Supporting End Users

how much time did each

,cess? How long did each

achieved?

:d? Have specific projects

sd to the plan?

.rns, better requirements,

,1!

t•

~

it•

·----1

i

The OrganizationalInterface: A Methodfor Supporting EndUsers of PackagedSoftware

By: Eileen M. TrauthCollege of Business

AdministrationNortheastern UniversityBoston, Massachusetts

02115 U.S.A.

Elliot ColeCenter for School Study CouncilsGraduate School of EducationUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

19104-7371 U.S.A.

AbstractThe growth of end-user computing and the trendtoward the use of packaged software have fo­cused greater attention on issues related to usersupport. A varied user population is requiringmore tailored support, yet vendor-supplied soft­ware with a generic interface is increasingly be­ing used. Four case studies illustrate ways inwhich organizational forms of support can en­hance or overcome the limitations of the softwareinterface. A framework called the organizationalinterface incorporates these vrganizationalmechanisms by integrating the computer-humaninteraction (CHI), management information sys­tems (MIS), and end-user computing (EUe) ap­proaches to user support. This framework can beused in the design of end-user systems devel­oped with packaged software and for retrofittingoutdated user interfaces for an end-user com­puting environment. The organizational interlaceprovides IS and end-usermanagers with a meansto consider alternative methods ofproviding sup­port for systems based on purchased softwarewith fixed user interfaces.

Keywords: End-user computing, computer­human interaction, human factors,information centers, software inter­face, ergonomics, user interface,user support

ACM Categories: 0.2.2, H.1.2, K.6.1, K.6.3

IntroductionThere are two current trends that have thrust usersupport to the forefront of IS management con­cerns. These trends demand that serious atten­tion be given to determining which types ofsupport are appropriate in certain contexts. Thefirst trend is the dynamic growth of end-usercom­puting. The increased number of users possessa wide range of characteristics-from the sophis­ticated to the novice, the motivated to the resis­tant, and the frequent to the intermittent. As aresult, existing applications may have softwareinterfaces that are no longer adequate. Thereason may be an interface that was never real­ly sufficient (but was overcome by the skill levelof the users), or one that is no longer appropriategiven the type _~O~ d}v~,.sity .ofcurrent user$~)~~~-~__sponding to the needs of this new class of usersrequires support that is more closely tailored tothe individual in the context of use.

The second trend-the increaseduse of packagedsoftware-complicates the process of providingappropriate support because system developershave less control over the development process.Whether systems are being developed by IS pro­fessionals or end users, they are increasingly be­ing configured from purchased software. In suchcases, software designed for the generic user isthe basis for the application. Further, this sott­ware has a user interface that reflects certainassumptions about the user, such as knowledgelevel, degree of motivation, and problem-solvingstyle.

Using hardware and software features, thevendor develops a user interface for genericusers in generic contexts. The challe~ge to JSand end-user managers is to provide support forspecific users in specific contexts. The purposeof this article is to help managers provide ade­quate user support for systems built around pur­chased software with fixed user interfaces. Thearticle demonstrates ways in which organizationalforms of support can be used as a substitute for

MIS Quarterly/March 1992 35

-_..i_i

-: ...

Supporting End Users

....~:~~ .•.~~~~~~-',

:~;~

t.~ ....~_.

-"'II." •. i'i• I

or to enhance software features in order to sup­port the needs of an organization's users. Theseapproaches are then configured into a concep­tual framework of user support called the or­ganizational interface. t

Illustrations of OrganizationalSupportThe following cases (called examples here) il­lustrate ways in which organizations have over­come the limitations inherent in the existing orpackaged software through the use of organiza­tional forms of support." These four case studiesshow the structures, processes, and behaviorsthat were put in place to make technology moreaccessible to individuals. They demonstrate ap­proaches that organizations can take to choosethe appropriate ~ser support mechanisms.

Example #1

Context

A multinational petrochemical company, Z (notits real name), was confronted witti an issue com­mon in many companies-information process­ing demand was exceeding supply. The naturalresponse to this situation is to have the ISdepart­ment offload work to the users. At Z, fiscal con­straints prohibited a complete overhaul of theexisting third generation computing environment.In such an environment, Z's end users would beconfronted with a difficult user interface-one in­tended for use by computer professionals. Man­agement feared that such a situation woulddiminish end-user motivation to use the system,increase errors during processing, and ultimatelycause distribution of inaccurate informationthroughout the company.

Support Mechanisms

The solution to the dilemma was to makeselected software changes supplemented byother types of support. An extract database and

1 Our use of this term is different from Malone's (1985)-hedescribes situations of interpersonal activities within andacross organizational boundaries.

2 The organizational settings used in this paper were studiedby one or both authors. Data for the cases were collect~d

from pUblishedmaterial, onsite observations, and interviews.All but Z are the real names of the organizations.

36 MIS Quarterly/March 1992

fourth generation language (4GL) tools weremade available to facilitate access to corporatedata. Users then had direct access to the cor­porate data needed in their work.

An extract database accesses virtually all trans­action processing systems, as well as summarydata on those transactions. At the same time, itprotects the corporate database from problemsthat can arise from use bynaive users. The 4GLtools constitute a new means of support that over­comes the barriers to data access that existedin the third generation environment. The use ofa 4GL allows for data extraction, manipulation,and analysis; graphics; and system (re)design.Some of these tools can be used with only a fewhours of training; others require more substan­tiallearning time. The tools also contain featuresthat correct errors in the command language andreport specification.

At Z, the extract database and the 4GL toolsfacilitated direct user access to the data. How­ever, the IS steering committee also recognizedthat these mechanisms alone would not be suffi­cient for all users because they ranged in skill

- -level from-novices to professional programmers.--Therefore, a second decision was made to place

the extract database and the 4GL tools under thedomain of the information center, whose functionis to conduct training sessions and staff a hot line.

Management at Z acknowledged that managersare discretionary end users and may lack the timeor inclination to use the extract detabaee andlearn about 4GL tools. They determined that a .third approach was needed for these individuals.A group of programmers called a Quick Re­sponse Team was established and given respon­sibility for developing time-sensitive ad hocreports needed by line and staff management.This reporting method replaced the previousmethod, which involved a formal written request,management authorization, priority assignment,and scheduling-a process that would often takeweeks. By using the Quick Response Team, amanager is now able to receive information fromthe corporate database within a few days simplyby placing a telephone call.

Lessons

This cas~- iIIu~trates the use of organizational ~.forms of support to enhance an unsatisfaetOry:;~software interface. Since fiscal constraints pre- ", '~~

eluded ttinterfacetools), pestaff), anand trainface's lirrcan provmation. F

terface erdoor to ttavailabiligreater (from inasuch as tBesponstion procrange of

Byestated a cerrtraining,

featuresmation (

Exam;

context

In Januaannouncgoal waiinterfaceDigital'sdate.corEnginee·j

hundrecJon the J:l'develop)created.Guide, Vi

mon usewas XU 11implemfldefault..XUI To~producethe Styl

) For a mIlwindow,l .

Supporting End Users

J tools were:cess to corporateaccaas to the cor­York.

; virtually all trans­; well as summaryt the same time, it~e from problemsIe users. The 4GLf support that over­:cess that existednnent, The use ofon. manipulation,ystem (re)design.ed with only a few~re more substan­J contain featureslnd !anguage and

,d the 4GL toots·0 the data. How­~ also recognizedlOufd not be sutti­~y ranged in skilllaJ programmers.asmade to placeit ·-'"\'s under tl:1.e__ ._.f sefundion10 ~laffa hot line.

dthat managersnay lack the time:t database and~termined that aneseindividuals.~ a Quick Re­·,d given respon­'nsitive ad hocff management.:d the previouswritten request"my assignment"¥Quidoften takeponse Team. a,formation from:ewdays simply

organizationalunsatisfactory

.cnstralnts pre-

eluded the replacement of the third generationinterface, data (extract database), software (4GLtools), personnel (information center and hot linestaff). and procedures (Quick Response Teamand training) were used to overcome the inter­face's limitations. This example shows how a firmcan provide alternate routes to corporate infor­mation. For certain individuals, the software in­terface enhanced by 4GL tools provides a seconddoor to the company's computing resources. Theavailability of the extract database gives usersgreater access while protecting valuable datafrom inadvertent errors. The use of personnelsuch as the information center staff and the QuickResponse Team takes into account the informa­tion processing needs and time demands of therange of users in the company.

By establishing an information center. Z provid­ed a centralized location for user support throughtraining, the availability of 4GL tools and extractdatabase, and the hot line. Having these supportfeatures under its domain now allows the infor­mation center staff to monitor and respond tochanging user needs.

Example #2 .. ---- --- -

Context

In January 1987 Digital Equipment Corporationannounced the DECwindows program, whosegoal was to provide a modern, consistent userinterface for workstation software. Because it wasDigital's largest software development project todate. considerable effort by the Software UsabilityEngineering group was needed to coordinate thehundreds of people around the world who workedon the product." To promote consistency in thedevelopment of this product, two tools werecreated. One was the XUI (X User Interface) StyleGuide. which describes the elements of the com- .mon user interface style to be used. The secondwas XUI Toolkit, a software development tool thatimplements the Style Guide recommendations bydefault. The default values of the object-orientedXUI Toolkit enable the application developer toproduce interface components that conform tothe Style Guide specifications.

J For a more detailed description of the development of DEC·windows, see Good (1989a).

During this project. Digital encountered severaluser support issues. The first issue was the im­portance of making the XUI Toolkit available toapplication developers as quickly as possible.However, waiting for a final version of the plannedXUI Style Guide before beginning the develop­ment effort would delay work on DECwindows.An alternative was to reduce the amount ofdocumentation included in the Guide. However,while this might shorten DECwindows' develop­ment cycle. such a reduction could possibly in­crease the time required for learning to use theXUI Toolkit and for debugging code developedwith it, thereby also delaying the introduction ofDECwindows.

The second issue was that no general purposeinterface style (such as the one promoted by theXUI Style Guide) can anticipate all the needs ofthe many different applications being developedwith it. A final issue was the difficulty of providinginternal support for the application developmentteam because team members were distributedthroughout different locations in a variety of coun­tries and across different time zones.

Support Mechanisms

Given the constraints mentioned above, thetradeoff was between holding up development ofDECwindows until a complete style guide wasavailable and allowing developers to begin usingthe toolkit immediately. Digital decided to makethe XUI Toolkit available to developers before thefinal version of the XUI Style Guide was com­pleted, but to provide other means of support aswell. The approach was to supplement the "work­ing version" of the Style Guide with support pro­vided through use of electronic conferencesavailable to Digital employees and implementedwith VAX Notes software. These electronic con­ferences enabled users of the XUI Toolkit to sub­mit questions and problems and allowed theSoftware Usability Engineering group to provideanswers and solutions in a timely and usefulfashion.

By the end of 1988, 12 separate conferencesassociated with the OeCwindows developmenteffort had been established. Usage data reportedby Good (1989a. p.80) indicates that 2,089 par­ticipants engaged in discussions about 3,461topics. The total number of notes was 17.901,with an average of 297 notes per week. (These

MIS Quarterly/March 1992 37

~::~!:~~~~" i:

Supporting End Users

data describe usage in terms of the number ofmessages written. Since reading activity was notrecorded, the actual usage was higher.)

In the course of using these conferences, therewas also an unanticipated result: peers began toprovide direct support to each other. It was in­tended that users experiencing a problem withthe Toolkit or Style Guide would first search theconference notes to see if that issue had alreadybeen raised. If it had, the system would provideboth an answer to the question and the name ofanother user who had faced the same difficulty.In this way, one user could discuss both the prob­lem and the proposed solution with someone whohad practical experience with the solution, andpossibly knowledge of unforeseen and unantici­pated effects. If this issue had not been raisedpreviously, someone from the Software Usabili­ty Engineering group would provide the answer.

However, what actually occurred was that usersbegan to provide unsolicited responses to queriesentered into the conferences. Many of the usershad developed considerable expertise with theXUI Toolkit. They were able to note relatively

.unu-sual problems "that had arisen as a result ofreaching the limitations in the tool's functionali­ty. To deal with these situations, users haddiscovered and developed patches and work­arounds. As a result, support of the Toolkit movedbeyond its developers and into the user com-munity itself. .

Lessons

This case, which centers around the substitutionof personnel (peers and the Software UsabilityEngineering group) for formal data (completedsystem documentation), provides three importantlessons about user support. The first is thatorganizational contingencies may require thatone means of providing user support besubstituted for another. That is, what would nor­mally be conveyed through formal system docu­mentation was instead (due to time constraints)communicated through electronic conferences.This also illustrates a way in which user supportcan be tailored to the specific needs of a specificclass of users-in this case, the developers us­ing XUI Toolkit. .

The second lesson is that peers can be a valuablemechanism for providing user support. One whohas encountered a similar problem in a compar-

38 MIS Q.uart~rlr/Marc~ ..1992

able context may well be the best person to offerassistance.

The final lesson is that user support often comesabout in unplanned ways. In this case, it waspeers using the electronic network to answereach other's questions. This suggests the needfor management mechanisms to allow unplannedforms of support to develop and flourish.

Example #3

Context

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania'sGraduate School of Education were asked to de­velop a tool to assist public school administratorsin developing work performance measures andin conducting analyses of job responsibilities(Kowalski, et at., 1990). Once the tool wasdeveloped, an eight-session workshop was es­tablished to train users and to enhance their abili­ty to develop new performance measures. Toaccomplish these objectives, workshop partici­pants needed to learn how to retrieve data fromflat files using dBASE III Plus. This software waschosen, in part, because it supports both a menu­driven interface for novices and a command­driven interface for more experienced users.

The goal of the workshop was to decrease theamount of time devoted to computer-related por­tions of the task in order to allow more time andenergy for data analysis. To that end, substan­tial transparency was incorporated into thesystem startup process. For example, each com­puter automatically "booted" from power-up in­to dBASE III and opened a specific database fileand index. The menu-driven interface was chosenover the command-driven mode because it isgenerally considered more appropriate for novicesand occasional users of a software package. Inorder to accomplish their objectives, these schooladministrators needed to learn only six basicdBASE features that were distributed across fourpull-down menus.

The objective of the first session was to conveya conceptual understanding of puJl-down/pop-upwindows that make up the dBASE menu. How­ever, there were two problems in using the in­terface. The first problem concerned confusionabout menu navigation and sequencing of opera­tions. The second and biggest problem related

to the d~

mation.eliminatportunit;dBASEprevious!of the 51

were belterface.that scrr

Support! .

In analyz .whereas!complistinterfacernands, II

pop-up nlthe rnerrusers. T1cipants tilaimed atisequenttthe novtfeatures.plementeProject sldriven s~

specifica~

in five ~would belbe less drecovery 11 .

to enterpreviousi~

somethirsforming ~

The docJthe sequilcarried a~

task. Addeach corrcornmaneferent typjcomponel

Worksho~ .commandmentatjo~

face. Witftdevelope.lworked, t~

•..~. ~~ ..; •. ~ :'ll •. ~ :.-.;;i-...:J. ~'. i· .~~:. ..,>. ":" ._ -': , .... ;o_~(... _&.

•...~~r,it;~-<_~,~~.~~'.~~ .~;;;,,;:. ,':'·.:-~';'.;·.. ~~·.:..:~-;i"·'S··~'~-.:~~~: ~=~~~:;;;-~~1"-·:~!:L~· ~~.. ·S;;'·i..:·:·i ."'; .' ,;'

.-' ~':i.';;~·:·~·~~~":'-?~;7<~ti\· « ~;..--<:.~~.q.':::t""~d";.:~:::<;:~r.:'" ':'!-:}f\~":i:}j:V:i.;~i.·:; .Supporting End Users

erson to offer

.often comescase, it was-k to answer!sts the needIW unplannedourish.

nnsylvania'sasked to de­

dministratorseasures andsponsibllitles1e tool washop was es­ce their abili­easures. Toshop partici­·'e data from

ire wasA .amenu­1 command­ced users.

ecrease the-related por­xe time andid, substan­id into the!, each com­lower-up in­atabase filewaschosenecause it is~ for novicesaackaqe. Inheseschooly six basicacross four

s to convey)wn/pop-upienu, How­iing the ln­i confusion19 of opera­em related

to the details of constructing "displays" of infor­mation. One slip of the cursor control key couldeliminate several minutes of work without an op­portunity for error recovery. In addition, thedBASE menus did not allow modification of aprevious dialog sequence. Therefore, by the endof the second session, workshop participantswere becoming frustrated with the software in­terface. It was clear to the workshop designersthat some changes were required.

support Mechanisms

In analyzing the situation, project staff noted thatwhereas only six commands were needed to ac­complish the users' objectives, the menu-driveninterface presented them with about 50 com­mands, plus other options present in additionalpop-up menus. That is, only about 12 percent ofthe menu's commands were relevant to theseusers. They also noted that some of the parti­cipants had developed their own "cheat sheets"aimed at making the menus easier to use. Con­sequently, the project staff decided to abandonthe novice-oriented menus and use selectedfeatures of the command-driven interface sup­plemented by context-specific documentation.Project staff believed that using the command­driven software interface in conjunction withspecifically prepared documentation would resultin five important benefits: (1) the applicationwould be easier to Jearn; (2) the interface wouldbe less confusing to the user; (3) better errorrecovery would be available; (4) the time requiredto enter a command would decrease; and (5)previous command strings could be edited,something that was particularty important for per­forming the workshop's primary task.

The documentation was organized acev,'ding tothe sequence of steps involved in the analysiscarried out by the users in accomplishing theirtask. Additionally, it incorporated examples ofeach command's use and explanations of eachcommand's outcome. Finally, it made use of dif­ferent typographical fonts to identify the differentcomponents of a command line.

Workshop participants found the resultingcommand-driven interface with customized docu­mentation far superior to the menu-driven inter­face. With the command interface, participantsdeveloped an understanding of how the systemworked, thereby decreasing learning time and in-

creasing the amount of knowledge retained. Theability to easily revise the previous command linehad several results. First, it decreased theamount of time to retrieve information. Second,it fostered data exploration because modificationscould be made and executed in a matter of sec­onds rather than the minutes required for themenus. Third, it simplified the user's view of thesystem.

Lessons

This case provides an interesting lesson aboutuser support. What would normally be thoughtof as the more difficult interface (command­driven), ends up being the more appropriate"user friendly" interface (menu-driven) whencombined with some organizational support (con­text-specific documentation). The designers ofthe user interface-the vendors-developed twoways of accessing a wide range of dBASE com­mands because they were designing for thegeneric user. The underlying assumption wasthat even the naive user would want access tothe fuJirange of commands, However, in this par­ticular context, the availability of so many menucommands hindered user accessibmty:This ob-­servation is not a criticism of the software or thevendor. Rather, it is evidence that generic inter­faces, no matter how "user friendly" cannot takeall the individual and organizational contingen­cies into account. Therefore, the best supportvehicle was one that at the outset might haveseemed counterintuitive. What made the com­mand-driven interface appropriate was that itallowed the user to focus on a subset of the com­mands. What made it practical was its use in con­junction with context-specific documentation.

Example #4

Context

Dublin City University, Ireland's newest universi­ty, has experienced dramatic growth in end-usercomputing in the past few years. Today, all stu­dents in the university are expected to use thecomputer in their studies. A significant numberof them use word processing for producing as­signments and theses.

MIS Quarterly/March 1992 39

'O;:'.~ ••• .k.~ -, ~ I··-...·..,~.-..:·.'<.'!t-:~.~~.<'.}~.r-::~~~.;

~"..:'f2-,.~.L~j~~Sii~1~!;1fJi~Supponing End Users

ThfFraAll oftheyenha.gestsconesware'

Suppot

Broadl2!

with pre,'hardwc!: .ent in VI!

in9,overdriv~

fourputirgiveing ta besonr

Along \~

proces:arose t'l

teracnouse. T'(CHI) h j

has itsincludir?ogy,COr!

(Gaines!Newen:1982).

order to provide software with ali improved userinterface. But it decided to use a phased migra­tion strategy. First, personal computers in studentlabs were networked so they could share a com­mon hard disk, which could now hold Word­Perfect. Second, computers in tacuity officeswere scheduled for gradual upgrading to installhard disks. Finally, the university established apolicy whereby all personal computers purchasedin the future would have hard disks. In the mean­time, faculty and staff continued to use LEX. Butduring this transition period, increased person­nel support was made available. At first, someonewas available only a few hours a week to answeruser queries. But now someone is available atall times during the work week to answerquestions.

These cases represent four different ways inwhich organizational mechanisms were put inplace to overcome the limitations of the user in­terface and thereby expand the notion of usersupport. In the first case, a petrochemical com­pany overcame the limitations of an outmodedthird generation interface by providing alternateroutes to corporate information. These includedsome fourth generation tools, an extract data­base, support personnel, and several neworgani­zational procedures. In the second case, avendor responded to the time constraints associ­ated with the use of a new development tool bysupplementing incomplete system documentationwith peer support through electronic networks.Contrary to conventional wisdom regarding sup­port for novice users, the third case showed howsome users were best supported by a novice­oriented, command-driven interface coupled withcontext-specific documentation. This documen­tation enabled the users to focus on the subsetof commands relevant to their context. In so do-

A problem recently addressed by the universityconcerned changing the campus-wide standardfor word processing software. Students, faculty t

and staff complained that the software currentlyin use, LEX, did not have an adequate user in­terface compared to what is currently availablein other word processing software. At the timeLEX was acquired, it was adequate for severalreasons: (1) it represented the current state-of­the-art in user interfaces; (2) it was acquired whenthe university had only a mainframe computer;(3) itwas affordable; and (4) word processing wasnot very pervasive on the campus. When the uni­versity began to introduce personal computersa few years ago, the decision was made to ac­quire the personal computer version of LEX. Itwas compatible with the mainframe, the pricewas right, and the few people doing word pro-cessing were familiar with that software. Lessons

The problem is that today, virtually everyone on This case illustrates a trade-off between softwarecampus does.word processing. The addition of and personnel as user support features in thea new type of end user to the computing environ- presence of fiscal and technological constraints.ment-one with little technological literacy- When organizational contingencies prohibited theresulted in dissatisfaction with LEX. This was university from immediately acquiring the mostmanifested in several ways. First, difficulty in state-of-the-art interface, -the-school -chose tousing the software resulted in decreased produc- -- -substitute people torsottware while it graduallytivity. Second, some students, faculty, and staff upgraded its facilities. The limitations in the ex-began to use other word processing software. As isting software were overcome by the use of or-a result, multiple versions of software were clr- ganizational features such as help desks and hotculating around campus, students were vulner- lines.able to computer viruses acquired from copyingsoftware, and the computer center would not sup­port these "unofficial" software packages.

40 MIS Quarterly/March 1992

Support Mechanisms

Upon investigation of this issue, considerationwas given to changing the campus standard toWordPerfect. But there was a technical problem.State-of-the-art word processing languages such

- as WordPerfect require computers with a harddisk, yet most of the personal computers on cam­pus were dual ffoppy machines. The cost of pur­chasing a new word processing package plus the

. additional cost of simultaneously upgrading allpersonal computers on campus with hard di~k~

was beyond ~udgetary constraints.

The decision was reached to use a combinationof software and personnel mechanisms thatwould gradually improve user support for wordprocessing. The university agreed to change itsword processing standard to WordPerfect in,

- ~.

~ .. ..':~ :.:'.' .:.. X:

'j

.~.>..~~.".~ .. '···.::i

..' . ~

.... : ••• I ..

.~~~~~~f!~} ..'~:.~~~..~

....... '.. -~.;-~.:~~

.. :..; ". : .- ..•.,....:~.~~ ...•-.: ...... -:.'::." '. -.~~!

:~~i-~'.-:": ,: ••: ... . .. . ,j • .:.~_ ..~~~~ ~.~

-- .,.~ .. ­............: ........ ~.

tproved userlased migra­ars in studentsharea com-hold Word­

culty offices~ing to install!stablished ars purchasedIn the mean­rse LEX. Butlsed person­rst, someonedk to answeravailable atto answer

sensoftwaretures in theconstraints.rohibited theng the most01 chose to:,j. "'~Jy

" he ex­le use of or-ssks and hot

snt ways inwere put inthe user in­tion of userernlcal com­1 outmoded19 alternatese includedxtract data­new organi­ld case, alints associ­rent tool by~umentation

~ networks.arding sup­howed how'{ a novice­oupledwith; documen-the subsetrt, In so do-

ing, it eliminated the problem of informationoverload associated with the use of the menu­driven interface. In the fourth case, a universityfound that a phased migration to a new com­puting environment was the most realistic choicegiven technological and fiscal constraints. Dur­ing the process of upgrading to software that hada better user interface, the university used per­sonnel support as an interim solution.

The Organizational InterfaceFrameworkAll of these cases have one thing in common­they use organizational forms of support toenhance the existing user interlace. This sug­gests that the concept of the user interface, aconcept that embodies only hardware and soft­ware features. is but a part of the solution to theproblem of providing adequate end-user supportin today's computing environment. As an alter­native. we present the organizational interface-aconceptual framework that brings together the ­range of support.mechanisms described-in thecases above. This framework represents the in­tegration of three existing traditions of usersupport-computer-human interaction (CHI),management information systems (MIS), andend-user computing (EUC).

The CHI approach to user supportAlong with the movement away from offline batchprocessing and toward interactive computingarose the need to study the human-machine in­teraction issues associated with online computeruse. The field 'of computer-human interaction(CHI) has emerged in response to this need. CHIhas its historical roots in a number of disciplinesinclUding human factors, physiological psychol­ogy, cognitive psychology, and computer science(Gaines and Shaw, 1986; Gerlach and Kuo, 1991;Newell and Card, 1985; Sondheimer and Ralles,1982).

Support Mechanisms

Broadly defined, the CHI tradition is concernedwith providing ease of use through software andhardware. The CHI approach to support is pres­ent in vendor organizations that build features in-

..:~ ........ . ~ -..... -

Supporting End Users

to the software or user interface to assist thegeneric user. Such features include screen de­sign, feedback and help, error control, and userdialogue. In some cases, vendors are also in­volved in the development of hardware featuressuch as workstation design. Work on the designof the software interlace has been aimed at in­creasing the efficiency of system use by focus­ing on speed and accuracy (Schneiderman,1980). Work on the hardware aspects of com­puter-human interaction has been aimed largelyat reducing physical stress symptoms such aseye, neck, and back strain (Sauter, et al., 1983).The objective of user support, reflected in theterm user interlace, is to join the human andtechnological systems together by placing hard­ware and software features betweenthe user andthe computer application (see Figure 1).

Definition of User

In order to understand the definition of the userreflected in the CHI approach it is helpful to knowthe history and orientation of the CHI tradition.It has its origins in human factOrs and began fromthe study of human-machine interaction issuesrelated to aircraft pilots (DeGreene,1970).Theseorigins remain a strong influence on CHI prac­tices today. The underlying assumption is a well­understood user engaged in a narrow range oftasks. The unit of analysis is a single individualin an asocial context. The intent is to facilitatethe person's interaction with the technology, notto change the organization.

Assessment

A significant contribution of the CHI tradition isits goal of developing empirically supportedguidelines for the design and evaluation of inter­faces (Fried, 1982; Knittle, et al., 1986; Norman,1983; Schneiderman, 1980). Three common ele-

.ments can be found in these guidelines. First, theinterface should be forgiving. That is, it shouldallow the user to recover from mistakes. Second,the interface should be transparent. That is, thelanguage and logic of the computer-human inter­action should not be so foreign to the.user thatit presents a barrier to effective communication.Finally, the burden of accommodation should beon the system and not the user. If successfullyapplied, these interface characteristics are ex-

I ,

Figure 1. The User Interface Joins the Human and Technological Systems

Supporting End Users

pected to reduce the amount of formal trainingnecessary to successfully interact with a com­puter-based system. Conversely, an expert userwould receive the support he or she expects with­out being encumbered by features designed forthe novice.

The three primary contributions of the CHI ap­proach to user support are: (1) introducing an in­terface, a mechanism at the point of intersectionbetween the human and technological (Le. hard­ware and software) components, during systemdesign; (2) responding to different cognitive stylesthrough the provision of alternative software in­terfaces; and (3) identifying measurable perform­ance criteria.

However, there are also weaknesses in this ap­proach to user support. The first weakness re­sults from the use of a generic user model. Thatis, while a software product may have alternativeinterfaces (e.g., both a menu and a command lan­guage), it is not intended to adjust itself to theparticular needs of a specific user. Second, sup­port is only provided through hardware and soft-

.- ware-features;-organizational forms of support.,. - are not considered a part of the user interface.

Third, the organizational context of use is not

42 MIS Quarterly/March 1992

taken into account in interface design. As a result.the particular requirements of a specific organiza­tion are not addressed. However, organizationalrealities, such as those described in the cases,suggest that user support consisting solely ofhardware and software interface features will beinsufficient to provide the level of assistanceneeded. Financial constraints may prohibit anorganization from obtaining state-of-the-art soft­ware interfaces. In addition, these interfaces mayassume user characteristics that are not presentin the organization. For example, the interfacemay assume an organizational setting with in­dividuals who will use the software extensivelyand are therefore willing to tolerate a long learn­ing curve. The user of an engineering worksta­tion is such an example. The more likely case inbusiness, however, is an intermittent and discre­tionary user who is under time pressure to beginusing an application, a user who must use a vari­ety of software tools, or a worker who is usinginsufficiently documented software.

For the reasons just given, user support provid­ed by the CHI model has limitations that must bemet by other forms of user support. These limita­tions are natural. Since the interfaces are createdby vendors who have no control over the organi-

zational suiit outside tI "1 summari

The M/~J

Both the b:mation sys~

from their I:

years. Th(¥meneqem«orientation ~.

carries outa more soqvide assistland strat~l

MIS traditiJIlntormatlon

Support rtl

·~.•·.~I From its~!the imports

· f :;:e~~~~

.~_'•..l :=~~:~~I--- problem ty~

• of presen~

systems. ~

1970sinvqthose that ~was gene~

systems~

user invol~

specified cjusers are j

systems. ~

.._grown_fronjhands-on i~

:,-t.":" the goa! 011~.. '" organizatiej~~~~:-. being purs~~.:~ lion of us~

..z.. The MIS~-:.~: useof Orgaj-;-, Introduetio~

::-ganization~'~: training, d~·.pi facilitates t~':t~~

Supporting End Users

MIS Quarterly/March 1992 43

Support Mechanisms: User Interface

• Software features• Hardware features

Definition of User

• Single individual in associal context• Person engaged in narrow range of

tasks• Individual characteristics well defined

Goal of Support

• Facilitate individual's interactionwith technology

Table 1. CHI Approach to User Support

Strengths

• User interface concept• Alternative software interfaces• Measurable performance criteria

Weaknesses

• Generic-user model _..-• Support only through hardware/software• Context outside scope of interface

design

Assessment

The MIS approach to user support responds totwo important limitations present in the CHI

Definition of User

The trend toward organization-wide use of infor­mation systems has resulted in a change inorientation toward system implementation andmanagement. This change has been driven, inpart, by the need for greater performance by theIS function because of an organization's in­creased dependence upon information technol­ogy (Bostrom and Heinen, 19na; 19nb). Theresult has been greater emphasis on providinguser support during system implementation andmanagement (Leitheiser and Wetherbe, 1986;Nelson and Cheney, 1987). In this way, users areincorporated into the information processing in­frastructure (Srinivasan and Davis, 1987). In theMIS tradition, the "user" can be an individual,a work group, or the entire organization (Leifer,1988). In contrast to the CHI-world view, the useris not restricted to the terminal operator.

The MIS approach to user support80th the business use of computer-based infor­mation systems and the value expected to derivefrom their use have grown significantly in recentyears. The change from data processing tomanagement information systems reflects theorientation away from a back room "shop," whichcarries out transaction processing activities, toa more sophisticated function that is able to pro­vide assistance in managerial decision makingand strategic planning. Thus, the objective of theMIS tradition of user support is effective use ofinformation systems by personnel in the firm.

zational support available, they naturally placeit outside the scope of their user model. Table1 summarizes this approach.

Support Mechanisms

From its beginning, the MIS literaturehas stressedthe importance of addressing both the technicaland organizational aspects of an information

·:,s·ystem. For example, Mason and Mittoff (1973)articulated the goal of considering not onlytechnical issues but also psychological type,problem type, organizational context, and modeof presentation in the design of informationsystems. However, achieving this goal in the1970s involved roles and players different fromthose that exist today. In the 1970s the softwarewas generally designed by an in-house staff,systems were developed by IS professionals, anduser involvement was limited to the use of pre­specified output. In today's environment, endusers are increasingly developing their ownsystems. Furthermore, user involvement hasgrown from the receipt of periodic reports to

-hands-on interaction with systems. As a result,the .goal of addressing both the technical andorganizational aspects of information systems isbeing pursued, in large part, through the provi­sion of user support.

The MIS approach to user support involves theuse of organizational mechanisms to assist in theintroduction of information systems into the or­ganization. Providing support in the forms ·oftraining, documentation, and consulting stafffacilitates the user's access to computer-basedapplications.IS

pport provid­that must beThese limita­

created~._ ...~organi-

10.As a result,cific organiza­)rganizationalin the cases,ting solely of-atureswill be)f assistance.y prohibit an>f-the-artsoft­lterfaces may-anot presentthe interfacettting wi th in­a extensivelyt a long learn­ring worksta­likely case innt and discre­sure to beginrst use a vari­who is using

- .+. . .... .: --.-;-.> .- .. ~ ~.:,~ ..~.;....:,:~~~~.~~,:

.iii.ii~~~~w~~~~~~~~=~~:'~·:~iL~;t;~,~~~·.bjL:,/;?{;'\$1!;f}Jf;·~.,.

. __ - ._.,... ...~_. __ .I:.a_........ .,.A. ..... •• ,;-....-..-..... ••

Supporting End Users

~~~~~t;~~.~Jt:\...;.;....~~:' .... t'"A~-~..~.;~.... ..

....

model. First, it recognizes the importance oforganizational contingencies and provides organ­izational mechanisms for responding to them.Second, by considering work groups as well asthe individual, it places the technology in a socialcontext.

However, this user support tradition has limita­tions as well, and they are a function of the wayin which support is managed. First, in providingorganizational forms of support during system im­plementation, they are viewed as part of the pro­cess of introducing the system rather than partof the system itself (Martin and McClure, 1988).They are, therefore, viewed as managerial ac­tions taken at the end of the process, after therest of the design is "fixed. tt When this happens,these forms of support cannot easily be con­sidered as alternatives to the software interfacefeatures that are considered during system de­sign and development. For example, whether acompany has database intermediaries to helppersonnel access corporate data would not like­ly be a factor in designing a software interfaceto a database, or the criteria used to evaluate

. ~Iternative databaeeJ~~c~.~geUCulnan!1_983).._

---Second, because this support tradition is closelylinked to the implementation process, some formsof user support reside outside its administrativescope. Three examples illustrate this point. Whiledevelopment, operations, and management ofcorporate databases may be part of the corporateIS function, database intermediaries may workin the corporate library or information center andreport to another administrative area. Whenhuman factors or CHI personnel exist in a firm,they generaUy work with the system design teamand not with those concerned with implementingorganizational forms of support.

Third, personnel staffing user support hot linesare normally part of the operations group, andcommunication between them and developmentpersonnel may be organizationally difficult toachieve. Thus, while the MIS approach broadensthe scope of user support, it does not facilitatetrade-offs between software and organizationalsupport features. The MIS approach is summar­ized in Table 2.

The EVe approach to user support- The emergence of the term "end user" marks

the spread of computing outward into the organ-

44 MIS Quarterly/March 1992

ization. The term "end-user computing" (eUC)suggests that computer-based applications areavailable not only for management needs but foraddressing the complete range of informationprocessing tasks of an organization (Beath andIves, 1986; Hirschheim, 1985; Keen and ScottMorton, 1978). Another term more recently usedto describe this phenomenon is "desktop com­puting."4

The 1970s and 1980s witnessed considerablegrowth in end-user computing as compared totraditional computing (Benjamin, 1982; Rockartand Flannery, 1983). This growth was due toseveral factors including: the desire for greaterend-user control and flexibility in using appli­cations; the technical/economic feasibility of in­formation technology use by non-IS personnel;business conditions requiring increased infor­mation within a compressed timeframe; lower de­velopment costs associated with end-userdeveloped applications compared to lengthy ap­plications development backlogs within IS depart­ments; and users' increased awareness of thepotential and capabilities of computers becauseof widespread computer literacy (Alavi, 1985;Leitheiser and Wetherbe, 1986; Rockart andFlannery, 1983.

Several researchers have documented thegrowth stages of end-user computing, drawingparallels to Nolan's stage theory (for example,Henderson and Treacy, 1986; Huff, et al., 1988).They observe that as end users move from simple,stand-alone applications to more sophisticated, in­tegrated ones, management structures mustchange as well. A consistent theme is the needto tailor the support infrastructure to the evolv­ing needs of users.

Support Mechanisms

From its inception, support has been an integralpart of end-user computing. Recent studies ofeuc management have found that user supportis directly linked to user satisfaction andrepresents a major concern for EUC managers(Guimaraes and Vasudevan, 1986; Rivard and

4 Kling and Iacono (1986)consider the term desktoPcomputingto be more specific than the term end-user computing. Theyview the former as a more accurate description ot the co~puting power available to people in the workplace.. In th.spaper. the term end-user computing is meant to Includedesktop computing as well.

HuHportitseltainEsisteassnlearrBy ttto incllbrarson,

Sup~

a wictechrdesk.WethcornnSUPP(

Origirwithetion Ieunit 'It

end-uport s

MIS Quarterly/March 1992 45

In addition to formal mechanisms, there are in­terpersonal support means. During the earlystages of end-user computing in an organization,support generally occurs informally throughuser/IS contacts or between novice and exper­ienced users. As end-user computing matures inthe organization, this support becomes more for­mal (Huff, et aI., 1988).

Research has shown that often the first line ofsupport is provided by one's peers (Cole, 1984;Lee, 1986). Even where formal support exists, __end users rely heavily on informal mechanismswithin work groups (George, et aI., 1989). Thissupport can take several forms. At its most in­formal level, interpersonal support is provided tocolleagues by an individual in a work group whois experienced in the use of an application. Sincethis individual understands its use in a specificcontext, he or she can offer support on an indi­vidual basis.

A more formal mechanism for peer support is pro­vided through electronic notes or conferences.For instance, people who encounter difficulties

~ Training• Documentation• Internal consultants

Definition of User

• Single individual/work group/entire organization• Part of information processing infrastructure

Table 2. MIS Approach to User Support

Support Mechanisms: Post-Implementation Support

Goal of Support

• Effective use of information systems within an organization

Weaknesses

• Support not viewed as part of system• Cannot make tradeoffs between software interface and organizational forms of support• Organizational forms of support administered by different parts of the company

Supporting End Users

Strengths

• Takes organizational contingencies into account• Technology placed in social context

Huff, 1988). However, the type and extent of sup­port has paralleled the growth stages of EUCitself. In the early 1980s IS departments main­tained a "hands off" policy in which support con­sisted solely of equipment demonstrations orassistance with installation; the user was left tolearn by trial and error or by reading manuals.By the middle of the decade, support had grownto include help desks, training, personal computerlibraries, and, to a lesser extent, user groups (Ben­son, 1983; Guimaraes and Vasudevan, 1986).

Support for end-user computing today includesa wide range of services such as: consulting,

. technical/product support, user hot lines, helpdesks, training, and user groups (Leitheiser andWetherbe, 1986; Rivard and Huff, 1988). The mostcommon formal mechanism for providing usersupport is through the information center (Ie).Originally consisting of a few IS personnel chargedwith assisting mainframe users with fourth genera-

- tion languages, the Ie is now an organizationalunit whose function is to fac;"litate and coordinateend-user computing by offering a range of sup­port services.

I an integralt· 'studies ofsersupportaction and.~ managersRivard and

nto A· theng, drawingor example,~t aI., 1988).from simple,listicated. in­:tures mustis the need

J the evolv-

<topcomputingmputing. Theyon of the com­kplace. In thisant to include

:onsiderable:ompared tol82; Rockartwas due to

3 for greaterusing appli­sibility of in­3 personnel;eased infor­1e; lower de­h end-user) lengthy ap­lin ISdepart­mess of thesrs becauseA\lavi, 1985;toekart aha-

It. . (euc)lications areleeds but forinformation

1 (Beath and·n and Scott9Cently usedesktop com-

..... .. • '. '. ....' _. _ •• • _ _ .:.:: '.,~. "-:... J ..., "- •

.ai..:·'~'75~~~~;&~i:~t;C"~'S'S~2:~2~7"'.r-~.~~~2:i~:~~~':~m2~~g;ft4t!~~~:~}JtAti:;;!~~;···

<b td.,....=;t.."z"'rit··.. .: ,"

. f1

!

. t••

Supporting End Users

with an application can ask questions via an elec­tronic messagingsystem, and others who have en­countered similar problems can offer assistance.

More formal still is the establishment of a liaisonposition in work groups. A designated individualfunctions as a bridge between the IS departmentand the end users. A channel of cornmunlcatlonbetween the system developers and the systemusers is thereby established to respond to in­dividual support issues.

The EUC approach to user support can beviewed as utilizing people to help the user withan application. The development of peer supportand user networks reflects the inherently socialnature of end-user computing and the accom­panying need to account for it in the design andmanagement of the end-user computing environ­ment (Kling, 1987; Lepore, et al., 1989).

Definition of User

There is a certain amount of variation in defin­ing the user according to this support tradition.At one extreme is a definition that includes pro-­grammers, users, and support personnel (Rock- .art and Flannery, 1983). At the other are userswho are application developers (Rivard and Huff,1988). In between, and the most common, arethe non-IS professionals who use (and sometimesdevelop and manage) computer-based applica­tions to support their work in some functional areaof the firm (Alavi, 1985; Benson, 1983; Sipior andSanders, 1989). Like the IS view, the user maybe defined as either an individual or as a workgroup.

Assessment

The main strength of this support tradition is itsrecognition of the inherent variability in the userpopulation. The literature consistently calls for arange of user support mechanisms tailored to therange of individual needs in an organization.Another strength is the dynamic nature of usersupport. That is, many organizations recognizethat support needs change along with individualand organizational learning curves. Finally, whenuser support personnel are moved closer to thefunctional areas, user support reaches out to theuser in his/her workplace (Henderson andTreacy, 1986; Huff, et aI., 1988; Rockart andFlannery, 1983).

46 MIS Quarterly/March 1992

One potential weakness of this approach isrelated to peer support. Not all organizationshave placed support personnel in functionalareas. Consequently, users may need to rely oninformal sources for help. Because it is un­planned and undesigned, this type of supportdepends upon the willingness of individuals tohelp each other or the value placed upon help­ing others in a particular work group. The quali­ty of peer support is also highly variable. At best,it is relevant support in context; at worst it is "theblind leading the blind."

A second weakness is that not all the availablesupport personnel in an organization are incor­porated into the EUC view of support. For ex­ample, the database intermediary or "chauffeur"(Culnan, 1983) whose job is to access databasesfor others is not included under this view.

Finally, there is no evidence that these supportservices play an influencial role in decisionsregarding software acquisition and use. Thus, aswith the MIS approach, support is considered atthe end of the system development process_r~ther 1ha.!!-.during application design. Th.i~ ap­

__preach is.summarized in Table 3.

The organizational interfaceapproach to user supportThis approach uses the term "interface" becauseit borrows from the CHI tradition the notion ofpositioning user support features between theuser and the application-at the point of interac­tion or interface between the human and thetechnological systems. It uses the term"organizational" because it adds the organiza­tional mechanisms present in the IS and EUC ap­proaches to the software features of the userinterface. The framework is depicted in Figure 2.

Support Mechanisms

As Figure 3 shows, the organizational interfaceconsiders each of the components of the infor­mation system as an option to be positioned be­tween the user and the application in theprovision of user support. The hardware interfaceincludes ergonomic features such as lighting. in­put devices, furniture, and workstation design.The software interface includes such features asscreen design, menus, windows, online

. - -

-1

•

.'••

.1.1.1.;

.'• L

•••

••

oocurneminterface ".conteremcatabases .corporataplace to'~

such proe! .mation CIidentifiablAnother p~

staff contl1through t_fessional•ternal co.providing!problems~

Deflnltlo~ .

In this a~

depicted~

Definition of User

Weaknesses

Supporting End Users

MIS Quarterly/March 1992 47

a functional area of the firm. This individual notonly uses an information system but mightdesign, develop, and manage it as well.

Assessment

As Figure 3 shows, the organizational interfaceexpands the CHI approach, which can only posi­tion a user interface (hardware and softwarefeatures) between the user and the application.Organizational support activities are added to theinterface design and can then be considered dur­ing the design of information systems basedaround purchased software.

This approach expands the MIS and EUC ap­proaches in three ways. First, it formalizesmechanisms currently in place but not usually'consldered until system development is com­pleted. Second, it recognizes informal peer sup­port as a key component of the overall support

Strengths

• Recognizes variability of user population• Support provided at workplace level• Wide range of support options• Dynamic nature of support given

Goal of Support

• Individual control of personal computing environment

Table 3. EUC Approach to User Support

• Informal nature of peer support• Support features not influencing software acquisition decisions

Support Mechanisms: Information Center and User Networks

• Consulting• Hot line/help desk• Training• Technical/product support• Peer support (user groups/networks)

• Non-IS professional• Uses (sometimes develops and manages) computer-based applications• Works in functional area of the company

documentation, and help. Examples of the datainterface are system documentation, electronicconferences, and the creation of extractdatabases. The procedures interface refers tocorporate rules, procedures, and policies put inplace to facilitate user access to systems. Onesuch procedLire is the establishment of an infor­mation center that could provide users with anidentifiable source for help and information.Another procedure is training. Both users and ISstaff contribute to the personnel interface-usersthrough formal and informal networks, :.nd IS pro­fessionals, such as database intermediaries, in­ternal consultants, and hot line advisors, byproviding individual support about particularproblems.

Definition of User

.ln this approach to user support, the user isdepicted as an independent end user working in

sse support1 decisions5e. Thus, asnsidered atnt process.n, This ap-

.pproach isganizations

functional:d to rely on;e it is un­of support

dividuals toupon help­

'. The quati­ole. At best,.rsrit is "the

1e availablen are incor­art. For ex­"chauffeur"3 databasesi view.

;e" becauseie notion of)etween theIt of interac­an and the

the term1e organiza­md EUCap­of the user

! in Figure 2.

lal interlaceof the mtor­>sitionedbe­.non in tneare interfaces lighting, in­tion design.1 features asW~... online

:e

Supporting End Users

Figure 2. The Organizational Interface Adds Organizational Support Featuresto the User Interface

it1

."":- "j~

mix. Third, it places organizational forms of sup­port in the same context as the user interface.The organizational interface is a means of view­ing the full range of user support' mechanismsduring system design. In this way, trade-offs canbe considered for overcoming constraints accom­panying purchased software.

Implications of Using theOrganizational InterfacePrameworkThis framework is intended to be used in twosituations. One is the design of end-user systems

48 MIS Quarterly/March 1992

developed with packaged software. Organiza- ~tional forms of support such as context-specific . ~'l

documentation, peer support through online con- A~ferences, and consultation from the IS staff can ~be employed to enhance the generic software in- ..laIterface by providinq support geared to the~..specific needs of a particular group of users in lr

the firm.

The second situation involves retrofitting an out- .,dated user interface for a new computing environ- -":~~. ~mente Applications based on third generation ..=.'

software are generally not suited to the"~"knowledge/experience level of teday's end users ,:because they were intended to be used by IS~ ~"~fessionals. While the natural solution might~ .•"

I USEIi

pear to tfourth gejstraints s~

preclude~

once. I".lion cen~

database~

olanoorganizalintennedijaccess d~

Supporting End Users

APPLICATION

MIS Quarterly/March 1992 49

We acknowledge that one or more of these sup­port features may currently exist in an organiza­tion. Nevertheless, the contribution of thisframework is its suggestion that these organiza­tional support features be considered in tandemwith the software interface during system design.If organizational forms of support can be con­sidered as alternatives to software features, thensystem designers, whether IS professionals orend users, can entertain trade-offs in light oforganizational realitiesand constraints. However,

Data:• documentation• extract database• electronic conferences

Procedur••:• trainIng• Information center• hot lines

Personnel:• database Intennedlarles• user networks• Internal consultants

Hardware:• work statIon design• furniture/equipment placement

Software:• on line help• menus• user dialog• 4GLtools

Figure 3. Features of the Organizational Interface- .. _.-

USER

Organizational

Interface

User Interfsce

pear to be redesigning the application usingfourth generation software, organizational con­straints such as those illustrated in the cases canpreclude a firm from doing so or doing so all atonce. Instead, companies can employ informa­tion centers, training, hot lines, and extractdatabases to help users overcomethe limitationsof an outmoded interface. Additionally, anorganization can make selective use ofintermediaries-IS professionals whose job is to

, access data or produce reports for others.

ures

ofitting an out­puting environ­ird generationuited to the ._ay's end usersJsedby IS pro­,tion might ap-

are. Organiza­ontext-specific19honline con­he IS staff canric software in­jeared to the)Up of users in

Ion

Supporting End Users

f~."~.~it..~.·.f....--=-1---.~ -

respond to tt.computing ersupport mectcurrently exisoffers a waythey can be \alternatives (face accompthe notion ofelude organi;software con

AtWe would likEEquipmentCat Dublin Cit.our research

Alavi, M. It

Manager'sManageme

Beath, C. anc.----- -- -- --System-sin

Iy (10:1), tvBenjamin, R.

1990s:A LcQuarterly (f

Benson, D.H.puting: Fin((7:4), Dece

Bostrom, R.Pand FailurePart I: TheSeptember

Bostrom, R.P.and FailurePart II: Th£Theory," A1977b, pp.

Cole, E. "Souputing End-~

and SocialHumanFacMansgemsrJr. (eds.), N{

- ~ pp.213-21B.~:: __._:,-, _Culnan. M. "C.~_... ~. cess toCom

Taskand Inc(7:1), March

Conclusion

Implications for vendor organizationsA final implication of the organizational interfaceapproach to user support is not for the organiza­tions employing the software, but for the vendorsproviding it. Consistent with the CHI approach,the vendor's contribution to user support hashistorically occurred through the software inter­face. To this end, human factors personnel havefocused on improving software usability. Criteriafor evaluating usability has come primarily fromlaboratory research. Recent trends, however,suggest that vendor organizations are expandingtheir view of support beyond usability testing toinclude customer perception of relevance withinthe work context- (Good, ·1989b). -Several ex­amples of this trend were reported at DigitalEquipment Corporation (Wixon, 1989). One isthat the company has placed a greater emphasison field and customer testing of new products.Another is the increased role of service in thecompany's revenue mix, as well as the develop­ment of software tools that are customizablewithin the client's work context. These observa­tions have led Wixon to conclude that not onlyusers, but also vendor organizations, need tobroaden their conception of user support to in­clude a better understanding of the context withinwhich the products will be used.

conferences, and training-should be seen asalternatives to each other. However, these func­tions are often carried out by several differentorganizational units. Therefore, in order to pro­vide a forum for considering these alternativesduring system design, a company's organization­al structure might need to be modified, ormechanisms for communication and coordinationmight need to be established.

The framework presented in this paper providesa means of integrating the full range of user sup­port mechanisms available in an organization sothat trade-offs can be considered for overcom­ing the limitations of the existing software inter­face. By drawing together the CHI, MIS, and EUCapproaches to user support, the organizationalinterface approach presents managers with a setof alternatives from which to choose in tailoringsupport to specific users in specific contexts. Theorganizational interface can then help manage~

50 MIS Quarterly/March 1992

there are some implications associated with theuse of this framework.

Implications for system designand developmentOne implication of using this framework is thechange in what constitutes system design. Whilesupport in the form of the software interface istaken into account during system design, otherforms of user support are normally consideredduring system implementation and management,if they are considered at all. Therefore, the use.of the organizational interface as a supportframework means that system designers,whether they are IS professionals or end users,will need to expand their definition of systemdesign to include consideration of organizationalforms of support. This is necessary so that theuser interface accompanying vendor-providedsoftware can be evaluated in the context of othersupport that can be made available. This broaderview of design, one which incorporates bothtechnological and organizational features, is con­sistent with other views of system developmentthat have been expanded to incorporatebeliavioral and organizational considerations (forexample, Bostrom and Heinen, 19na; 1977b;Hirschheim, 1985; King and Kraemer, 1985;Mantei and Teorey, 1989; Markus, 1984; Mum­ford and Weir, 1979; Robey, 1987).

A change in perspective suggests implicationsfor the education and orientation of systemdesigners/developers as well. Systemsdevelopers working in the IS department wouldneed to consider support features such as train­ing and help desks, items often thought to besomeone else's domain, during software evalua­tion and acquisition. End users who are develop­ing systems may need to think in more formalterms about support features that had previous­ly been unplanned and informal.

Implications for organizationalstructureThe use of this framework also has implicationsfor a firm's organizational structure. Thisframework argues that all support functions­user interface design, ergonomics, database in­termediaries, documentation, internal con­sultants, information centers, electronic

d be seen as!r, these func­leral differentorder to pro­

e alternatives•organization­modified, or

j coordination

'anizationsonal interlacethe organiza­.r the vendors;11 approach,support has}ftware inter­rsonnel haveJiUty. Criteria.rimarily fromjs, however,re expanding,itytesting to~vance withinr 'ral ex-

31. Digital389). One ister emphasis~w products.srvice in thethe develop­ustcmfzaoieJseobserva­hat not onlyns, need toJpport to in­ontext within

)erprovidesJf user sup­imzatlon soir overcom­tware inter­3,and EUCanizationals with a setin tailoringntexts. Them~"agers

respond to the user support demands of today'scomputing environment. While one or more of thesupport mechanisms described in this paper maycurrently exist in an organization, this frameworkoffers a way of bringing them together so thatthey can be viewed during system (re)design asalternatives or enhancements to the user inter­face accompanying purchased software. Thus,the notion of user interface is broadened to in­clude organizational support features as well assoftware components.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Dennis Wixon from DigitalEquipment Corporation and the faculty and staffat Dublin City University for their assistance inour research.

ReferencesAlavi, M. "End-User Computing: The MIS

Manager's Perspective," Information andManagement (8:3), March 1985, pp. 171-178.

Beath, C. and Ives, B. "Competitive InformationSystems in Support of Pricing," MIS Quarter- - -Iy (10:1), March "1986, pp. 85-96. - --- - _.

Benjamin, R.I. "Information Technology in the1990s: A Long Range Planning Scenario," MISQuarterly (6:2), June 1982, pp. 11-31.

Benson, D.H. "A Field Study of End User Com­puting: Findings and Issues," MIS Quarterly(7:4), December 1983, pp. 35-45.

Bostrom, R.P. and Heinen, J.S. "MIS Problemsand Failures: A Socio-Technical PerspectivePart I: The Causes," MIS Quarterly (1:3),September 19na, pp. 17-32.

Bostrom, R.P. and Heinen, J.S. "MIS Problemsand Failures: A Socia-Technical PerspectivePart II: The Application of Socia-TechnicalTheory," MIS Quarterly (1:4), December1977b, pp. 11-28.

Cole, E. "Sources of Problem Solving for Com­puting End-Users: Human Computer Interfaceand Social Networks in Organizations," -inHuman Factors in Organizational Design andManagement, H.W. Kendrick and O. Brown,Jr. (eds.), North Holland, New York, NY, 1984,pp. 213-218.

Culnan, M. "Chauffeured Versus End User Ac­cess to Commercial Databases: The Effects ofTask and Individual Differences, MIS Quarterly(7:1), March 1983, pp. 55-67.

.,;. '.:.~' '~'." ..•" .••-··'~·:·~-·:-'''~rt''f~,':-~

.... . ~:·-~\-·.:-":·,,~'-::·,Z:;,.:i~):-Jt:?:~i .::

Supporting End Users

DeGreene, K.B. (ed.). Systems Psychology,McGraw-Hili Book Copmpany, New York, NY,1970.

Fried, L. "Nine Principles for Ergonomic Soft­ware," Datamation (28:12), November 1982,pp. 163-166.

Gaines, 8. and Shaw, M. "From Timesharing tothe Sixth Generation: The Development ofHuman-Computer Interaction," InternationalJournal of Man-Machine Studies (24:1),January 1986, pp. 1-27.

George, J., Kling, R., and Iacono, S. "The Roleof Training and Support in Desktop Com­puting," Proceedings of the IFIP Workshop onDesktop Computing, K. Kaiser (ed.), North­Holland, Amsterdam, 1989.

Gerlach, J.H. and Kuo, F.Y. "UnderstandingHuman-Computer Interaction for InformationSystems Design," MIS Quarterly (15:4),December 1991, pp. 527-549.

Good, M. "Developing the XUI Style," in Coor­dinating User Interfaces for Consistency, J.Nielsen. (ed.), Academic Press, Boston, MA,1989a, pp. 75-88.

Good, M. "Experience with Contextual FieldResearch," CHI '89-ConfererfceProceedings:Human Factors in Computing Systems,Austin,TX, May 1989b, pp. 21-24.

Guimaraes, T. and Vasudevan, R. "PersonalComputing Trends and Problems:An EmpiricalStudy," MIS Quarterly (10:2), June 1986, pp.179-187.

Henderson, J. and Treacy, M. "Managing End­User Computing for Competitive Advantage,"Sloan Management Review. (27:2), Winter1986, pp. 3-14.

Hirschheim, A.A. Office Automation:A Social andOrganizational Perspective, John Wiley &Sons, New York, NY, 1985.

Huff, S.L., Munro, M.C., and Martin, 8.H."Growth Stages of End-User Computing,"Communications of the ACM (31:5), May 1988,pp. 542-550.

Keen', P. and Scott Morton, M.S. Decision Sup­port Systems, Addison Wesley Publishing Co.,Reading, MA, 1978.

King, J.L. and Kraemer, K.L. The Dynamics ofComputing, Columbia University Press, NewYork, NY, 1985.

Kling, R. "Defining the Boundaries of ComputingAcross Complex Organizations," in CriticalIssues in Information Systems Research, R.Boland and R. Hirschheim, (ecs.), Wiley, New

MIS Quarterly/March 1992 51

ElliotorS

Her (ACMSystt.formemumInfor,tion :SchcreceiPittsr

!.,

-,

"

J.",if

}i

1

TIIf

Nelson, A.A. and Cheney, P.H. "Training EndUsers: An Exploratory Study," MIS Quarterly(11:4), December 1987, pp. 547-559.

Newell, A. and Card, S.K. "The Prospects forPsychological Science in Human-ComputerIn­teraction," Human-Computer Interaction (1 :3),1985, pp. 209-242.

Norman, D. "Design Principles for Human­Computer Interfaces," ACM SIGCHI Bulletinand CHI83 Proceedings: Human Factors inComputing Systems, Boston, MA, December1983.

Rivard, S. and Huff, S.L. "Factors of Success torEnd User Computing," Communications of theACM (31:5), May 1988, pp. 552-561.

Robey, D. "Implementation and the Organiza­tionallmpacts of Information Systems," Inter­faces (17:3), May-June 1987, pp. 72-84.

Rockart, J.F. and Flannery, L. "The Managementof End User Computing," Communications ofthe ACM (26:10), October 1983, pp. 776-784.

Sauter, S.L., Gottlieb, M.S, Jones, K.C., Dodson,V.N., and Roher, C.M. "Job and Health Im­plications of VDT Use,It Communicationsof the

.ACM (26:4), April 1983, pp. 284-294.Schneiderman, B. Software Psychology, Win­

throp Publishers, Cambridge, MA, 1980.Sipior, J.C. and Sanders, G.L. "Definitional

Distinctions and Implications for ManagingEndUser Computing," Information and Manage­ment (16:3), March 1989, pp. 115-123.

Sondheimer, N.S. and Ralles, N. "Human Fac­tors and User Assistance in Interactive Com­puting Systems: An Introduction," IEEETransactions of Systems, Man, andCybernetics (SMC-12:2),March/April 1982,pp.102-116.

Srinivasan, A. and Davis, J.G. "A Reassessmentof Implementation Process Models," Interfaces(17:3), May-June 1987, pp. 64-71.

Wixon, D. "Organizational Interfaces: A Vendorand Human Factors View," Ninth InternationalConferenceon Decision Support Systems,SanDiego, CA, June 1989.

About the AuthorsEileen M. Trauth is an associate professor ofmanagement information systems at the Collegeof Business Administration, NortheasternUniver­sity. The topics addressed in her researchincludethe impact of end-user technology, informationresource management, telecommunications pol­icy, and the global information services industry.

Supportinq End Users

52 MIS Quarterly/March_ 1992

York, NY, 1987, pp. 307-362.Kling, A. and Iacono, S. "Desktop Computeriza­

tion and Work in Future Offices," in Automa­tion, Employment and Work, A. Gordon andL. Kimball (eds.), University of California Press,Berkeley, CA, 1986.

Knittle, D.L., Ruth, S., and Gardner, E.P."Establishing User-Centered Criteria for Infor­mation Systems: A Software ErgonomicsPerspective," Information and Management(11:4), November 1986, pp. 163-172.

Kowalski, B.W., S., Sokoloff, H.J., and Cole, E."Instructional Decision Support Systems,"American Association of School AdministratorsConference, San Francisco, CA, February1990.

Lee, D.M.S. "Usage Patterns and Sources ofAssistance for Personal Computer Users," MISQuarterly (10:4), December 1986, pp. 313-325.

Leifer, R. "Matching Computer-Based Informa­tion Systems with Organizational Structures,"MIS Quarterly (12:1), March 1988, pp. 63-73.

Leitheiser, R.L. and Wetherbe, J.C. "ServiceSupport Levels: An Organized Approach toEJ'.ld-Use~Computing,"-MIS Quarterly (10:4)f­December-1986, pp. 337-349.

Lepore, S.J., Kling, R., Iacono, S., and George,J. "Implementing Desktop Computing, In­frastructure, and Quality of Worklife," Pro­ceedings of the Tenth International Conferenceon Information Systems, J.I. DeGross, J.C.Henderson, and B.R. Konsynski (eds.),Boston,MA, December 1989, pp. 69-78.

Malone, T.W. "Designing Organizational Inter­faces," ACM SIGCHI Bulletin and CHI85 Pro­ceedings, Denver, CO, October 1985, pp.66-71.

Mantei, M.M. and Teorey, T.J. "IncorporatingBehavioral Techniques Into the SystemsDevelopment Life Cycle," MIS Quarterly(13:3),September 1989, pp. 257-274.

Markus, M.L. Systems in Organizations: Bugsand Features, Pittman Press, Marshfield, MA,1984.

Martin, J. and McClure, C. Structured Tech­niques: The Basis for CASE, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988.

Mason, D. and Mitroff, I. "A Program forResearch on Management InformationSystems," Management Science (19:5),January 1973, pp. 475- 487.

Mumford, E. and Weir, M. Computer Systems inWork Design-The ETHICS Method, JohnWiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1979. _

:j

~~_.~; ...-."....~

.j

~:.<:~:~:~~~~..~...- -.:~~:.~:~~~~ .

..~,~:.:.:,- :<~~:~:.j- ....._-...~

- ~. • # • ~. • •

. _ ::••.~ -<f- ~ •• ~ _

.. " "'!~ .' -... ~",....

of Education, University of Pennsylvania. Hisresearch and consulting focus on the interactionbetween users and their computing en­vironments, concentrating on user mechanismsfor customizing the environment. He applies thisperspective to problems in end-user computing,office automation, and software maintenance. Heis also president of The Institute for Cognitive Pro­sthetics, which customizes computing en­vironments for brain-injured individuals. Beforejoining the staff at the University of Pennsylvania,Dr. Cole taught at Drexel University. He receiv­ed his Ph.D. at Syracuse University.

MIS Quarterly/March 1992 53

• "NI't4'f" =< ?"I'si., C' t d td~••

Elliot Cole is a research associate at the Centerfor School Study Councils in the Graduate School

Her articles have appeared in such journals asACM Transactions on Office InformationSystems, Journal of Systems Management, In­formation and Management, and Telecom­munications Policy. She is also the author ofInformation Literacy: An Introduction to Informa­tion Systems. During 1989-90 she was a FulbrightScholar at Dublin City University in Ireland. Shereceived her Ph.D. from the University ofPittsburgh.

II

..'--~1

., ......t.;

'1~i

...1

for Human­:CHI Bulletinn Factors in\, December

f Success for:ations of the·561.1e Organiza­terns," Inter­:,.72-84.i\1anagementunications ofpp. 776-784.:'C., Dodson,d Health Im­cations of the -

.:~iI-:.;,~+;~:~; ..1

-!i4_;1".·l

f. I, Win-A, 1980."Detinitionallanaging Endind Manage­15-123.'Human Fac­ractive Com­tion," IEEEMan, and

pril 1982, pp.

"raininq End'IS Quarterly-559.'respects for:omputer In­·raction (1:3),

eassessments," Interfaces'1.as: A Vendor, InternationalSystems, San

"5

~ professor ofat the Collegeastern Univer­search includef. informationlr~ .fJns pol- -Ia. Jldustry.