ » » co<"vOr- (vo<NCNON>3"ONOineN i n i n c o v o o N r H C N O O i n o N o o i n r ~ > . > 3 " r H i n o o o o i n o c o c o o o o N r - ' v o r H C M s r < - r H O C 0 C N r H C M C 0 r - ( O > a " » 3 - r H r H O C M C M O C 0 < - C 0 r H C M C 0 C M

r H O r H C N v o e N s r i n o o o o o p ^ i n c M s r v O r H O r ^ < - c M c o i n v O r ^ r > . i n o C O C N O O C M v O r - i C M C O C M O C M - v f O O C O C O - J - r H C M r ^ ' - l O r H C O r H r - ' C M

I I I I I I I I I I I I

i n i n c M O i n o i n i n o < ) " 0 ^ i n « j r \ o - < f ' < r c N i n i n \ o c M r H i n < r r > « - < r v o c o o c o o i n o o r ^ v o o N r ^ c o r H v o i n s o i n i n c o v o m c o o i n c o i n c T N i n c N m o o o o o O \ O c N c o r H c o ^ o o o c o o o o a o o o r s O N i n i n c o r « » c o o o

o o o N ^ t * ^ a \ r « . O N C N c N O N c o r * . c N ^ c N C N r H - < r c N O N c o r ^ O O v O r H r H o o r ^ r ^ c N r > . ^ Q O v r r > . f ^ 0 ^ v O

CN ^ 00 ^ r^ ô m O CO CO CO C 03 o

CO

vO r>. rH m rH CM CM r-t ON CN vO O O CM CO O sr CM O O rH

m CO CO CO CO CO CO

r H i n m r ^ s s r m O f ^ r H C M c o v O r H O O c o i n o t j N s o o 0 > 3 " t 3 N ^ O O i n o o o t 3 N o o r ^ r * i n t n c o c N c o ^ r ^ r H C O C O O O O O O O O C O O r H O C M r H C O O C M C N C O

o ^ s r c o o » ^ ^ v o o o l n - ^ r H O c o o o o N l n v o o o o ^ o • c • r H o ^ o ^ l n < • \ o r H C M O r H i n i n C N e N O O C O i n i n c O - ^ v O i n O C N r H C O r H e N O > a " r H r H O

I I

Q i S H J H d 3 S O S > J H Q - O C 5 2 C t . O f e C s . C t i E - i C J O f e f t i a j C J Z C J H - ' C J C J C J C J C J C J C J C U ( i . C l * < : < 3 Q C 3

< : < j o CJ c u s < o i p o o c c a c j u u ^ z S a c O S H - t H H S O S c o C J C O C J t j

QJ 3

1 3

CO

CO

>s U CO

>

CO

s CO 4-1 d QJ

•H o

QJ O O

d o

to

o r H

u £ O

13 QJ 01 1-1

u^

14-1

O

CO QJ QJ U 00 QJ o He

CJN

II

£ o

13 QJ QJ ! - i

U-l

U-l

O

CO QJ QJ M OC V

r^

He He

QJ )-i U O

a c CO £ ! - i

to QJ O.

CO

u o

<4-l

0) a d to CJ

• H

<4-l •H d 00

•H CO

(4-1

o r J

QJ > QJ

r-^

QJ J= H He He He

• iO /•

T H

- 3 C ^ c S-I

165

CO

90UB0

-TJTnSTS

3U3T0

-TJ5903

aouBo

O T : ; S T : ; B 3 S

v o c o c M o o o o s r c o < r v O i n i n r » « . O N r H v O v o c o v o c o r H O N O c N C 3 N r ^ C M O O N - . T v O O C O O v O r H C N O N e N O O v O r - > . O N C O O N O O O C O r H O O C M - J - O r H r H r H O C N e M C N r H O r H C M C O « ^ O C O < "

O N O t j N o o r ^ i n r ^ O N i n t j N v O i n < " o o v o c N r J O c O i n v O r H O v J - C O C O C O ~ 3 - C M C N r H C O > 3 " C O

ON ON vo o r^ rH o o sr ^ o

I I I I I I I I I I

CO

CO

3 0 U B 0

-TJTnSrs

3U3TO

-TJ^soO

V O O C 3 N C O C M ^ O N i n O > 3 " O N v O O r H O N O N r H r H v « O N r H C O C O c M C M O m o ^ o c M v o m c M O r ^ O C N O v o o o m r ^ ^ s r i n o N c o i n i n c o c o < r O r H r H Q O P ^ O N i n c o i n a > o o o o i n > 3 ' s r

He •K * CO

r H r H C O m r H C N C O C O C O C O r H v O O O C N O O s r C N ^ f O C M O N O N

< r o o c o c o i n o v o i n o c o o o o » 4 - - c o o o o c o i n i n CM i n rH CO CM CN

v ^ c M i n m r H C N s o c o r H s r O O N s r s r - 3 " < T c o o o i n r ^ < r « * « ^ r H C O r H « 3 " r H - J - C O v O r - i r - ^ i n r H ^ ^ C N C N C N r H O N s r i n C J N C O ^ r H C O O « * O r H O r H r H r H r H C M O O O « * ^ C O C O C N s r

o o m c o o m o s r c o c N i n O r H i n m O O C M r H C O r H C O C M C O C N C M C M C M r-i CO

o o > 3 - < r v o o o s r o > 3 - s r o o o O r H O

I I I I I I I

rH CN CO rH CM CO H J c o C d C L i a U C J U C £ < b r i 4 a C 3 Q C i S o i H H W Z h J c o C J O C J C J C J C J

CM CO

CJ CJ

rH CN CO O C5i C S S S CJ Z S

CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ

166

s o r ^ m m c N r H c o i n o o o i n s r m o o o o o N - a ' O c o r H O N C M C N C M Q O - a ' i n o v o o g e N P O o o O s r O N O N r s v o o i n o o o N r H i n c M O O c M r - i v O O i n r H r ^ r ^ C O O r H O s r O O « a - O C M r H O O O r H O r H s r i H O O O C N O O C M O < -

CM •«a-

NO CO â- rH rH CN O rH m o 00 m o - * <-{

O N r H C N 0 0 C N r - > O C N v O t 3 N C M v O > * O i n 0 0 c o r ^ ^ a - s r c M v o c o o c o o o m v o c N r - s r

m CN

CN o

I I I I I I I I I

\ O i n r ^ r * r * » s r s r r H r > . r » « r^ v O t ^ r < . ^ « * r - » r H C N i n r H O N v o o c o s r - ^ s r O O N C N - ^ O N i n i n ^ a - O N O O s r ^ d - c N C N c M c N O 0 0 0 0 v O v O C N O > 3 " r H C M s r O O v O O O O C M C J N r - » O r H r H 0 0

sr CM vO rH >3-ON O O 00 CO rH O OO 00 00

vO «d- rH rH sr CN O O CM CN CO CM

r- o sr vo CM sr «^ sr CO >j' vo vo CM

m C N C M s T r H C O C O r H P ^ C N C N C O O r H O ^ a -

O vc rs. ON vo CM sr CO rH sO CN O O O

1-i 00 CN CO CO CN 00 CO rH m CN CN r-i ON

r H v O C O C O C O r H r * . O N i n O N r H s r < " r H r H r H i n v O r H C M C O r ^ O < - s r C M I ^ C M O i n O O O r - l C O » 3 - r H C O r H O C M O < - r H O O r H O O O O

O vO rH ON CO ON r^ CM O O O rH CM O O O O CO

rH rH t3N m CM O O O -3- CO O O O CN r^

OOsf«^CJNOQOsT«3 ->3 '<3NrHrHrHOOrHsrs rcOCJNCNr^ O O C N O C M ^ O r H C O O r H ^ a - m C N i n s O v O s T r H C O v O - ^

CO in

m 00

o vo sr r^ sr rH

I I I I I I

0 ! S Z 3 H J H 3 S O 3 H C U C J p t i i - H O P u f e [ i 4 H C J O I i , p H C J c j c j c j c j c j c j c j c j c u f i i < : < :

Q 3 < :< :o CJ cus<:ce: z c j M s o o o Q u c j w a z S o o 3 Q O O d 3 M H H 5 O Z C 0 C J C 0 C J C J

CO «3-

0) 3 13

.d 00

CO

u CO >

CO £ CD

d QJ •H O •H <4-l U.I' QJ O

a d o

to r-i QJ Ul U O CJ

d to

to QJ c. CO

Ul

o <4-l QJ o d CO o

U II -H 14-1

E E -H O O d -o 13 ao QJ QJ -H QJ QJ CO Ul Ul U-l 14-1 U-l

o U-l (4-1

O O r-l QJ 00

CO CD > c: QJ QJ QJ -H QJ 0) rH 13 u u d 00 00 QJ 3 QJ QJ ^ O G Q E- Ul He He HC

He He He

APPENDIX F

Post Study Questionnaires

167

MIS RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE ^^^ (INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT)

1. How would you classify your position within your department? (Check one)

Top level Middle level Lower level


A Lot Little

3. How long have you worked for your present employer? (Check one) 5 years or less 15 to 20 years 5 to 10 years over 20 years 10 to 15 years

4. How long have you held your present position? (Check one) 1 year or less 3 to 4 years 1 to 2 years 4 to 5 years 2 to 3 years over 5 years

5. Have you ever had any training in the areas of "management" or "the functions of management?" YES NO

If YES, was the training provided by (Multiple responses permitted):


Training provided by you present employer? If so, how much was: On-the-job training Weeks.

Classroom training Hours. Other (specify) .

Training provided by a previous employer? If so, how much was: On-the-job training t-Jeeks.

Classroom training Hours. Other (specify) .

MANY OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS DEAL WITH CONTACT BETWEEN YOU AND PERSONNEL IN A MANAGEMENT POSITION. THE TERM "MANAGEMENT" AS USED IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN A MANAGEMENT POSITION IN YOUR DEPARTMENT. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHILE ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

6. From your perspective, what level within the company is the manager or group of managers with whom you work most closely? (Check one)

Top management Middle management Operating management

How much organizational status do you feel is attached to the position of the manager(s) with whom you work must closely? (Check one)

A Lot Little

8.

10.

11,

How many times did you communicate with a manager (in either a written or oral form) when the main purpose of the contact was to determine the feasibility of a particular system to provide the manager with information? (Feasibility is used to mean an assessment of the need, cost, benefits and impact on existing personnel of a tentative or proposed system.) (Check one in each column.)


169

nc 1 3 5 o\

me or or or 7er

2 4 6 6


How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was systems analysis, design and planning? (Analysis, design and planning is used to mean the determination of specific information needs, selecting a procedure to meet those needs and scheduling resources to create the procedure.) (Check one in each column.)

Minimum Average Maximum nc 1 3 5 o

me or or or

rer

2 4 6 6


How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was system implementation? (Implementation is used to mean the activities such as designing report formats, creating and testing program and procedures, and converting to the new system.)

Minimum Average

training necessary personnel

Maximum none 1 or 3 or 5 or over

2 4 6 6


How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was system modification and maintenance? (Modification is used to mean changes to an existing system which are not part of the original plan or planned changes of a major significance. Maintenance is used to mean periodic changes to a system on a planned basis, but not of major significance.) (Check one in each column.)

Minimum Average Maximum nc 1 3 5 OS

me or or or ;-er

2 4 6 6


170 12. I feel that contact with managers during the overall development

of a system is:


THE QUESTIONS BELOW DEAL WITH YOUR CONTACT WITH MANAGERS AND THE INFORMATION WHICH MANAGERS RECEIVE FROM YOUR FIRM'S COMPUTERIZED BUSINESS SYSTEM. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHILE ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

13. During the development of a system for the manager's use, contact with the manager was generally: (Check one in each category.)

on a one-to-one basis by committee, group on "as needed" basis

initiated by me oral

by standard forms or reports frustrating

time consuming costly relative to

benefits

on a regular basis initiated by the manager written by letters or notes

not frustrating not time consuming inexpensive relative to benefits

14. When communicating with managers, I generally prefer:

oral communication written communication

15. I generally find managers: approachable accessible

not approachable not accessible

16. With regard to the contents of a report (what it contains), managers generally:

feel it is important to approve it

can change it after receiving it

feel it is important that the contents

be current

do not feel it is impor-for them to approve it cannot change it after receiving it do not feel it is important that the contents be current

17. With regard to the frequency of a report (the timing of a report's receipt), managers generally:


receiving it feel it is important



do not feel it is important to be able to change it

18. With regard to the quantity of information on reports managers now receive, they are generally:


19. For the purpose of understanding the manager's information needs, I feel my knowledge of the manager's job is:

adequate inadequate

20. Once I have communicated my capability to satisfy the manager's information needs, I feel the manager's communication of his understanding of my capability is:

adequate inadequate

21. How long do you feel it should take for the manager to receive the first production of a report once the initial request has been made?


22. My directions to managers need clarification:

rarely often

23. When I ask managers for information, I generally:

get what I want do not get what I want

24. The understanding of management of how my department works is:

adequate inadequate

25. My understanding of how the manager's department or function works is:

adequate inadequate

26. Communications breakdown between managers and myself occur because they have overstepped their authority:

rarely often

27. I experience delays in getting information from managers because of demands on their time by other members of the company:

rarely often

172

28. Written messages to managers (which include instructions) need clarification:

rarely often

29. Spoken (oral) messages to managers (which include instructions) need clarification:

rarely often

30. When I ask managers for information and I do not get the information, it is because the specifications were unclear:

rarely often

31. When I ask managers for information and I do not get the information, it is because the manager could not provide the information;

rarely often

32. During the development of a system for the managers* use, how often do you have contact with a data administrator or data librarian (an individual or group in your company who is responsible for maintaining, controlling and granting access to data)?

Never rarely often

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. PLEASE INSERT THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE AND PLACE IT IN THE MAIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

173

MIS RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE (MANAGEMENT RESPONDENT)

1. How would you classify your position within your company? (Check one) Top Management Middle Management Operating Management


A Lot Little

3. How long have you worked for your present employer? (Check one) 5 years or less 15 to 20 years 5 to 10 years over 20 years 10 to 15 years

4. How long have you held your present position? (Check one) 1 year or less 3 to 4 years 1 to 2 years 4 to 5 years 2 to 3 years over 5 years

5. Have you ever had any training in the areas of "computers" or "management information systems?" YES NO

If YES, was the training provided by (Mulitple responses permitted):


_Training provided by your present employer? If so, how much was: On-the-job training Weeks.


_Training provided by a previous employer? If so, how much was: On-the-job training Weeks.


MANY OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS DEAL WITH CONTACT BETWEEN YOU AND THE PERSONNEL IN THE INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT (ISD). THIS IS THE DEPARTMENT IN YOUR COMPANY CONTAINING THE "COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYST" FUNCTION. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHILE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW.

6. From your perspective, what level within the ISD is the person(s) with whom you work most closely? (Check one)

Top level Middle level Lower level

174

7. How much organizational status do you feel is attached to the position of the ISD personnel with whom you work most closely? (Check the position which most closely represents your feelings.)

A Lot Little

8. How many times did you communicate with ISD personnel (in either a written or oral form) when the main purpose of the contact was t(D determine the feasibility of a particular system to provide you with information? (Feasibility is used to mean an assessment of the need, cost, benefits and impact on existing personnel of a tentative or proposed system.) (Check one in each column.)

Minimum Average Maximum none 1 to 5 times 6 to 10 times 11 to 15 times over 15 times

9. How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was systems analysis, design and planning? (Analysis, design and planning are used to mean the determination of specific information needs, selecting a procedure to meet those needs and scheduling resources to create the procedure.) (Check one in each column.)

Minimum Average Maximum none 1 to 5 times 6 to 10 times 11 to 15 times over 15 times

10. How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was system implementation? (Implementation is used to mean the activities such as designing report formats, creating and testing programs and procedures, training necessary personnel and converting to the new system.) (Check one in each column.)

Minimum Average Maximum none

' 1 to 5 times 6 to 10 times 11 to 15 times over 15 times

11. How many times did you communicate when the main purpose of the contact was system modification and maintenance? (Modification is used to mean changes to an existing system which are not part of the original plan or planned changes of a major significance.

11.

13

Continued. Maintenance is used to mean periodic changes to a system on a planned basis, but not of a major significance.) (Check one in each column.)


none I to 5 times 6 to 10 times II to 15 times over 15 times

12. I feel that contact with ISD personnel during the feasibility study and system analysis, planning and design is: (Check one position.)


175

I feel that contact with ISD personnel during system implementation and system modification and maintenance is: (Check one position.)


THE QUESTIONS BELOW DEAL WITH YOUR CONTACT WITH ISD PERSONNEL AND THE INFORMATION WHICH YOU RECEIVE FROM YOUR FIRM'S COMPUTERIZED BUSINESS SYSTEM. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHILE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS.

14. During the development of a system for my use, contact with ISD personnel was generally: (Check one position in each category.)

made by me initiated by me

oral by standard forms

or reports time consuming

frustrating costly relative

to benefits

made by others initiated by the ISD written by letters or notes

not time consuming not frustrating inexpensive realtive to benefits

15. When communicating with ISD personnel, I generally prefer:

oral communication standard forms

or reports

16. I generally find ISD personnel:

approachable accessible

use terms I do not understand

written communication letters or notes

unapproachable not accessible use terms I understand

176

17. With regard to the contents of a report (what it contains), I generally:

approve it before I do not approve it before start receiving it I start receiving it

18. With regard to the format of a report (how it looks), I generally:

can change it after cannot change it after I I start receiving it start receiving it

feel satisfied do not feel satisfied with it with it

19. With regard to the frequency of a report (the timing of a report's receipt), I generally:

feel it is important do not feel it is impor-for me to approve it tant for me to approve it feel it is important do not feel it is impor-

for reports to be tant for reports to be delivered on time delivered on time

20. For the purpose of explaining my information needs to the ISD, I feel my knowledge of "computers" and "management information systems" is:

adequate inadequate

21. I feel that the ISD's communication of what they can do to satisfy my information needs is:

adequate inadequate

22. How long do you feel it should take to receive the first production of a report, once the initial request has been made? (Check one in each column.)


23. Approximately how many different reports do you receive at least once a year? (Check one.)


177

24. How important is it that you receive the right number of reports?


25. When I ask ISD personnel for information, I generally:

get what I want do not get what I want

26. The understanding of the ISD personnel of how my department or function works is:

adequate inadequate

27. My understanding of how the Information Services Department works is:

adequate inadequate

28. Communications breakdown between the ISD and myself occur because I have overstepped my authority:

rarely often

29. Communications breakdown between the ISD and myself occur because the ISD overstepped its authority:

rarely often

30. I experience delays in getting information from ISD personnel because of the demands on their time by other members of the company:

rarely often

31. Written messages to ISD personnel (which include instructions) need clarification:

rarely often

32. When I ask the ISD for information and I do not get the information, it is because the ISD could not provide the information:

rarely often

33. When I ask the ISD for information and I do not get the information, it is because the specifications were unclear:

rarely often

34. Relative to my position in the company, I feel that the ISD personnel with whom I come in contact have:


178

35. During the development of a system for your use, how often do you have contact with a data administrator or data librarian (an individual or group in your company who is responsible for maintaining, controlling and granting access to data)?

never rarely often

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. PLEASE INSERT THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE AND PLACE IT IN THE MAIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

APPENDIX G

Computational Procedures for Question Indexes

179

180

Computational Procedures For Question Indexes*

1. Management Satisfaction Index (I ) — Management Data

I^ = •656Q^g^ + .757Q22 + .768Q23 + .570Q^g^ + .628Q2^

2. Management Involvement Index (I-) — Management Data

3. Management Influence Capability Index (I,,) — Management Data

4. Communication Success Index (I,) — Management Data

I^ = -âSQ^Q + .698Q23

5. Management Satisfaction Index (I^) — ISD Data

6. Management Involvement Index (I2) — ISD Data

h ' -^""iTa - • "''lea

7. Management Influence Capability Index (I^) — ISD Data

I3 = .703Q^^^ + .722Q^g^

8. Communication Success Index (I^) — ISD Data

I^ = •763Q2Q + .815Q^g

* The character "Q" indicates the source to be a question and the subscript indicates the question number (as found in Appendix B). The combination of questions and the question weightings were determined by factor analysis, the results of which are shown in Appendix C, Part I.

APPENDIX H

Index Conversion into Categories

for

Chi Square Test

181

182

Index

Index Conversions Into Categories For Chi Square Tests*

Management Indexes

Meaning

1.

2.

3.

4.

Satisfied

High Pre-involvement

High Post-

Involvement

Successful Communication

Maximum Value

7.070

7.690

7.180

Mid-point Value

19.945 11.662

4.242

4.614

4.308

Minimum Value

3.379

1.414

1.518

1.436

Meaning

Dissatisfied

Low Pre-involvement

Low Post-

Involvement

Unsuccessful Communication

Index

1.

2.

3.

4.

Meaning

Satisfied

Involved

High Influence

Capability

Successful Communication

ISD Indexes

Maximum Value

11.753

7.970

7.125

7.890

Mid-point Value

6.917

4.782

4.275

4.734

Minimum Value

2.081

1.594

1.425

1.578

Meaning

Dissatisfied

Uninvolved

Low Influence

Capability

Unsuccessful Communication

* The maximum value is the maximum computable value based on index computation procedures and scales used. The same is also the case for minimum values.

APPENDIX I

Analysis of Hypotheses

183

184

d QJ

e u u CO 04 QJ

Q QJ O

•H > Ul QJ

cn d o

CO E Ul

o d

d od

•H C«

QJ Ul CO 3 cr CO

• H 4= CJ

d 0

• H 4J CO

r H QJ Ul Ul 0

CJ

d CO

e Ul CO QJ a co]

CO 0 0 r H CO NO 0

<-i 0 CJN m r^ CN

CN r^ r-i m 00 CO

r^ 0 S3- 0 3 ON CO

r^ â-vO c:o CX3 r-i

o^ in >3- CO NO < *

NO r*v

m r*» CN CO

• • 1

0 00 r sr 0 r-i

r in m 00 0 0

in r* 0 vO 0 0

0 0 CN 0

r>. <y\ r->

r* \0 0 CO c j 0

<

o

d 0)

S QJ 001 CO

d CO

QJ O d CO o

•H U-l •H C 04

•H CO

QJ Ul CO 3 W CO

• H 4 : CJ

d 0

•H U CO

r H QJ U U 0

0

d CO S u CO QJ Q .

CO

i n rH CO m rH 0

- a- m 0 0 i n r H CN

r - 1-t ON 0 0 r^ sa-

vO r-^

0 0 0 0

vO r<. 0 0 0 0

0 ON CO 0 0 0

CJN CO CN

CN

^ ^ d 0

• H 4.1 a CO

U-l CO

•H J-1 CO

CO

m 0 CV4

XJ d QJ e QJ >

r H 0 > d

M 1 QJ Ul (U

r-i NO P^

^

«« , ^ d 0

•H 4-1 a CO

(w CO

• H i J CO

CO

CO CO 0

4J d QJ a QJ >

r H 0 > d M 1

4_l CO 0 CU

vO vO 0

->«^ d 0

•H 4-1 0 CO

14-1

CO • H 4-1 CO cn

NO NO 0

cce

ss

3 tn

d 0

•H 4J CO 0

•r4 d 3 B e 0 u

0 0

^ i n

r,«

"•.^ 4J

d QJ

6 QJ >

r H 0 > d

M 1 QJ Ul

(Xi

0 ^ s l -

4J d QJ

e QJ >

r H 0 > d

M

1 4-1 CO 0

0 4

0 0 CN S f

r^

" • > « .

4-1 d QJ g Q)

> r H

0 > d

M 1 QJ Ul P

CN 0 CO

cc

es

s

3 en

d 0

• H ,UI CO CJ

• H

d 3 s s 0

CJ

ON 0 0 vO

sr

4J d QJ £ QJ >

r H 0 > d

1—1

1 u CO

0 p-l

CN ON CN

cce

ss

3 CO

c 0

• H 4-1 CO

a •H d 3 e E 0 CJ

185

d QJ

e u U l CO O-l QJ

Q QJ a

•H > Ul QJ

CO d o

• K QJ CJ d CO u

d od

• H C O

QJ Ul CO 3 O" CO

•H 4= CJ

d o •H 4iJ CO

rH QJ Ul Ul

o O

d CO 6 Ul CO QJ a

CO

CO o vO CO

m 00 0 0 VO NO ^

m 00 0 0 r-i vO CM

ON CO 0 0 NO vo sr

r-i CJN 1 ^ vO O r-i

<f I

rH NO in o r- sr

sr r 1-i m fi f-i

CO o s r CJN O CN

CO CN -3- NO O CN

O CO r-i CN

o o

NO O 0 0 CN CM CO

00 o o

r-i

CO o

pa

>^ z <: cu S o CJ

d QJ s QJ 00| CO

d

QJ O d CO o

d ^ 001

•H CO

QJ Ul CO 3 cr CO

•H ^ CJ

d o •H 4J CO

r-i QJ U4 Ul O

CJ

d CO S Ul CO QJ

a CO

CO ON NO CM r*. CO

r-i ON CN O

r*. sr

(JN o in vo r-i •<t

ON 0 0 NO r-i s r r-i

CM CO

sr o

CN I

>> d o

•H 4-1 O CO

UH CO

•H 4-1 CO

CO

4J d QJ

e QJ >

r-i Q > C

M 1 QJ Ul

CU

•" , d o •H 4J

a CO

14-1

CO •H 4-1 CO

CO

4J

d QJ

s QJ >

r-i

o > d

M 1

4J CO O

CU

"~ d o •H 4J O CO

<4H CO

•H 4J CO

CO

CO CO QJ CJ O 3

CO

3

o •H 4J CO o

•H

d 3 E S o u

* 4J d QJ E QJ >

rH

o > d

M 1 QJ U CU

4J

d QJ

E QJ

> rH

o > d

M 1

4-1 CO

o !U

CJN O NO NO >3- CN

O CO o sr O r-i

NO m r-i r*

o o

IS. CN m CO 00 o

m r-i O r>. m CO

vO o 00 <T NO m

i n

o m

NO

o r 4

4H d QJ E QJ >

r-i

o > a M 1 QJ Ul

CU

CO CO QJ o o 3

CO

d 0

•H 4-1 CO a

•H d 3 E E 0

CJ

4-1 d Q) E QJ >

r-i

o > d

M 1

4J CO

o cu

CO CO QJ CJ a 3

CO

d o •H U CO o

•H d 3 £ E o u

QJ 3

r-i CO >

CO 4 = a

rH 03

Ul

o

T3 QJ 4-1

3 4-1

CO 43 3 CO

4J CO QJ 4.4

U O CO X QJ

CO

U l QJ

4 = CO

•r.

186

d QJ

s 4-t Ul CO

o. QJ O QJ O

•H > U l QJ

CO

•K QJ a d CO

o

d 00

• H CO

d o

• H 4-1 CO

r - l QJ U l

CO E U l

o c

QJ U l CO 3 C l Ul CO I

• H 4 = CJ

o u d CO E U l CO QJ

a. CO

ON O NO CJN r>» CN

oo r CO NO CO O

r-i ON CO s r CN O

m \o 00 CN

m 00 s r CN m r-i

m NO sr m O rH

ON m CN O o -a-

O N CO o sr vO - ^

PS vO CN r ^ CN r-l

i n CO 00 r-i r^ CO

I I I

CN r^ CJN O O O

NO <a-CO r-l vO vO

CO I

CJ

QJ

O CJ

CO ?

CO 4 = a CO

Ul

o

T3 0)

CO 43 3 S

d

d S O QJ

• H > 4-1 rH CJ O CO >

<^-i c CO M

• H - I U QJ CO U l

CO P H

4-1 d QJ -^ e

d QJ c >

T 4 r-i 4J O O > CO d

<4-i I - * . CO I

• H 4-1 4-1 CO CO O

CO cu

CO CO QJ U O 3

CO

-s^ d d o O - H

• H 4-1 4-1 CO O CJ CO - H -

(4-1 d CO 3

CD C CO CJ

4-1 d d QJ QJ a E QJ QJ > > rH

r-' O O > >• d d »H

M I. P A-

QJ CO !H O

(U CU

CO CO QJ CJ CJ

^ ^ 3 U CO d QJ E QJ >

r-4

o

d o

(J •H d 3

I QJ E M O

CU CJ

CO CO QJ

u ~^^ CJ 4-1 3 d CO QJ

E d QJ O > -rt

r-l 4-1 0 CD > CJ d "TH

M C 1 3

4-1 E CO E O c

j3 U

CO QJ

4-1 C CO

QJ

CO

U l QJ

4 = CO

APPENDIX J

Analysis of Variables in the Management

Perceived Communication Success Model

187

i c N N O c j N i n c M O s r o m v o o N C O v O « a • C M C O O N N O , H r H C ^ • ^ C O s r C M ^ a - C M r H C O r H r H C M r H

188 OOONCMcooNincM>a-aocNON O O N O N C O m C N ^ a - O C J N O N O N O O C O r H CvJOO C O O O C M C O C O s r c O r ^ O r H O r^ r-i

d QJ £ QJ 00 CO d CO

3 (4-1

CO CO QJ u o 3

CO

^

N

r H c o c o c N r ^ m - ^ i n o o m r s . Q O C N J Q O i n c j N C O C J N C N r H > a - r ^ O O r H O r H C M O C O C O r H C N

I 1 1 I

v o v o N O N O v O N O i n v o > a - v O N O

N O r H N O v o o m c o m c N i n i ^ o I ^ C O O O r H C O O r ^ C O i n O N C N O s r s r C M r H r H O O C N C O C N i n

I I I I I I I I I I I

N O N O N O N O N O N O N O V O V O S O V O N O

CN vO r-i CO CO CM

• • I

m m

o S S S S S 2 2 2 2 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o OCMC3C3 o o o o o o c M c N r H i n o o o m m o o o o o ' ^ ' ^ ' - J ' - J ' " I ' t ' ^ ' " ^ ' " ' ' " ' O O O O r H r H r H O O r H r H r H r H r H

^ ^ 2 l 2 ' 5 ^ ! : : : ' ~ ' ' ~ ' " * " * O N O c o c o - a - o o ^ a - r s o c N O s r r ^ - ^ rHoocomcNOcMrs- rHvo o o s r m o o o c N i n v o s r m o r-irH

* ^ ' - l C N C N C M r H r H r i r H r H r H

m m m i n m m i n m m m psONOao>a-ONONcoocMvn r^vooâ-rnmoNâ-cMvoooNO oor>. i n c o c o i n » n i n i n i n > a - N O i n cMCMCNco>a-srcocococo,.3-in m m

Ul d QJ QJ

•T3 d d o QJ a

CO £ o

CJ

QJ 00 CO CO CO QJ S

4.4 d QJ d o Q. £ o

CJ

r^ d 0) 0) c d d o CO D.

4= £ U O

CJ

< (U

o CJ

d QJ E QJ 00 CO d CO S

^ r H C N r s r H m i - » . r H O - * r H r H O N O c N O v o c o N o m > a - o t H r H O C N O C N C M r H C N ^ O

O O O C O N O C O v O x a - r H r o O N r H C M O N O v O O O O O s r O O C M C M r H C O r H O C O C O > a - o c o o o o o o o o o o O C N

c N O c N m v o o o m m o o o m v O C J N O N O C O O N C M C O r H r H r H r H r H O m O O r H O O r ^

O r ^ N O O O C N N O - « 3 - ^ O c o o o O N ^ r - t r ^ C O r H O r H s r m v O C M O O s r v o r * . O r H O C N C O C O C M C N C N C M C N C O r H O

I I

m s r m s r m s r c o ^ s ' O N s r m NO NO NO VO NO NO NO NO m NO NO

I I I I I I I I I I I

C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C M C N C N N O N O N O N O N O V O N O N O N O V O N O N O

I

-3- rs vO m

CO CO QJ o o 3

C O

CO CO QJ

N

oorHsrsroo->a-r^NO>a-cocN r H O O C O r H V O s r i ^ O O O m O O O o o r H r ^ - c o o N c o m o N

>J- < • CM O O O r ^ c o m r H - , a - r ^ v j 3 o o o o O O O O O O N r H r ^ r ^ r H O O < - r H m m O O O r H C O O C N r H r H O O r H — l O

00 CO

CN

m

o a\ CO 00

CO CN

m

r^ CN

m

CJN m r-i

O CO

m ON

m

sr O

r»» 00

m

r-NO

NO O

m

m m CO

m

m m CO

m

o rH

CO

m

CJN CN

r-i

sr o r^

m

CO r*. r-i

m

o r-i

r-i

ON m r^

r-i NO

r-i

m r*> CM

CO ON

r-i

m

ON m r-i

<f -3-

r-i

r^ CJN

r-i

r ^ m > a - c j N m o N o o N O c N N O o o O r » » c o O N O O N r H O N m v o c o N O s r m o o N o r » r ^ r ^ N O P ^ o o

C O C O C O C N r H O O s T r H O O C M C N N O m C O O r ^ C N r H ^ > ^ U O V O V O N O N O N O N O

CN ON >a-

C3N vO m

NO r—* NO

CO r>« NO

r-i

m m

M I-] 03 < oe: < >

cu CO U cu Q O H H W

S C J C t < < ; M r H C N C O r H C N C O r H C N C O r H C N C O O ^

M O c o o s fapufoMMMSSS<:-<<: co CUCUM C J C J C J C J U C J C J C J C J C J C J C J

189

4J

d QJ E QJ OC CO d CO S

3 U - l CO CO QJ CJ CJ

3 CO Csl

CM O rs, r-i CO -a-

00 CM 00 NO O O

NO NO r-i rH

o o o o r-i r-i

NO r-i

r-i •<r r-i r-*

.057

-.

410

NO fH

.100

m m

GO

T*

.338

NO r-i

GO

T*

CO

«a-r-i

.150

.2

76

NO r-i

CJN r-i

.484

.0

11

NO r-i

GO

T-

o 00

r-i .0

71

.384

m r-i

GO

T-

o rH

.098

.3

42

vO r-i

GO

T-

m CO

r-i

.236

.1

94

VO r-i

GO

T*

rH 00

.433

-.

04

6

m r-i

GO

T*

CO

m

.284

.1

54

m r^

GO

T*

sr o

r-i

.117

-.

316

vO r-i

GO

T-

m sr

.331

-.1

19

NO r-i

GO

T*

o CN

.253

-.

179

1

NO r-i

GO

T-

CO

o

.400

-.

06

9

1

NO r-i

GO

T*

CO CM

r-i

.234

.1

95

vO r^

.100

NO

.448

m CO

o I

vO rH

,100

CN CO

m m m m m m NO CN m CM rH NO 00 s r s r m >a- NO CO m

N O v O C N m r ^ r H C O > 3 -» a - m m « a - m N O N O s r

CO ON

m m

Ul d QJ QJ 4-1 d r-i O •H O. EE4 £

O CJ

Ul -Ul QJ d > QJ •H d QJ O u a QJ £ ca o

CJ

^ 4J O d CO QJ 43 d

-o O QJ O. QJ £ (X4 O

CJ

TJ QJ 3

d

d o o

•y 4J

d QJ £ QJ 00 CO d CO X .

CO CO QJ

o a 3

C O CO CO QJ

r J

Cs]

\ o >a- vo ON ON m CN O Ps rH < - ON rH ON CO CO o CO >T o s r

O N c o « * s r r » . s r r H s r srco m o N O O O m o m rHNO C M r H O O O r H O r H OCO

s r -H NO ON o 00 CO NO « * NO >3- O NO O O O CM O O CN O

C M O N r H v O C O O N r > , 0 0 c o s r C O O C O C N O C M C N C M P » « a -O r H C O C O C O r H m r H C M O

I

CM CN CO CO m CO CM vO NO NO NO NO NO NO

00 O

O r O ON ON O ON 00 CM CO -^ a- o sr CN o sr P-* r o m

I I I I

m s r c o c o m s r m m V O N O N O N O N O V O N O V O

r * » c o o o o m c o o o s r r ^ m O N O v o m o c o r-i-^CnOSr-^r-iOir-i

CO m CO sr o sr CM ON ON CO 00 rH o a-vo m f r^ 00 r^

sr CO NO NO

CN CN m CO CO CO

no o r-i

CM o CN

m

ON r

m

CM CO

m

CM CO

NO ON

CO

CM O NO

m CO

r-i

m r>»

m

CO O r-i

NO O

ON CO

r-i

CO

sr rH

m

NO CN

r-i

o m r-i

CO CJN

CO ON

m r > . s r r H c o O o o m o cMsr C M m r H r H O N r » » O C 0 C O r H f^r»»p-»cONONOr^NO r^p^

d CO O. E O CJ

PQ < M oi < >

3 O (iu CJ < 2 CO 3 H ca 3

O CO

u u CJ cu CJ p <: cu en cu CJ z Q

O ^ <J 3 H

M CU 3 Z O CJ

v o m m m c N m N O I C M C O S T c o m o o c o i ^ m c o i P S ^ C N r H C N C O C O r H C M r H I r H C O r H

190 m c N s r m o o m o m m c N » r COCN c o o o r * . m o o m o m o o o o r > . srr«» C O C O C N C M m m C M m C N C O C O C M C O - . I

d QJ £ QJ OO CO d «3 :

CN m rH rH sr m CN rH ON 00 00 >a' ON rH NO CO rH rH m CO NO

I »a- o CN I â- m rH I m CN NO

rH NO CO m o o m 00 00 NO <JN O O ON rH rH CO CO O O CO

o m rH vo CO o sr O ON 00 00 vo m ^ O CO rH rH CO CM m

I I I I I

m m m m m m m m m m m

I I

m m m m m m m m m m m m

I I

m CO

CO CO OJ CJ CJ 3

CO

•i

N

o o o o u-l in

. ' ~ ! ' ^ ' ~ I ' ^ ' ~ ! ' ^ ' ^ ' ^ ' ~ ' ® r ^ r - i r ^ r ^ r - i r - i r ^ r - i r - i r - i r ^ r - i O r-i

' ^ ! ! ^ 2 ° S * ^ " ^ ° ° ' * ' ~ * ^ ' * ~ O O r H O O C O ^ O r s - O N O N N T r H N O m c O - , T r - I C O N O m O O C O O N r H r > . O N N O O > a ' C N O N O C O m O r H v O C O O C M

r-i r-i r-i r-i r-i ,-i ^ ,-i ^ ^ C N r H

m m m m m m m m m m P ^ C O O O m N O O O r H r s v O v O r * . C O r H O N O C M C M m > a - P * r H s r C N P>!vO

PQ

Ul d QJ QJ

T3 d d o QJ Ou

CO £ O

U

4J 01 d 00 QJ (0 d CO o CO Q. QJ £

S O CJ

u rH d

QJ QJ d d d o CO O .

. d E CJ o

CJ

o CJ

-^

c QJ E 0) OC CO d CO s ;

o \ o o N O P > . > a - m o o s r s r c o r H f ^ m m p ^ o o o N c o N o o o o o c o c o O o o o s r c o o o c M O

r « . s r c N o o c j \ m p > . o o c o o o o N m O v o c M r ^ c o s r c M O r H v o m r H c N c o s r O c o s r c M > a - c o s r c o r H r H s r c N C N o o

o c o N o c N m s r m v o m s r r H O r H C O O C N O C O N O C N v O O r H r H m r H s r O r H s r « * C N C J N

^ r H m c N c o o o c o s r c o r ^ r ^ r H s r c N s r c M o o - ^ > 3 - r s . m o c N v o c o c o CMCJN r H O r H O r H O r H C O C O O C N C N m N O

I I I I

C N C N C M C M C N C M C M C M C N C M C M r-ir-ir-ir-ir-ir-ir-ir-ir-ir-^r-i

I I I I

C N C M C N C N C M C M C M C N C M C M C N C N CN O

3 I4H CO 0] QJ O CJ 3

C O

CO CO QJ

-i

CNJ

O O O O CM O rH CM O r-i r-i r-i r-i <D Q

O O O m CN m

r - i r - i r - i , - ^ r H r - i r - i r - i r - i O O O

ON r-i

CN

00 -a-r-i

r^ CO

m

00 'O-

r-^ r-i

r-i

CN P^

CM

ON CO

CN

vO P».

r-i

m

m CO

r-i

m

vO CN

r-i

00 m r-i

m

p^ m fH

m

ON

m •

m

r-i CO

r-i

r-i 00

NO O r-i

m

CO 00 CO CO

r-i

CN

o

m

oo o

m

r-i ON

r-i

m

CM r-i

CM

m

r-i ON

r-i

m

r^ ON m NO

r-i

CN CJN

CN ON rH rH CN . * CN

CO m OO o PS CO ON rH

-a- r*. CN O

C O C M C M N O C O C O O N O N P ^ C O r ^ > ^ O O r H C N r H r H C O s r - ^ C J N O O C J N

ON s r CO 00

b3 r J 03

<

>

C U C O W C U O S S C J | i 4 < ; M r H C M C O r H C M C O r H C M C O r H C N C O 0 & : * o H H w g M o c o o s fa;x<feMMMSss<:<:<j co

C U C U M C J C J C J C J C J C J C J C J C J C J C J C J

m m CN «a- CN i >3-V m 00 00 r^ CO I ps

CM CO CO CM CO I CN

19 cMcomsrcNOmm o o s r m i s . a o o m m C O C O C N C N C O m C M C N

O vO O r-i

d QJ £ QJ 00 CO d ; CO

m rH NO CO NO I CO ON 00 00 NO 00 I NO CO rH rH CO rH I CO

• . . . . . I l l I

m m sr sr m m >a-

N O O m c o v o o m m o o m o N v o o o o o N O N rHCMCOCOrHOcOCO

I I I

O ON o m o m

I i H

m m m > a " < - m m m m m

3 (4-1 09 CO QJ CJ CJ 3

CO

i

N

o m

r-i O

o o o

CM O r-i

ON 00 CM m 00 NO CN NO ON sr rH ON CM CO

O N % T O N » a - o o m r H p s m r O s T N O r H v O O v O

O rH CO CO

CM

m m m m m p* 00 o CO CN 00

m m m m vocNp^cNmvocooN moo

Ul d QJ QJ *J d r-i O •H Q. 1 £

O CJ

Ul 4-1 QJ d > QJ

•H d QJ O U O. OJ £ Pi o

CJ

^ u o d CO QJ

43 d TJ O QJ a QJ £

EK O CJ

d QJ £ QJ OO CO d CO S

P^ CO CO r^ CN Ps CM rH CO ON CM CO ON CO sr -"a- o CN CO rH CO

m r H N O p s O O O C J N O N CNON r ^ P - O O N O O P ^ O C J N O r H r H O C N r H C M O O O O C O

00 m O ON rH rH O NO m rH CO ps sr O O <- CM rH CN rH

N O O r H N O 0 0 P » » m O PsCN O N m c o o v O f O N O o m m C M ^ r H C O C M s r v O s r r » r H

I I I r CM CN rH rH CM CN rH

I I I I I

C N C N C M r H r H C M C N C N CN CN

TJ QJ 3

d •H U d o CJ

CO CO QJ O a 3

CO

00 CO QJ

M

O O O O O r-i r-i O rH CM

rH O O rH rH O O

P^ r-i

00 P-

CN

m

CO 00

CN

00 ON

m

00 CM

r-i

NO 00

CN

NO CO

CN

r^ r-i

m

CO CM O

m

i ^ NO

m

r-i CO

>a-r-i

m p-»

CO P-N

m

NO O r-i

CJN NO

rH

rH O O - ^ NO rH St-m r^ NO rH rH (^ r-»

r H r H m c O s r C N C O C O

mmmcNcomcoco sr sr CN o

03

d CO

£ o CJ

Ed i-J 03 <: M Pi < >

3 CJ I* CJ <tj 2 CO 3" EH Q 2

CJ CO

CJ CJ o cu CJ ca <j cu CO cu a 2 ca

o <; <: o H

M CU 3 2 CJ CJ

APPENDIX K

Analysis of Variables in the ISD

Perceived Communication Success Model

192

i 0 0 r H r H C N O N m N O > a -o o o o o N O p ^ < j N > a -r H C M C N O O s r O c O

C N C M C M O C M r H N O v O C O O O O C O r H ' ^ m C O p ^ r ^ r s . r > . « a - O O N O O r ^ p ^ < J N r H r H O N c o O O O C M O O O O O C M C O C N O COrHCM

193

a CO

m » ^ s r N O O c o p » . r H »a -CNCNCMCJNCOrHrH • " ^ • • ^ • ^ N O O O O N O C N

r H r H p ^ r ^ > 3 - ^ r * . v o o N p ^ » a - c o N O o o c o m i ^ r ^ m r H m o o r H O c o r H N O o o p - m c o v o N O N O N O C O f » » O N v O O N O N C O r - i C N O O CM%a-CO

I I I I I I

V O N O V O V O N O N O N O V O

I I I

N O N O N O V O V O V O V O V O V C N O N O N O N O N O ' . ^ m

CO CO OJ CJ CJ 3

CO tsi

O O O O O O O O o o m o o o o o r-ir-iOr-tr-ir-ir-ir-^

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O r H r H O O m O

r-i r-i ,-i r-i Q G r^ r H O

00

u\ CN CO

CO 00

CO

m O

m CO CM

ON r-i

00 NO

NO

m NO sr

CN CO

sr CO

NO CM

m CO

00 CN

rs CO

m m

00 ON

CN NO

NO vO

-T m

CN ON

CN NO

CO 00

CM CN rH

m m m m m m m m m m m m r H m O N C O C O v O P ^ r H C N C O r H C O C O C O C O C N

c o - . a - m s r m > j - N o m c o o o o o c N C O C O C O C N C N C N C O C O C O C M r H r - i C M

ON CN <• CM rH CM

U U G QJ QJ T3 d d O QJ a CO £

o CJ

QJ 00 CO CO CO QJ

s

d QJ d o a £ O

o

r^ d QJ QJ d d d o CO o-4= £ CJ o

CJ

o CJ

NO m rH rH CJN rH CN O O

vO rH CO CO 00 o m sr o 00 CM O CO O O

P - O N C O O N O O C O O r H C J N v O O N r * . o o s r O r H N o r ^ s r m o o > a - c o c M ^ O N O o C O C O C M > a - c o s r c o - , a - > a - s r r H > a - » 3 - c o c N c N o c N s r

ca CO

r-i 3

14H CO CO QJ

o CJ 3

CO CO CO

 a - C M r H C O P ^ P ^ m s T O O O O O O O C N O O r H r H r H C O r H O

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO C N C N C N C M C M C N C N C M

rH ON CN NO CM O sr o sr m p>. NO 00 O CO rH ON P«. ON CO

CN

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ^ CO CO CO CO CO C M C M C M C N C M C M C M C N C N C N C N C N C M

m O v O r H C M O N m N O m r ^ C N C O r H N O O N f ^ O N s T r H C J N C O m r ^ r H r H O N • ^ r H m O C M C M P ^ O N m O O O O

O N O N P > « N O O N m P ^ C N r H r H s r O C N O O O m

c o c M N O O c o c o o o o o o N r ^ c M p ^ o p « . c o m r ^ r H c N C N O m r * m c o p ^

CO

m m m

CM

m m CO m

rH CM CN rH

m m m m

> a - o p - « N o m m o o ( ^ s r o N C N C j N o o c j ^ m o o r H C M C M C N C M C M C M r H

I I

CO CN

NO

m r-i

CO

-a-

r-i CN

00 CO CN

00 r-i

CN CM

r o sr

sr 00

m m m N O C M P > . C N C O N O m O c O P > . - , 3 - N O r H r H P » N O C O t ^ r H ^ a - ^ O O O N r ^ r H P ^ O O C N COCMâ* C M C M C N C N C N C N C N C N C M C N r H r H C M C N C M C N

u rJ 03 < M pa >

C O W C U C a S C J M C U r H C N C O r H C M C O r H C N C O O ^ r H C M C O O f a O 0HEHpdHH03 faii.iJuMMMSss2<:<:<: cocj cu c j c j c j c j a o c j c j c j O C J C J

CO

CO CO QJ u u 3

CO CSl

194 C O C O O O ' ^ m O N N O r H r H O N O N o o o N m o N ^ a -CO CM rH rH rH CO O s r

> a - C O O N C N C O r H r > . 0 m o o c N m c o o N r - t o o <NCMsrsj->a-rHNOO

.124

559

.237

367

.009

885

.072

671

CJN a\ rs 00 r-i CO

r-l < -NO NO

>a- r^

.416

112

.007

900

I

N O N O V O N O N O V O V O N O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

I I I I

NO vO NO NO NO NO NO

O O O o o o o o o o o o o o

-*srsr«a-ONONsro\ r H r H P > . r * . r H O N O O

O rH CM sr sr CO CO CN ON r^ rH CO 00 CO

m m m m m r * r » r H r H r ^ o o o o o o C O C O C O C O C O C M C O C O

p^ ON sr r^ NO o m CO CM CM CO CO CO CO

vO vO

o o o o

r-i 00 CO «*

vo sr CO CO

Ul d QJ QJ 4J d r-i O •H ca. Pu £

o CJ

Ul -U QJ d > QJ

•H d QJ O U O. QJ E

|3j O CJ

^ 4J

a d CO QJ ja d T3 o QJ c Q» E

C=4 O CJ

"X

T3 QJ 3 d

•H 4J

d o o

M

<:

>% d CO CU E o CJ

o CO »-* r H 3

14-1

CO CO QJ O O 3

CO

CO CO QJ

rJ

Ul

2

1$

CN]

D

1 U HJ 03 <: M Od < >

C N r H O C j N C O P ^ C O s r COCM s r p » m o N m N o m r H o o r H s r O O O r H r H C N s r O C O

rH CJN CO rH r>. rH 00 O CO O iH CO CN rH O rH O CO O O rH

C M N O r H C O C O r H N O O O c o r H m r ^ r ^ r H ^ > a -O C O C O C M C N C M r H O

O N o o O N O > a - c j N O O N c o C J N O O O C O O N O O O C N m C M r H N O C M » a - r H C O - J - C N

I I

CO CN CO CO CO CO CO CO C M C N C N C M C M C N C N C N

O O O O O N O N r H r H r H O O m c O r H r ^ O O r « . r H C O v O C N C O ^ - ^ O N » a -

c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o C M C N C M C N C M C N C M CMCN

ONONoooNr>.ooo sroo r H O C M O O O O N O O > a - r H O O O N C O r H N O C O ONCO

C M 0 0 C O 0 0 < " s r > a - r H

O N s r c N o o o o o o o c o >a- CM ON m CM sr CM CO NO o rH CO sr o

m m m

CN CM

m m m m m < - o p * o o c o r * o m N O > a - m m m o N v o C M C N C M C N C M C M C N C M

3 C J C J C J C t 4 0 < ! C J CO ca 3 o H ca

CJ

P^ CO O CN

m

m m m c N c N r » » O N m o o O N P > . O N O N s r r ^ s r ONOO r H r H C M C N C N C M C N CNCN

o c j c u c j < : s c a MCU C U C O C U C J O S 3 2

O <J <J H O CJ

N O O N \ o « a - o o c o - , T m m c M m m f > . c N r H o o C N C M s r r H O C M O O

C M C N r H C O C O N O P ^ O N v O v O O N m r H O O C N s r O N p o r - l C O O N O O O O O o o o o o c M O O r H s r o o o

195 o NO sr O O CM CM O O

ca CO

^ C O P ^ ^ a - r H v O r H O O P s O s T r H m r H v O C O c N r o o s T m c o p « . m

> T > r C O r H r H O N > y v O C N m ^ ' . T m r ^ r ^ c N « a - c N s r « a - m m r H O N c o o N c o c o r » , v o m c N r * N O c o o r ^ o o c o

vO rH O >3- CN r-l CO 0 0 r»»

I I I

o o Q O o o c o p ^ c o c o c o

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 m CO

3 U4 01 CO QJ U

a 3

CO

CN]

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o o

o o m o o o o o o o o o o cNmo r-ir-i<Or-ir-ir-ir-ir-ir-ir^r-ir-ir-i O O r J

Ov

sr ON r-i

m m

Ps O

m CN

ON r-i

r^ r^

NO m

<• r-i

CO ^

CM 00

CO CJN

NO VO

CJN NO

-a-m

m ON

O r-i

m ON

o CN

CJN m

o CO

o CN

o ON

CJN r-i

CN r H r H

m m m m m m m m m m m < j N « a - r H C N p - . c o m s r > * > a - m - * c o s r > a -

P - » C O O O C J N O C J N m O N f ^ O N v O r H r H C O C O C N C O C O C N - s 3 - C O C O C O C O C O v 3 -

CO ^ v o CM r H CO

U4 d QJ 01

T3 d d o QJ O .

CO E o o

QJ 00 CO CO en QJ

s

d QJ d o O. E o CJ

r-i C QJ QJ d d d o CO cu

4= £ CJ o

CJ 03

O CJ

a CO

C O r H O v O s r N O C O r H O C N p s O N O N r H O O P -C N C O C M r H ^ a - r H O r H

m c j N i ^ c o o o N v O r H O N m r H r - i c M r » s r r ^ r » c o c N > 3 - o o p ^ v O r H N O N O s r s r O N C O C O M O O O C N r H r H s r s r - 4 - C O O O O C O r - i r - i

O N C O c o r ^ m c o s r r * * p x m o c o o o N p ^ r H C N r H C M C N O C O m C O

I

CO CO CO CO rH CO CO CO

^ C N « a - m r s p * O N p . . r ^ o o r > » r » » c o .^ ,-{ ^-i v O m O N C O O O C M P ^ C N r H s r - a - C O « 3 - O O N ^ m m c N c o c o o o O r H m m > a - r - i c o c o

I* r r I* r r r r r r i* \' i * * r CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CN CO CO C^ CN ON CO

CO CO QJ o u 3

CO

CO CO QJ rJ

Cv]


O O O O O O O O O O O O O

o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O CM O O <Z> r-i r-i

ON CO CO CO CN CO «a" f ^

vo CO m 00 o m

m c o v o < j N c o r H m o m r - i o - * p > . ^ ^ C N O O O C N O O N N O C N O r H v O

P^ -* CN 00 CN rH

m m m m m m m m m m m m p^ vo m »^ o CN NO CN CM m >a- sr sr vo

CO sr

s r r H r ^ v O N O C N m o o o o o c j N s r o o m v O N O N O \ o v o c o s r « ^ ' H v o v o s r

ov vo m ON 00 v£3

Cd

PQ

< M

CO w (u ca s CJ M

O H H W M O 3 cu

rHCNCOrHCNCOrHCMCOOi rHCNCO Q i - O fa[i,faMMMSSS2<<:< COCJ C J C J C J C J C J C J C J C J U C J O C J

a CO

3 <4-l CO CO QJ CJ

a 3

CO

i

>1

v O r H C O r H C O r H m O O < * r H C M 0 0 0 0 C O m r ^ C O O « a - C M r H > a - « a ' r H

196

a O O N C M C O « ^ - « T O O O O v o r * , . o o » a - N O p > » > a - r > » r H P « . O e N C O O O C O

.196

352

.240

294

.200

346

.017

744

1 1 1

1 1 1

.381

129

.014

759

NO

sr

041

.500

000

I I I

oooooooopsoooor»«


ooooooiôooooo coco

o o o o o o o oo o o o o o o o oo

00 ON

CN CO

^ sr

CM CN o CO

sr CO

a\ r-^

CN sr

r-i

o CM m

r r-i

CM >a-

co sr o o

^ CO

-a-CN

ps CM

m m m m m m ONmcoNOcMrs.ONO c o c o c o c o « ^ > y ^ - ^

CJN m o O o CO »a- m sr -a- CM

m ps «3-

CJN 00

sr sr

u u d QJ QJ •u d r-i O •H Ou b £

O CJ

Ul 4J QJ d > OJ •H d QJ 0 U Cu QJ £ oi o

CJ

rii -U o d CO QJ 43 d T3 O QJ a. QJ £ CZ4 O

CJ

« "T3 QJ 3 d

ntl

o CJ

PQ"

>» d CO a £ o CJ

ca CO )-l

r-i 3 vw CO CO

Succe

CO en QJ rJ

H

u

2

If

>a

3

Cd I-] PQ < M Oi < >

CO ^ CO

00 CO r-i

I

CO r-i

o o rH

CO

o

00 NO r-i

3 CO

o NO

o

r«. ON >a-

CN r-i

O O r-i

r-^ r

m CO r-i

o a

ON r-i

o

p«. CN NO

CO r^

o o r-i

<T m rH

m CJN r-i r-i

CJ 3

NO ON CO

rH ON

o I

CO r-i

o o r-i

CN o

m 00 NO r-i

CJ o

NO m >a-

oo CO

o I

r-i r-i

o o r-i

m <a-r-i

r-i

o rH

b

NO NO >3-

o CO

o

CN r-i

o o r-i

r-i sr

m CO >3-rH

CJ H

m m o

00

o m 1

CO r-i

o o r-i

a\ CN

r-i

00 CM r-i

< Q CJ

NO CO CN

CN c r-i

1

rH r-i

o o r-i

CM NO

m CN rH

CJ

o CO

o

sr 00 m

CO rH

o o r-i

00 sr

m -J-m r-i

CJ cu

NO

o CM

NO p-CN

1

CO r-i

o o rH

m r-i

r-i

CN CO r-i

O CO o

sr CM -^

vO NO

o 1

CO r-i

o o r-i

m NO

m en >a-rH

CU cu <

CO p«. CM

o o CM 1

r-i r-i

o o r-i

o r-i

r-i

m r-i r-i r^

CJ O <

CM PN. CM

m o CM

CO r-i

o o rH

r-i P^

m rH m r^

< o H

CM m CO

O CO r-i

CO r-i

o o r-i

00 CM

r-i

m r* CN r-i

Jg 5

CN r-i CN

CJN NO CM

CO rH

o o r-i

NO CJN

m IS. CO r^

ca

CO sr >a-

ON sr o

CO r-i

o o r^

Pv -*

^ m r-i

M 3 CJ

vO O CO

CO r* r-i

CO r^

o o r-i

o sr

vO m r-i

(U 2 CJ

I rH rH NO rH O I O I rH rH r«>. rH O I O I CN CM CN CN m I m

197 r H O O N O O C M O O O C N N O O O r - J r - I C N o o o > r o o o o o o o o > a - o o f ^ r ^ o o O m m r H m c o m m m c o r H m m CNCMCO

I p». r»» p- p^ o I js. p^ sr r»» o I m m >^ m o

I O I O I O

O O O r O NO O O O O O CO O O O r O CM

O 0 0 v o r > » 0 0 p^psvo O O O c o O O O p-»r^co O O O c N r ^ O O m m c N

I I I I I I I

Q CO M

>3->3->a-sr>a->r->a->a- > r » 4 - s r s r > 3 - ^ - 4 - > a - s r s r c o c o c o <a- sr -a-

co 09 Qi CJ CJ

CO

NJ NOvoâ-vocoNor^co p ^ O O c o c N O r ^ p ^

^ O O ^ O C N r s O N v O r H N O C O C O C M

c o o o N o c o o o m o o c o o o N c o r ^ > , a -CM

CM O CO ^ vO rH

u

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

Ul QJ

T3 d QJ

CO

d QJ d o O. £ o

CJ

QJ 00 CO CO CO QJ S

d QJ d o c. £ o

CJ

m m o m c o o o v o m o o O N o o o c o o N C M c o c o p s o o c o s r N O cNrH«a-CNCN r H r H C N C M C M r H r H C N C N r H r H r H C N r H r - i r l r H r H C M C N C M

r^ d QJ QJ d d d o CO a

4 = E CJ O

CJ

O CJ

ca CO

r H C N r H r ^ « a - C J N C M O r H C J N - ^ O s r v O O P s O r H O r H C O r H O C M

c j N O N O N t ^ p ^ m s r m s r o o m o o o o o c o c o r H r H m O N C O O O m C M O O r H C O O O C O O r ^ - s r > a - C M C N C N C O r H c n « a - C O C M s r C O C O C O C N C O

C N C O ^ O C O N O P ^ C N o o s r v o s r r H N O o o r ^ m C N ^ C O r H C N N O r H

o o N O c N O r H O N O > a - c o o o o o a o r ^ o N > r m r H c o m o o m o m o o r - i r H o o r H s r v o r — O C N r H r H O C M r H O O C M O O r H r-i r-i —i

I I I

m m m m m m m m

I I I I I I 1 1 I I I

m m m m m m m m m m s r ^ s r m s r m

CO CO QJ o o 3

CO

CO 09 QJ

r^

CN]

O m CM O O

* C3\ "1 s r

r-i

P«. a\

m

o p^

r-i

m

m NO

CN

NO o

r-i CO

r-i

m

p-> o r-i

vO P*

m

>a' ON

m

p-CO

m

vO m

sr NO

ON

o o r-

m

p,*

o

m

NO

r^ m r-i

r-i

r-i CN

r-i

<T CO

m

00 CO

m

CO r>. r-i

m m

m

CN r-i

r-i

m c M O N C M C N C O C M O

r>»s rmcoOONcoNO 00 rH >a- m CM vo NO vo r^ p^

C M O C M C 0 > a - i — l O C J N O N r ^ O N v o m s r p - « N O

CO CO m CO vo m

Cd

OS

< M Pi < >

CO w CU ca s O H H Cd M

CL3H4PLI r H C M C O r H C M C O r H C N C O a i r H C N C O O t - C J

0 3 tact,bMMi-isss2<:<<3 y^cj cu U C J C J C J O C J C J C J O CJOCJ

Q CO

.146

-.707

CO .211

-.577

>* .500

.000

>a-

.382

.236

>a"

.211

-.577

^

.029

.943

^

.211

.577

sr

.146

.707

sr

.029

-.942

-a- >r

.500

.000

-T

.211

.577

sr

.382

-.236

>r

.500

.000

>a-

.211

.577

sr

.382

-.236

^

.146

-.707

-a-

198

CO CO QJ U

a 3

CO C,a- ON o m vo

p-» r^ CN CO O 00 r*. 00 m CJN o

CN r i CM

m m m m m m m m O ON S T N O C O O N O C O O O O

r H r H C M r H C M C N C N r H O CN ^ CO CM rH CN CM

r-i a\ r-i

u d OJ QJ 4J d r-i O -ri O . Cu £

o CJ

Ul QJ >

-ri QJ O QJ Pi

4J

d QJ d o o. £ o CJ

4»S +J a d CO QJ

43 d T3 O OJ Ou « £ tu O

T3 QJ 3 d

d o a

Q C O

CO CO QJ

o a 3

CO CO CO QJ

i-J

N

O r > . r H s r m c o c N m v O O O P ^ C M N O r H O N r ^ O C N O C N O r H O - ^

O N C O O O C M O N C O C O . ^ r H m O N r H O C O N O m s r r H C O C N - ^ C O C O O

.116

328 .151

852

.040

467

.124

318 .395

075 .097

356 .076

389

.497

002

.449

036

I I

% a - m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

CO P>. CO r«» O 00 CO rH , ^ P«. rH P-* s r CN CN

r-i r-i r-i r-i a\ m -^ vo CO m m NO »a- p*

CO IS.

'a- o

m m m m m r H O N O O C O O C O r H C N p«.r^vomr^r^mm

m ON 1^ CO rH ON -.* r«» s r r^ >?• >a- r^ c^

CO P^

^ m

d CO a £ o o

Cd HJ 03 < M Pi < >

3 c j y c j t a o < c j CO Q 3 o H ca

CJ

CJ CJ (U CJ <J PH CO P.1 CJ o

O <J < H

M CU 3 2 CJ CJ

APPENDIX L

Comparative Analysis of Management

Versus ISD Responses

199

200

13 d CO

o o

o o

NO .a-o o

ON r-i m

m 00 p«.

r^ O CM

O CN m

03

CO QJ CO d o a 09 QJ

Oi

ca CO

O CJ

CO CM O

CJN CN m

00 r-i o

NO CO o

CN X

o CN CO

NO CJN CO

NO

sr CO

O CN

>a-m

d QJ £ QJ 0 0 CO

d CO

S Ul

o

CM

m o

r-i • o

o

r-i CN

sr o o •

sr p^ r-i

CO m 00

CO CM O

00 NO m

en 4-1 09 QJ H CO

• H CO OJ

o CJ i •<T

NO r-i

•<t NO CJN

CN

o o

CJN

o o

o o. CM

X sr CO (JN

CM

o o

r-i CO CM

P -O ON

ON NO

d o

4J -H d 4-1 QJ CJ £ CO QJ >4.| 0 0 CO CO - H d 4-1 CO CO

S CO

4-1 d QJ E QJ >

r-i o > d

HH 1 QJ Ul CU

d QJ E QJ >

r-i 0 > d

M 1

U CO o cu

d o

•H •Ul CO a

•H d 3 p £ O

CJ

CO CO QJ CJ o 3

CO

09 r-i QJ

T3 O

s d o

CD

a •H

d 3 E £ o

CJ

2 < :

o CJ

CO

4J d QJ

TJ d

QJ CC

CN]

X m m r H s r p " . m m c o m v o s O Q o o o r - i o r s O C M r - i C O C N r H C O > a -

O O C N V O C M O O O P S C N

C N C O O v O r H N O O r H C O r H C M O r H C M r H O

I t I

m m m m m m m m C M C N C N C M C N C N C M C N

r,. Ps 00 m O . * r^ O vO NO m CO

m m m m

O m P-* m CM m - r m o

m

C N C J N r H O r > . . a - r H P ^ O r ^ 0 0 O O N C O r ^ O N v O C O O N N O C O N O P > . 0

c N c o c N c N < - s r c o s r c o s r - ^ m

m r ^ Q O v o o o m o o o o s r p ^ c N O r H C O C N r H r H C O m r - | v O r H r - 0 r H O r H r H O O O O O O O O

I I I I

m m m m m m m m m m m m C N C N C M C M C M C N C M C M C N C N C M C M

c N P ^ p » . O N v o o m N O . , 3 - m p v N O C N C N N O C O P ^ C O O O r H C O m O m > T N O m O r H C M O C O O O O

o

m m m m m m r H vO P^ CN

m vo NO rs O N O N P > .

m so 1^ o o o p ^ c o N o m c o v o c N v o r ^ c o vOp^vOvop»p^ r ^p . . p» . r> .p^p^

m 0 .a-

CN

m 0

CJv CM CM

ON CN r-{

m m CN CN

NO P -vO 00 00 O

00 -vr m sr

201

TJ QJ >

•H QJ O Ul QJ

CU

QJ

U. d QJ QJ

T3 d d c QJ O.

CO E o

CJ

QJ 00 CO CO CO QJ

X

d QJ d 0 a £ 0

CJ

r-i d QJ QJ d d d o CO CU

4 : E CJ o

CJ

CO

QJ

r H 4 3 CO

• H

Ul CO

>

QJ 4 = i J

O

CO • H 09 >

r-i CO

QJ

>

CO U l CO a £ O

CJ

CO

4.1

d QJ

- 3 d o CO

QJ

Pi

2 <

O CJ

o o N r J C M p v . p « . . . r o o o o o c o o N r H m ^ -> r o o > 3 - > a - c o c N r H

N O s r o m c M c o c N p s o m c o o o m r ^ r H O C M m O O O O r H

I I I

C>]

r ^ r s r>Np* r s r> .p . . r » . c o o o c o a o c o o o c o c o

O ^ m O r H O O P s O C O v O r H ^ v O O N O O P - O O O O O N O O C M

ps m rH vo O m CO O CO NO r O CO ON CO CO rH m CN .a- 00

C O C O m r H C N C O C O r H m C M P ^ C O v O r H - a - r H O p - . o c o i ^ p * o o o o CNm C O C O r H O r H O C O C O r H O O O r H r - l

m C M O O r H C J N O C N N O I ^ O N p ^ m m O N » a - m c O v O C O O C O C O C O r ^ v O C J N C N r H O O r H r H r ^ C N O O r H C O C N C M r - i r H

r ^ r » p ^ p ^ p > » r . p . . r ^ r » p « . p * r ^ c o o o c o o o o o o o c o o o c o o o o o o o

m o o c o o o v o r ^ c M O N c o m r - i c N r H 0 N r H O O N 0 > r m N 0 C 0 P » O C O C M . ^ O O O ' - i O C J N ^ - r ^ O

i - H O r H N O C J N O N O O O r - t v O v O c O c jN«a- rHcococMrôo.a- rsvocM ON»a-ooNor* .oo>rcoop«-cocN

m CN sr r-i

m m m m m

CN

m

CN CN r H r H r H CO

m m m m P ^ C J N C M O O N O r H O O C O c o o o v o r s c M a o < - O N

m p a- p^ vo CN m

Cd rJ 03 < M Pi < >

CU CO Cd CU O H H

a S CJ M Cd H-i O 3

CU

r ^ C O O N C O N O C O C O C O O C N O N C O c o o N > r m m s r r * . > a - c N m o o o N > r m v o > a - . a - m m m p ^ N o m c o

r H C M C O r H C N C O r H C N C O r i C N C O

i i 4 [ u & u M M M S s s < : < : < : C J C J C J U C J U C J C J C J C J C J C J

P-. CO

NO CN CN

NO 0 CM

P^ 00

m CJN Px.

r-i vO CN

s r NO O CN vO p.-

CO

202

03

< lU

i CJ

CO 4-1

d QJ

T> d o OI CO QJ

Pi

t<

.12

0 -.

24

4

m CN

r-i .1

95

.16

3 .2

20

m CN

r-i

.13

3 .4

07

-.0

28

m CN

r-i

.09

7 .0

22

-.4

07

m CM

m o

.99

3 .4

07

-.0

53

m CM

r-i

.00

0

.22

2 .1

60

m CN

r-i

.78

4 .1

02

-.2

63

m CN

r-i

.28

9 .1

20

-.2

44

m CM

r-i

.19

7 .3

69

-.0

76

m CM

r H

.10

3 .0

43

-.3

51

m CM

r-i

.71

7 ,4

42

-.0

40

m CN

r-i

.16

9 .0

38

-.3

61

m CN

m o

.77

0

.44

5 .0

29

m CM

r-i

.14

4 .2

17

.16

4

m CM

r-i

.99

3

m m m 1^ ^ ^ CM o m >a- NO sr vo

m m m m

sr m CO ON CM ^ vo NO m m m m p >r

m m

m CM r^ sr

1 3 QJ 3 d

• H 4-1

d o CJ

0 3

T J d CO

< CO QJ

• H

d CO

o. £ o CJ

<

^ <

CO

MP

nts

QJ TS d

o a CO QJ

Pi

r-i r-i

<

^

Ul

2

-i

CN]

3

Cd I - ] 03 <

AR

I

>

d Ul QJ QJ d •Ul o r-i a -ri S Pu O

U

ON o o O CM \ 0

sr o o

m CM o CM CM |s.« O CM r H

I

r > . pN. r»« CO 0 0 0 0

O O CO O O CM O O O

p s CO < -CN ON 0 0 CO CO CN

s r - a - CN

m r H 0 0 m CO «a- o CO CM m

O Ct< CJ

3 H

'a-r-i

o

p s CO CN

P^ CO

m r-i

o

CJN CN

«a-« N

CN

o m

< Q CJ

CO

o o

CO NO CN

p>. 0 0

NO P-* ON

m CM

o

CN CM p ^

CJ

CM

o o

r-i

o CO

r* 0 0

0 0 CO

o

sr p -

o CN

r»» CM

CJ cu

o sr o

o CJN r-i

\

T". 0 0

CO NO r-i

ON

r CO

r-i

ON

o CO

CJ CO

o

Ul QJ

> . H OJ

a QJ

Pi

NO CO

o

NO ON r-i

1

Pv 0 0

CO CN

o

sr CO CM

CM

m o m

cu (U »

CJ CJ <

r-i CN O

CJN r-i CN

1

p s 0 0

1 ^ vO O

r-i CO CO

r H

m vO CN

m

<: o H

m m r-i

O r-i r-i

1

r* 0 0

v o r-i O

r^

o sr CM

r ON

.,a-

§

r H

o o

p*. CN CO

1

p^ 0 0

CN O O

r-i

o r^

CO

sr r^ <t

ca

^ 4J

a d CD QJ

4 3 d T 3 O QJ C3. QJ £

Cti O CJ

CN - a -NO r^

o o

IS . 1 ^ NO CO r-i CM

1

1 ^ ! > . OO 0 0

0 0 o

o o o o

CO ON m CM NO r-i

CN NO

m m ON

r>. m • ^ r-i

M CU 3 2 O CJ

k

Appendix M

Rationale for the Selection of the Berlo Communication Model

203

204

Rationale for the Selection of the Berlo Communication Model

In Chapter II, repeated references are made to the "Basic Model

of Communication" and to the "Berlo Model." Over the past several

decades, several models of communication have been presented as a

representation of the communication process. This section examines

several of these models in an effort to provide a more coherent

development of the communication model used in this study.

The communication model used in this study is composed of

six components: 1) sender, 2) message, 3) channel, 4) filter,

5) receiver, and 6) feedback. One of the earliest models (the

Shannon-Weaver model, presented in Figure M-1) characterized the

communication process in terms of the message. The components of

the model (information source, transmitter, noise source, receiver,

and destination) were used to explain the mechanical process of

message transmission. While the model does recognize the presence

of a "sender" and a "receiver," the model de-emphasizes many

elements of the human-element of communication. Furthermore, a

feedback cycle is not included in the model. However, the presence

of the "noise source" provides for the possibility of channel and

filter elements, although they are not developed in the model.

The Gerbner model, presented in Figure M-2, was the first to

recognize the importance of sender perceptions. The model is

intended to provide a representation of the process by which a

sender witnesses an event and translates his conceptualization of

205

QJ OO CO CO CO QJ

X

T3 QJ >

• H QJ O QJ

CO

d 00

•H CO

QJ 00 CO CO CO QJ X

d o •H 4^ CO o

•H d 3

g o

CJ

y-i

o >.

rH U4 QJ O

T3 QJ O 4= S H d rH O CO

•H O 4-1 -H CO 4 J CJ CO

•H E d QJ 3 42 E w E « O X u QJ U4 43 QJ H

/—\ .

00 CJN

• CU

• ON < •

CJN r - l

. CO CO QJ Ul

CU

CO •H O d

•H r-i rH

> M CO QJ • U-l 3 Ul o 1 QJ d > >% O CO 4J d OJ -H d 3 CO CO Ul

43 d QJ CO QJ >

Ul -H QJ Ul d

42 CO 3 H 3

- 3 • • • d CO

r-l CO -H 1 o

S d d O -ri

QJ d rH U4 d rH 3 CO M 00 43

•H CO •> Ci4 CO

• d Cd CO

43 QJ Ul

T3 3 3 CO

rH CJ

e o Ul

Pu

2 1 O I M l COI 2 1 Cdl S I M l cai

I rJ I <:i := i H I cui Cdl CJI

oi\ Cdl CUI

00 d

CO U CO

d 3 E £ o u d QJ QJ > U d)

43

Cl. •H 42 CO d o

•H 4-1 CO

r-i QJ

CXi

d QJ >

Cd

uu O

T3 r-i U O 3 T3 d CO

d QJ 00

2 1 O I M l COI 2 1 Cdl S I M l cai

1 i-Ji O I cssi H I 2 1 O I C D l

1

cai §1

1 COI 2 1

n\ S I

d •H 4J CO a

•H d 3

g O

CJ

d QJ Q)

:s Ul QJ

43

4-1

a 3

T3 O Ul

CU

d o •H 4J CO a

•H d 3 E E o

CU U •H X CO d o •H 4J CO

r-i QJ

T3 d CO

4-1

d QJ 00 <:

Pi

ine

an or Mach

s

EVENT

SELECTION

CONTEXT

AVAILABILITY

PERCEPT

CHANNELS

MEDIA

CONTROL

FORM

CONTEXT

206

r-i QJ

T3 O

s d o •H 4J CO O

•H d 3 E E o

CJ

Ul QJ d

43 Ul QJ

CJ

QJ 43 H

• * CN 1

S QJ Ul 3

d o

•H 4-1 CO O

•H d 3

o CJ

M CO 3 CO

•H

> 1 1

o -ri T3 3

< ^^

^ • • P-«

d r-o -^

•H 4J • CO a o

•H d • 3 NO E m £ o O ' - I

CD

M-l • O CO

M • QJ O

T3 2 O

s •> ^

M CO • Ul M QJ O d > QJ

o •

CO 5 OJ

T3 "H Ul > CO QJ 5 OS

o 00 H •H Pu

^

• Ul QJ d

43 U4 QJ

O

QJ OO Ul O QJ

O

E o Ul

cu

207

the event into a message. Specifically noted in this model is

the sender's understanding of a channel and his control over

media selection. However, the model does not recognize the presence

of a receiver; and as a consequence, the model does not include

feedback as one of its components.

The next conceptualization of the communication process is

provided by a series of models developed by Schramm. (See Figure

M-3.) The first of Schramm's models. Figure M-3a, provides the same

basic representation of the communication process as the Shannon-

Weaver model; i.e., the communication process is made up of sender-

receiver pairs. The second model. Figure M-3b, provides an additional

dimension—the field of experience. By including this element,

Schramm illustrates that the context in which the message is sent

and received is based on the experiences of the sender and receiver.

The third of Schramm's models, Figure M-3c, illustrates that an

individual communicator is simultaneously a sender and receiver.

The fourth model. Figure M-3d, illustrates the concept of feedback;

however, this model does not recognize either the channel or filter

components used in this study.

The final model. Figure M-4, was developed by Berlo. It is

often referred to as the "SMCR" model—Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver.

This conceptualization not only provides four of the basic components

of the model used in this study, it also provides a more complete

development of the substructure in each component. For example.

208

SOURCE ENCODER SIGNAL DECODER DESTINATION

(a)

FIELD OF EXPERIENCE

SOURCE ENCODER

FIELD OF EXPERIENCE

DECODER DESTINATION

(b)

DECODER

INTERPRETER

ENCODER

(c)

DECODER

INTERPRETER

ENCODER

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

DECODER

INTERPRETER

ENCODER

(d)

Figure M-3: The Schramm Communication Models (From Wilbur Schramm. "How Communication Works." in The Process

and Effects of I-lass Communication. (Ed. Wilbur Schramm) Urbana, Illinois. University of Illinois Press. 1955. pp. 4, 6, 7.)

209

a::

( - )

oo

Pi Cd > M Cd CJ Cd Oi

d o

•H Ul CO o

•H CO d M 3 M E -H E 4«i O CO u

CO OJ

T3 3 u -ri 4-1 4J

<:

QJ OC

TJ 0)

M 5 O d ^

E OJ 4-1 CO

>, CO

r-i CO

•H a 0

CO

£ • QJ 4-1 CO >%

CO

r-i CO Ul 3 4-1 M 3

CJ

hJ Cd

(^

1 O

00 d

•H QJ QJ

CO

00 d

•H Ul CO QJ

00 d

•H 43 O 3 O

H

00 d

•H M M QJ E

CO

00 d

•H 4-1 CO CO

H

Cd O < CO CO Cd S

Ui d OJ 4J

d o

CJ

a jn : iona : iS

u d QJ

E 4-1 CO QJ Ul H

s:juamax3

QJ TJ o

CJ

r-i QJ

T3 O

s d o

•H 4-1 CO O

•H d 3 g g o

CJ

o r-i u OJ PQ

QJ 4= H

. . sr

1 S QJ Ul 3 00

•H Ci<

QJ O

•H U CJ CO Ul

CU

T3 d CO

> Ul o QJ

43 H

O 4-1

d o

•H , U O 3

T3 O Ul 4-1 d

M

d <

• • d o

•H 4-1 CO O

•H d 3 E E o

CJ

y-i o Cfl CO 01 o o Ul

0^

a 43 H

C r-U a cc

A-\

CM r s

. a

• o NO CN r - l

. d o 4-1 CO

c •H 3 T3 d CO

^ 4-1 Ul CO

43 QJ

d •H Oi

. 4-1 M O

33

• 4.5 Ul O

5 QJ 2

1

i^

ca E o Ul

C:u

210

the elements of the sender component include communication skills,

attitudes, knowledge, and the impact of both the social and cultural

systems. The pictorial representation of Berlo's model does

not include either the filter or feedback components. However, in

Berlo's verbal description of the model he indicated the presence

and importance of the feedback component. Thus, only the filter

component is missing from all other models presented in this section.

The Berlo model was selected for use in this study because of

several factors. First, the Berlo model contains five of the six

components of the model used in the study (more than any other

single model presented in this section). Second, the Berlo model

provides a more complete framework for each of the components of

the model. Third, the Berlo model has a human-communication orien

tation while others stress the mechanics of message transmission.

Finally, the Berlo model addresses the bilateral communication

process. Since the focus of this study is on two interacting groups

of human participants (managers and Information Service Department

personnel); and since the outcome of communication is of greater

importance to this study than the mechanics of message transmission,

it is this writer's opinion that the Berlo model offers the best

fit to the needs of the study.

Appendix N

Preliminary Testing of Questionnaire

211

212

Preliminary Testing of Questionnaire

After the faculty in the MIS and Communication areas reviewed

the directions and questions to be used in the questionnaire for

this study, a preliminary field test was conducted. The test

called for the participation of nine managers and six ISD personnel

following the same procedure to be used in the pilot study. The

questionnaires were mailed directly to the respondents -whcr'were

jointly selected (on a stratified sample basis) by the manager of

the ISD and the writer. The questionnaires were returned by mail

and as each questionnaire was received, the respondent was called

to schedule an interview.

During a 30-minute interview session, the respondents were

individually counseled concerning the directions and questions.

The questionnaire was broken down into sections, and each section

of the questionnaire was read to the respondent with his oral response

recorded on the original questionnaire. After each section was

completed, the respondent was asked if he had any difficulty

interpreting the meaning of individual questions. Special attention

was given those questions receiving different responses as recorded

when oral responses were given.

Two major areas of concern were identified during the inter

views. First, some respondents had difficulty interpreting the

questions related to the number of contacts made during the feasi

bility, analysis and design, implementation, and modification and

213

maintenance phases of systems development. These questions were

a particular problem to managers. To resolve this problem,

operational definitions were included as part of the question for

each of these areas. Furthermore, operational definitions were

added and directions were improved in the portion of the question

naire dealing with communication.

The second problem area was related to the use of percentage-

type scaling devices. Some respondents had difficulty deciding

upon an appropriate response, and as a consequence, made no

response. Each of the questions using percentage-type scales

was redesigned to employ a Likert-type scaling device.

After these changes were made, the questionnaire was submitted

to the faculty committee for final review before being used in

the pilot study phase of the investigation.

Documents

A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION