APPLICATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 1
APPLICATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER
INTERACTION IN MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
An Introduction
DENNIS GALLETTA AND PING ZHANG
Abstract: In this introduction to the second of the two complementary volumes, we provide a
general context of applications of HCI research in MIS and then preview all papers in the second
volume. This volume represents applications of HCI from the point of view of MIS research.
Applications take particular courses that are carved out by researchers; we find that MIS
researchers have taken HCI work in the directions of electronic commerce, team collaboration,
culture and globalization, user learning and training, user-centered system development, and
information technology in health care. Two reflective pieces at the end of this volume provide
ample food for thought for researchers in this area.
Keywords: WWW, Electronic Commerce, Collaboration, Culture and Globalization, Training
and Learning, User-Centered System Development, Health Informatics, Research Methodology
INTRODUCTION
This book is one of two complementary volumes that present scholarly works from a variety of
thought leaders in HCI, especially those who have ties to the field of management information
systems (MIS). The first volume (AMIS Vol. 5) covers concepts, theories and models, and general
issues of human-computer interaction studies relevant to MIS. Addressing perspectives on HCI
from different disciplines, the first volume’s topics include the nature and evolution of our under-
standing of who users are; theoretical understanding of how to design systems to support humans;
theories and models of cognitive and behavioral aspects of using information technology (IT); and
fundamental understanding of the affective, aesthetic, value-sensitive, and social aspects of HCI.
This volume (AMIS Vol. 6) covers applications, special case studies, and HCI studies in specific
contexts. Topics in this volume include HCI studies in electronic commerce and the Web context;
HCI studies for collaboration support; culture and globalization issues; specific HCI issues in IT
learning and training; theoretical understandings of system development processes; HCI issues in
health care and health informatics; and, finally, methodological concerns in HCI research.
Each volume concludes with thoughtful reflections by well-known authors. In the first volume,
Fred Davis discusses the connection between the technology acceptance model (TAM) and HCI,
and Jonathan Grudin provides a historical reflection of the development of three closely related
1

disciplines. In the second volume, an early, influential, and visible debate on soft versus hard sci-
ence in HCI studies is revisited and updated from the perspective of one of the original debaters,
John Carroll.
Application of theories, frameworks, and principles is crucial to the HCI-MIS field. Without
theory, research would be haphazard, inconsistent, and inconclusive. Because of that undesirable
potential, the MIS field has explicit requirements from editors of all of the major journals to pro-
vide adequate theory in performing studies.
Applications of human-computer interaction (HCI) theories, frameworks, and principles to
MIS problems can be considered to be an organizationally based “proving ground” of sorts for
those tools. Theories, frameworks, and principles provide an understanding of an issue or prob-
lem, while applications supply not only some partial evidence of whether or not the principles
hold, but also some solutions, additional extensions, and new questions.
Therefore, in some ways, this second volume completes the story that was started in the first
volume by complementing the perspectives and theories with those selected application areas that
several of our most respected colleagues have chosen to examine. In other ways, this volume
should stimulate the emergence of new applications and problem areas as it raises new questions—
most papers suggest the need for additional research and even new areas of theory. Thus, this vol-
ume provides for tomorrow’s conceptual work and applications. Such is the hallmark of a vibrant
and progressing field.
RESEARCH CONTEXT
It is important to establish an appropriate disciplinary base for studying HCI issues. In the intro-
duction to the first volume, we assert that HCI is an interdisciplinary research arena. Several
papers in this volume underscore the multifaceted and interdisciplinary nature of the field. These
papers import theoretical perspectives and tools from a variety of reference disciplines. The astute
reader will recognize theories from several areas, including such fields as psychology, sociology,
computer science, economics, health science, cultural sciences, and organizational sciences.
There is one interesting benefit to the interdisciplinary nature of HCI. There is a highly publi-
cized and dramatic trend towards outsourcing system development (and many other) tasks to off-
shore vendors, and hiring is down. At the same time, enrollments in systems-related academic
programs have declined sharply. Fortunately, Schwartz (2005) provides a preview of an upcoming
government report that indicates that “work that crosses multiple disciplines” and requires creativ-
ity, ingenuity, and, most interestingly, “integration of business processes with IT,” is less likely to
be cast offshore in the foreseeable future. The HCI designer’s task fits with all of these notions.
In addition to being multidisciplinary, HCI is also a strong practical and application-oriented
area. Applications requiring interactions with human users can be found everywhere in our sur-
roundings, and are therefore of significant concern to both researchers and practitioners in a wide
variety of disciplines. Long-term efforts are under way to pull these researchers and practitioners
under a single metaphorical umbrella where duplication of effort can be avoided and synergies can
be exploited (DevCon, 2005; Galletta et al., 2005; Instone, 2005). The MIS field’s main academic
association, the Association for Information Systems (AIS), is participating in the dialog and
movement. Other professionals include ergonomists, graphic designers, business analysts, product
designers, engineers, and health professionals. There are few fields that escape the task of design-
ing for a user’s experience, and the time has come to share important findings among these fields.
While efforts are under way to pool resources, the disciplines will remain distinct. Ergonomists
will continue to examine physical impacts in human factors work, graphic designers will retain
their skill base on layout and presentation, and mechanical engineers will not yield their ability to
2 GALLETTA AND ZHANG

analyze materials that will go into a physical product. At the same time, it is striking that all of
them need to be concerned with usability and users’ experience of their products. All need to ask
if people will understand the product with little training, if the product will behave as users
expect, and if the product will be appealing. These concerns are indeed also shared by systems
designers in the MIS field. What distinguishes MIS researchers is the organizational context.
Both MIS researchers and practitioners are interested in the organizational context. That context
provides a notion of an organization’s strategic goals and users’ tasks. For researchers, the organi-
zational context drives the choice of research problems and suggests methods for learning more. In
a similar fashion, for practitioners, the organizational context bounds the problems that are exam-
ined and leads to approaches for solving them. The differentiating factor is that researchers are
most often interested in acquiring generalizable knowledge, while designers are focused on pro-
viding a solution to the organization, with systems that have improved usability or enjoyment.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: First, the notion of applying theory is described.
Then each of the papers in this volume will be described, in order by section.
APPLYING THEORY
Theory is applied in a multitude of ways by researchers and practitioners, and there are important
differences in the purpose and the application itself. Each part of the framework in Table 1.1 will
now be discussed.
Generalization versus Problem Solving
Both academic researchers and practitioners are concerned with issues that arise at the organiza-
tional, system, user, and task level. What differentiates them is the level of generalization and
problem solving that each desires.
Academic researchers who study a particular organizational system, user, or task are interested
in what it will teach them about future systems, users, and tasks. Generalizability is of primary
concern for building models and publishing papers. If the knowledge is not generalizable in some
way, it is unlikely that other researchers will take an interest in that knowledge. Lessons learned
can be shared with others and progress can be made for the entire field.
On the other hand, practitioners want to solve organizational problems. They need to build a sys-
tem or make a particular decision. Sometimes theories published in journals are not immediately
useful or visible to practitioners. However, some research undoubtedly filters through to practition-
ers, as many attend conferences, hear presentations by researchers, or read materials generated by
researchers. In that case, pieces that they find useful could drive their problem solving.
The difference between the researcher’s and practitioner’s purpose is actually unexpectedly uni-
fying. Applying theory to an organization’s problems should allow practitioners to develop systems
APPLICATIONS OF HCI IN MIS 3
Table 1.1
Framework for Applying Theory
The Academic Researcher The Practitioner
Goals Generalization Problem solving
Activities Theory development and testing System design and evaluation

that are responsive to the needs of the organization and its members. This puts MIS in a unique posi-
tion to provide the necessary organizational focus. Stated another way, MIS needs HCI and HCI
needs MIS, as mentioned in the introduction to the first volume. It is worthwhile to examine each
part of this assertion in some detail.
HCI Needs MIS
Historically, HCI research has included some explicit consideration of organizational issues,
especially with respect to managing a project for greatest usability. For example, the classic piece
by Gould and Lewis (1985) specifies that the first step in designing usable systems is identifying
users and their tasks. Failing to gain such an understanding could lead to vexing design problems,
such as presenting dialog boxes or prompts that use terminology unfamiliar to users, or request-
ing users to follow steps that they cannot find in any documentation or training materials. Equally
as vexing, designers sometimes err by providing detailed instructions for performing well-known
tasks such as selecting File-Save to save a file or File-Print to print a document. Amidst the obvi-
ous instructions, it might be difficult to find the key aspect of help needed, or that key aspect
might have not been provided.
Such a focus has existed in the MIS field for a long time in work on systems analysis and design.
The organizational context for practical problems is often provided by a business analyst (i.e., an
MIS person). A business analyst is a compelling candidate for designing a user’s experience. He
can speak the user’s business language to gain a quicker and more accurate representation of the
task. He can develop more effective design specifications with richer organizational knowledge.
He can produce test goals and benchmarks that are meaningful to the organization. He can deter-
mine if usability is of adequate quality for release to users.
From the perspective of applying theory, the MIS field has models that would benefit the HCI
field by providing such context more systematically. For instance, the unified theory of accept-
ance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003) contains both effort expectancy and
performance expectancy. As described by Davis (2006), the former had been called “ease of use”
and the latter “usefulness” in the past. In this model, performance expectancy, along with out-
comes of these expectancies, provide useful context for effort expectancy. Effort expectancy by
itself seems to provide a focus that is incomplete.
As an example, the famous “Ernestine” project (Gray et al., 1992) provided evidence that support
calls could be handled more quickly by avoiding purchase of a new system. The new system had
touted an “HCI friendly” design (with an easier-to-use interface and faster connection speed), but in
reality, several steps that were previously done in parallel (computer and human) would now have to
be done sequentially. Broadening the analysis to organizational needs for overall efficiency helped
provide the proper decision, and helped save several million dollars. Further, additional analysis of
customer satisfaction, company image, and IT strategy might have provided crucial input to the
decision as well. The context provided by MIS is valuable and necessary, hence, HCI needs MIS.
MIS Needs HCI
The converse is also true, that MIS needs HCI. We have models that would, and do, benefit from more
detailed notions in HCI. Again, using the UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) example, neither MIS
researchers nor practitioners should stop after making an overall assessment of effort expectancy.
They should make use of HCI principles and theoretical perspectives for their application work. MIS
researchers should drill deeper and specify more elements of usability. For example, some systems

are easy to learn but hard to use (putting everything into deeply nested but understandable menus)
while others are hard to learn but easy to use (forcing memorization of shortcuts). While that crucial
notion has received broad coverage in the HCI literature, it has not in the MIS literature. Therefore,
for similar deepening of issues that might not be explored in the MIS literature, MIS needs HCI.
DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF THEORY
Theory is addressed in different ways by researchers and practitioners. While researchers attempt
to develop and test theory, practitioners will use theory to design systems or evaluate products.
Researchers have provided theory in many areas, but that work is not complete. Likewise, the-
ory that has been developed has not been applied in every potential area. The latter shortfall is
caused by sheer numbers; there is perhaps an infinite set of application areas for the HCI theories,
frameworks, and principles defined in the first volume. Not only can broad types or categories of
systems be investigated, but a bewildering array of highly detailed aspects of those systems can
be studied too. Researchers should be concerned with two basic questions: Where (i.e., to what
kinds of problems) is theory applied? How is it applied?
Where Is Theory Developed?
Categories of systems, at several different levels, have been examined. The categories have tended
to include shortlists that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. For example, the HCI field stud-
ied graphical, menu, and command-based interfaces as three general ways to manage a dialog
with the user. Within menu-based systems, researchers have subdivided the types into static and
dynamic menus. Within static menus, researchers have investigated different arrangements of
menu items, such as alphabetical order, functional or categorical order, frequency order, temporal
order, and even random order.
Detailed aspects of systems have also served to define our understanding of systems, and
although many very interesting studies have been conducted, only some areas have been covered.
These considerations are not as well defined or exhaustive as the categories. Perhaps inspired by
the categories, they represent phenomena that are observed by researchers. When studying menu-
based systems, for instance, several researchers noticed that response time differed substantially
among different systems and among different times of day when using one particular system.
When studying graphical interfaces, some researchers noted that reading speed and comprehen-
sion differed when comparing paper against CRT screens of the 1980s.
Browsing the titles of these two volumes will provide ample testimony of the diversity in the
application of theory by researchers and practitioners. The next concern is how it is applied.
How Is Theory Developed?
Combining a large set of options and outcomes enabled early researchers to explore without many
expectations. In the early days (e.g., see Dickson et al., 1977), researchers listed options for pre-
sentation of information such as summarized versus detailed, or paper versus screen. They also
examined outcomes such as “confidence” and “accuracy.” As time passed, the MIS discipline
began to mature. Researchers began to apply theory by “borrowing” and adapting theoretical
developments from other fields, or even by developing new ones from previous studies.
UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) is an example of a perspective adapted from outside the field.
Its predecessor model TAM (the technology acceptance model) (Davis, 1989) was derived from

the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) from social psychology. Many other
models have been imported and adapted in this manner.
By contrast, an example of a theoretical development that originated in the field is the theory
of cognitive fit (Vessey, 1991; Vessey and Galletta, 1991). Seeds for that study were sown in 1981,
when Professor Gary Dickson at the University of Minnesota required PhD students at that time to
reconcile the disparate findings of previous “graphs versus tables” studies. Coursework on organi-
zational psychology with Professor John P. Campbell, also at the University of Minnesota, provided
another seed. Professor Campbell taught that disparate findings usually demanded a contingency
approach. The following cycle seemed to hold in many disciplines: (1) new management tools are
introduced and heralded as the “next big thing”; (2) the tools sometimes work and sometimes do not
work; and (3) someone finally discovers why, by identifying situations (contingencies) in which
they will and will not work. A third seed was planted in the mid-1980s when Vessey and Galletta
were auditing a well-known cognitive science course taught at Carnegie Mellon by the late Nobel
Prize winner Herbert Simon. They discussed the possibility of capitalizing on the previous two
seeds and launched the experiments. Vessey demonstrates her formidable research and writing
instincts in the first volume, and her expertise and leadership provided a sensible framework and
name for the theory. As the experiments were under way, she then went on to analyze the previ-
ous studies in that light (Vessey, 1991), making a seminal and frequently cited contribution to the
field of MIS and HCI.
System Design and Evaluation
Practitioners have developed, over the years, new creative interaction techniques or tools, such as
ergonomic keyboards, special dials on handheld devices, and new pointing devices (e.g., Briggs
et al., 1993). The creativity of designers has propelled these developments, and few, if any, of our
current theories could have formulated the new tools. As Shneiderman pointed out in the first vol-
ume, theories describe objects and actions, explain processes, predict performance, prescribe
guidelines, or generate agendas. They do not allow the practitioner to plug in parameters and view
the resultant 3D design for a new product on a screen.
It would be difficult to expect theories to create new products or systems. For example, exist-
ing theory could not have specified the IBM ThinkPad “pointing stick” and its location between
the G and H keys on the keyboard. Indeed, Rutledge and Selker (1990) point out the trial-and-
error process that led to its design and final placement. Alternative solutions—such as integrating
the pointing stick with the “J” key, or placing it below the space bar or above the function keys—
were explored.
Application of theory was quite useful to the ThinkPad team. The GOMS model (Card et al.,
1983) and Fitts’ Law (Fitts, 1954), both derived from psychological theory, allowed the designers
to evaluate the device systematically and in a standard way. They measured the extent to which
“mental time,” having to pause and think about how to initiate the “J” key pointer, disturbed the
efficiency of that option. Their designs were evaluated in Fitts’ time-versus-difficulty plots.
Such events are not relegated to hardware design. Practitioners have also benefited from analy-
sis of design alternatives by applying Fitts’ Law. Callahan et al. (Callahan et al., 1988) designed
a “Pie Menu,” which does not require users to move to the top of the screen as in a pull-down
menu. By clicking the mouse button, a menu surrounds the pointer at its current location. The
menu requires only slight movement in any direction to choose the desired option. Several soft-
ware packages make use of such menus, and theory was helpful to practitioners in evaluating the
general type.

OVERVIEW OF THE VOLUME
Researchers and practitioners alike can benefit from the application of theory. Researchers can
develop and apply theory to generalize to other situations. They develop and test models that are
either derived from applications of theory, or that lead to new theory. Practitioners can use it to
solve problems, often for evaluation of new software or hardware.
Several applications of theory are described in this volume. The areas are diverse, interesting,
and important, and have either direct or indirect relevance to researchers and practitioners alike.
This volume contains monographs that cover several specific areas of HCI and MIS. The topics
included have evolved over an extended time or over an extended set of studies. The application
areas include electronic commerce, team collaboration, culture and globalization, user learning and
training, system development, and health care. Following these papers are two highly appropriate
pieces to conclude the two volumes. One provides strong methodological advice for HCI/MIS
researchers, and the other revisits, and perhaps settles, a famous debate in the HCI field over “hard”
science and “soft” science.
Each section of the book is introduced below, and each paper within each section is described.
Electronic Commerce and the Web
The Web and electronic commerce have become important areas in HCI MIS. The MIS researchers’
interest in studying hypertext or the Web has expanded from the early days of building decision sup-
port systems (Minch, 1990) to a much broader range of research interests. According to Galletta
(2006), electronic commerce has taken computer usage to many more users than ever before.
Adding to the importance of usability is the problem that these new users are not able to benefit from
corporate training for their systems. Previously, users were business professionals or clerical indi-
viduals, a rather specialized segment of the population. Today, an unprecedented number of regular
citizens are Internet users: Statistics from February 2005 show that about two-thirds of Americans
have Internet access (Internet World Stats, 2005).
Because computer users exist in greater numbers than ever before, but have less training than
ever before, electronic commerce provides an unprecedented and rich research laboratory for HCI
in MIS. The three papers in this session examine complementary and important aspects of elec-
tronic commerce and HCI.
The first, by Izak Benbasat, outlines several studies on various difficulties imposed by the
physical decoupling of retail stores from their customers. Benbasat first explores types of com-
munication, and then describes various tools that can enrich the experience. These tools include
ways in which service can be provided virtually, how customers can browse with another person,
and how customers can experience products more thoroughly.
The second, by Dennis F. Galletta, Raymond M. Henry, Scott McCoy, and Peter Polak, focuses
on the phenomenon of Web delay. Delay is examined in a progression of four experiments: a
study to determine how long users will wait until they lose patience, a study that examines user
reactions to delay in two different cultures, and two studies that include factors that interact with
delay. Interacting factors included user familiarity with Web site terminology and depth of the site
in the first experiment, and feedback on page loading progress and variability of the delay in the
second experiment.
The third electronic commerce study, by Ping Zhang, addresses animation in pop-up advertis-
ing, and describes eight years of research in that area. Three studies during that period found con-
sistent evidence that animation impairs performance because it diverts a user’s limited attention

capacity for her primary task. The first study examined other related factors such as task diffi-
culty, relevance of the animation to the task, and bright versus dull colors. The second study
examined the timing, location, and repetition of the animation. The third study focused on user
experience with animation.
Collaboration Support
Collaboration through electronic means is easier and cheaper than ever before. People who can-
not be near each other have been brought together electronically, but even people who are physi-
cally together can accomplish a variety of tasks more effectively using certain technologies. This
topic has received widespread attention and has a semiannual conference devoted to it.1
Due to
the large number of tasks that are too large or complex for a single individual to perform, this area
is quite important.
The first collaboration paper, by Judy and Gary Olson, examines several challenges faced by
distributed teams, based on several studies in both the field and in the laboratory. In their early
work, the challenges included the nature of work, the common ground of team members, the com-
petitive/cooperative culture, the level of technological competence of team members, and the
level of technical infrastructure. The paper focuses on new challenges, including alignment of
incentives and goals, difficulty of establishing trust, awareness of colleagues and their context, the
motivational sense of the presence of others, and the need for explicit management. Data from
two hundred “collaboratories” are used to construct conceptual technical and social “bridges” to
solve the difficulties.
The second paper on collaboration, by Starr Roxanne Hiltz, Jerry Fjermestad, Rosalie Ocker,
and Murray Turoff, focuses on groups that are separated by time and distance (also known as
asynchronous teams). Results from several field and laboratory experiments are described, and
the results push in a variety of directions. Future research needs are outlined to help uncover a
model for understanding this area better.
Ilze Zigurs and Bjørn Erik Munkvold contributed the third collaboration paper, which exam-
ines collaboration technologies, tasks, and contexts, and provides an analysis of how these three
elements have been addressed in MIS research. They review several typologies, as well as the
evolving nature of these concepts. They also thoroughly review the literature, which should help
researchers who are interested in this area.
Culture and Globalization
As information is passed among more and more people, it sometimes crosses cultural boundaries.
Multinational firms find that people need to understand people of other cultures to ensure that
they are communicating accurately. Software and hardware design should be culturally sensitive,
or designers might create the technological equivalent to trying to sell the Chevrolet “Nova” in
Mexico several years ago. The literal translation of “Nova” from Spanish to English is “will not
go,” as General Motors later found.
Two studies focus on culture and globalization. The first, by Jinwoo Kim, Inseong Lee,
Boreum Choi, Se-Joon Hong, Kar Yan Tam, and Kazuaki Naruse, represents a collaboration of
researchers in three Asian countries on the subject of the mobile Internet. Specifically, metrics for
examining cultural aspects of technology are proposed and tested. Rather than force-fit the estab-
lished dimensions of culture, the authors develop a layered approach that assumes that most ele-
ments of culture exist in deeper layers that cannot easily be observed. The metrics are adapted

from two sets of cultural dimensions in the previous literature. The researchers tested the instru-
ment by examining logs of 1,075 actual mobile Internet users in Korea, Hong Kong, and Japan.
Thorough examination of the instrument is provided.
The second cultural study was contributed by Geoffrey S. Hubona, Duane Truex III, Jijie Wang,
and Detmar Straub. The group collected data that are complementary to the Asian mobile Internet
study. The paper focuses on organizational use, and includes several countries throughout the world.
Hubona et al. demonstrate that North American models of technology acceptance are not necessar-
ily applicable in other countries. They examine sociocultural factors (for example, motivation and
norms) and globalization factors (for example, government policy and national economics) in a
framework to understand adoption and use of IT in other countries.
Learning and Training
Over the years, a small but dedicated community has examined user learning and training (e.g.,
Cronan and Douglas, 1990; Davis and Davis, 1990; Kang and Santhanam, 2004; Sein and Bostrom,
1989). Their work is becoming more important as the years pass, as more and more technology
reaches the physical but perhaps not the cognitive grasp of users. Evidence that supports investing
in training research can be found in legends about users who make errors, such as the famous tale of
the user who believed a CD drive was a cup-holder. A humorous Web site entitled Computer
Stupidities (http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid) provides several more potentially true tales about
users: One photocopied a floppy disk, another held up a printer to his monitor so that the computer
could “see” (and thus find) it, and still another misinterpreted a request to right-click on an icon and
used a permanent marker to write the word “click” on her video display. If even a small proportion
of the dozens of stories are actually true, the serious need for training is obvious.
It is important to provide a firm understanding of technological capabilities to prevent some of
these errors. It is also important to provide a better glossary of the terminology used when refer-
ring to technologies to avoid misunderstandings. Some of the training might be needed to make
up for failures in design, and the need could pass after these difficulties are eliminated. However,
interactions with hardware and software are quite complex, and making each system self-tutoring
could result in systems that are quite cumbersome after extended use.
A paper by Sharath Sasidharan and Radhika Santhanam reviews the literature on technology-
based training. Early studies seem to have focused on the technologies themselves, to determine
how the outcomes of training might be improved. Later studies, however, have devoted their
attention more to learners than to technologies. Taken together, the existing studies provide back-
ground in understanding characteristics of the learner, the instructor, the technology, and the
course. Much more research is needed to make significant progress in this area.
The second learning paper is offered by Lorne Olfman, Bob Bostrom, and Maung Sein, who
examine how to develop a training strategy from an HCI perspective. The approach outlines how
to design, implement, and deliver software training that is consistent with a framework that
extends from corporate strategy to learning strategy to training strategy. The authors present their
original model from several years ago, and describe several studies related to that model. They
take the unusual step of providing a detailed critique of their own work. Finally, after discussing
the framework and industry best practices, they provide an agenda for future researchers.
Conrad Shayo and Lorne Olfman provide the final paper on learning and training, offering a per-
spective on “learning objects,” small chunks of digitized instructional content that can be delivered
online. The authors review the literature in this area, focus on the benefits and difficulties of such a
technology, and suggest what needs to be done in this area from a “Value Chain” perspective.

User-Centered Information Systems Development
Most systems are developed in response to a need that is determined to exist. That need could
originate from the organizational level, as in an enterprise-wide system, or at the individual level,
for making decisions more accurately, strategically, or quickly. In either case, individuals will
use the system, facing its screens and needing to understand and respond to its prompts.
Developing systems from the perspective of users is therefore a logical, yet sometimes neglected,
strategy.
Glenn Browne supplies us with a review of research in information requirements determina-
tion, a framework of the requirements determination environment, and an inventory of research
questions that have or have not been addressed satisfactorily. The four stages of IRD are used to
understand the environment: pre-elicitation conditioning, elicitation, representation, and verifica-
tion. The second and third stages have received most of the attention. Browne points out addi-
tional research needed to better understand cognitive, emotional, communication, experience,
environmental, organizational, task, and individual issues in requirements determination.
John Carroll and Mary Beth Rosson survey participative design (PD) under a framework of six
dimensions of participation: participatory impetus, ownership, scope of design, nature of the par-
ticipatory process, scope of cooperation, and expectations about learning and human develop-
ment. The framework provides for an analysis of traditional and emerging PD models, some of
which date back two decades. Contemporary studies throw all of the models into a new light, and
provide for an up-to-date view of PD.
Health Care and Health Informatics
The health-care arena is one in which technology decisions can have powerful impacts on the
well-being of people. There are many interesting IT issues to study in a health-care context; yet
only a limited number of studies exist (e.g., Hu et al., 1999). Information technologies for health
care can either address health records or the process of treatment. Inaccurate records can result in
complications for a patient, especially when urgent steps must be taken and little information
is available about drug allergies or current medications being used. From the treatment side,
new advances provide exciting prospects for people who might have given up hope without the
new opportunities in receiving leading-edge care. This section provides a paper about each of
those areas.
The first paper in this section, by Ritu Agarwal and Corey M. Angst, defines and discusses
health information technology and illustrates opportunities for MIS research in this area. Focusing
on adoption decisions on an electronic personal health record (PHR), Agarwal and Angst report on
an empirical study that supports the notion that different demographic and health conditions lead
to different perceptions of value of a PHR, and ultimately to adoption of the technology.
The second health-care paper, by Adriane B. Randolph and Geoffrey S. Hubona, reports on
significant cutting-edge efforts for developing assistive technologies for people with disabilities.
Randolph and Hubona examine organizational adoption and diffusion of such technologies, to
perhaps minimize the disproportionate levels of unemployment and poverty of the millions of
working-age people with disabilities. Eight predictive models and two case studies are presented.
The first case study addresses BrainBrowser, a promising but developing technology that will
eventually allow people with motor disabilities to control certain functions with brain impulses.
The second relies on galvanic skin response to accomplish the same goal in users who are not
good candidates for BrainBrowser due to complicating diseases.

Methodological Issues and Reflections
The last two papers in the book provide useful advice for researchers interested in HCI/MIS appli-
cations. Researchers are often interested in making sure they are examining appropriate problems,
and are examining those problems in the correct manner.
MIS scholars have utilized a large number of different research methods. A recent survey of
published HCI studies in seven top MIS journals from 1990–2002 (Zhang and Li, 2005) revealed
that almost all of the methods in Alavi and Carlson’s research type framework (Alavi and Carlson,
1992) have been used. The most commonly utilized method, however, is the controlled lab exper-
iment (used by 35.6 percent of the HCI papers in the period), followed by surveys (by 25.5 per-
cent of the HCI papers) and field studies (by 12.5 percent of the HCI papers) (Zhang and Li,
2005). In this volume, Alan Dennis, Monica Garfield, Heikki Topi, and Joseph Valacich provide
a paper on conducting lab experiments, from initial conception of a study to publication, that
should be on every experimenter’s desk. Four main issues are addressed: how to find and select
ideas for studies, how to use theory, how to design an experiment, and how to write (and revise)
the experimental paper.
John M. Carroll provides the paper that wraps up the two-volume set. He provides a unique ret-
rospective of his and Robert Campbell’s famous “soft versus hard science” debate with Allen
Newell and Stuart Card from twenty years ago. Although Allen Newell has since passed on and
Stuart Card was not available for a similar retrospective, Carroll’s account and analysis helps us
to think more thoroughly about the prospect that predictive mathematical or technical studies
could drive out social and behavioral approaches. This paper serves as the missing final rebuttal
by Carroll, with whom Campbell decided many years ago not to debate the matter further.
Carroll refers to the debate as an “essential tension,” and two key questions are examined. The
first question is whether there is a problem introduced by soft sciences in a multidisciplinary field,
and the second is whether “hardening” all of the contributing sciences is desirable. Carroll demon-
strates that additional “soft” sciences have entered the HCI milieu, and HCI’s base in science is
actually more eclectic and softer than it was during the initial debate. Cognitive modeling is no
longer the default paradigm for HCI studies. Even with this happily multifaceted emergent disci-
pline, Carroll notes that some less confident researchers will, even today, shy away from “soft”
studies and pass up interesting opportunities because of this debate, and closes the thoughtful piece
by asserting that long-running crises sometimes lead to what Kuhn calls extraordinary science,
where researchers question assumptions, abandon conventions, and routinize innovative practices.
CONCLUSION
It is our hope that with these two volumes, researchers in MIS HCI will be better prepared for a
possible period of extraordinary science. There seems to be no end to the development of exciting
new technologies, and developers should be able to make them usable and useful to people in all
walks of life. It is our responsibility to develop and impart to our students and/or colleagues the
principles that enable and enrich these applications. We are proud to have edited these volumes and
hope that they inform and energize you as much as they have informed and energized us.
NOTE
1. See Grudin (1994) for a detailed history of the CSCW (computer-supported cooperative work)
conference.

REFERENCES
Alavi, M., and Carlson, P. A review of MIS research and disciplinary development. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 8, 4 (1992), 45–62.
Briggs, R.O.; Dennis, A.R.; Beck, B.S.; and Nunamaker, J.F. Whither the pen-based interface? Journal of
Management Information Systems, 9, 3 (1993), 71–90.
Callahan, J.; Hopkins, D.; Weiser, M.; and Shneiderman, B. An empirical comparison of pie vs linear menus.
In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CH), Washington, DC:
Association for Computing Machinery, 1988, pp. 95–100.
Card, S.; Moran, T.P.; and Newell, A. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983.
Cronan, T.P., and Douglas, D.E. End-user training and computing effectiveness in public agencies: an empir-
ical study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6, 4 (1990), 21–39.
Davis, D.L., and Davis, D.F. The effect of training techniques and personal characteristics on training end
users of information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7, 2 (1990), 93–110.
Davis, F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quarterly, 13, 3 (1989), 319–340.
DevCon, CHI Development Consortium. 2005 (available at http://uxnet.org/devcon/, accessed on December
15, 2005).
Dickson, G.W.; Senn, J.A.; and Chervany, N.L. Research in management information systems: the Minnesota
experiments. Management Science, 23, 9 (1977), 913–923.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and
Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
Fitts, P.M. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47 (1954), 381–391.
Galletta, D.; Zhang, P.; and Nah, F.F.-H. AIS HCI position paper. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. Portland, OR: Association for Computing Machinery, 2005,
pp. 1080–1082.
Galletta, D.F. Human factors and e-commerce. In M. Shaw (ed.), Electronic Commerce and the Digital
Economy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2006.
Gould, J.D., and Lewis, C. Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Communications
of the ACM, 28, 3 (1985), 300–311.
Gray, W.D.; John, B.E.; and Atwood, M.C. The precis of Project Ernestine or an overview of a validation of
GOMS. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI. Monterey, CA: Association for Computing Machinery, 1992,
pp. 307–312.
Grudin, J., CSCW: History and Focus. 1994 (available at http://www.ics.uci.edu/⬃grudin/Papers/IEEE94/
IEEEComplastsub.html, accessed on June 6, 2005).
Hu, P.J.; Chau, P.Y.K.; Sheng, O.R.L.; and Tam, K.Y. Examining the technology acceptance model using
physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16, 2
(1999), 91–112.
Instone, K. User experience: an umbrella topic. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, Portland, OR: Association for Computing Machinery, 2005, pp. 1087–1088.
Internet World Stats. 2005 (available at http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm, accessed on June 6,
2005).
Kang, D., and Santhanam, R. A longitudinal field study of training practices in a collaborative application
environment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 3 (2004), 257–281.
Minch, R.P. Application and research areas for hypertext in decision support systems. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 6, 3 (1990), 119–138.
Rutledge, J., and Selker, T. In-keyboard analog pointing device: a case for the pointing stick. Technical Video
Program of the CHI ’90 Conference, SIGGRAPH Video Review, 55, 1 (1990).
Schwartz, E. Dire Forecast for IT jobs. Infoworld. 2005 (available at http://www.infoworld.com/article/
05/05/17/21OPreality_1.html, accessed on December 15, 2005).
Sein, M.K., and Bostrom, R. The influence of individual differences in determining the effectiveness of
conceptual models in training novice users. Human-Computer Interaction, 4 (1989), 197–229.

Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; and Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology:
toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 3 (2003), 425–478.
Vessey, I. Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences, 22
(1991), 219–240.
Vessey, I., and Galletta, D.F. Cognitive fit: an empirical study of information acquisition. Information
Systems Research, 2, 1 (1991), 63–84.
Zhang, P., and Li, N. The intellectual development of human-computer interaction research in MIS: a survey
of the MIS literature (1990–2002). Journal of Association for Information Systems 6, 11 (2005), 227–292.

APPLICATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

APPLICATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

More Related Content

Similar to APPLICATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (20)

More from Steven Wallach (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

APPLICATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS