MANAOEKENT SCIZHCE

Vd. ai, Mo. i, Oetobn. 1«7«

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS: APPRECIATION

AND INVOLVEMENT*
E. BURTON SWAN8ON

Studiengruppe fUr Sy»temfor»chung, Hiedelberg

Failures in the implementation of management infonnation syatenu ("MIS'a")
can be attributed in part to a lack of managerial "involvement" and "appreciation."
The concepts of involvement and appreciation are defined, and their measurement
in a real-world research Ntting is presented. The testing of several hypotheses in
this setting indicates that managers who involve themselves with the MIS will ap-
preciate the system, and that managers who are uninvolved will be unappreciative.

Introduction
In a well-known critique of computer-based management information systems
("MIS's"), John Dearden presents an archetypical design vision:
The latest vogue in computer information systems is the so-called real-time
management infonnation system. The general idea is to have in each ex-
ecutive's office a remote computer terminal which is connected to a large-
scale computer with a data bank containing all of the relevant information in
the company. The data bank, ufxlated continuously, can be "interrogated"
by the manager at any time. Answers to questions are immediately flashed
on a screen in his office. AII^;edly, a real-time management information sys-
tem enable the manager to obtain complete and up-to-the-Hunute informa-
tion about everything that is happening within the company. [8, p. 123]
Widrapread failure in the implementation of such MIS "ideals" has been reported
([2], [9]). A contributing factor to these failures, in the author's opinion, is the common
assumption by designers that a mani^r need not understand how his information
sjrstem works, only how to xise it.' Otherwise put, the comnwon mistaken assumption
is that managerial (user) understanding is separable from design understanding.
The implications of this a»umptbn are particularly interestii^ for MIS's of the
file interrogation type, systems which rely upon wi infonnation "demand" in order
to achieve utilization. In the author's experience, this demand is realized only to the
extent that nuuiagers ineobe themselves in MIS design uid implementation, and thus
develop an understanding and appreciation of the "whole system."' A mans^r's
understanding and appreciation of the MIS is a necessary condition for meaningful
MIS inquiry.
That management should be "involved" in MIS development is a popular wisdom:
The key to system success is total involvement of the users; trite to be sure,
fundamental without a doubt. [13, p. 67]
Research results exist, furtihermore, to support this notion ([10], {11]).
Unfortunately, what is meant by "involvement" is rarely clem*, and nothing has

* Proeessed by Professor Richard O. Mason, Departmental Editor for Management M>d Be-
havioral Science; received May 16, 1972, revised March 30, 1073. This paper has been with the
author a month for revision.
' Hie assumption was originally presented uid criticised by Ackoff [2], utd discussed sub-
sequently by Riqtpaport (14). See idso Swuison [16].
' The concept of the "whole system" and Its relationship to the problem of inquiry has been
articulated by Churchman f6], (7].
178
t, tiw Iwm«to«( lfuii««Mnt Baiaaw
 MANAQBMENT INFORMATION S Y S T E M B : APPBESCIATION AND INVOLVEMENT 179

been done, to my knowledge, to provide a rigorous foundation for its measurement in

research situations. In this paper, conceptual definitions of MIS involvement and
appreciation are presented together with a set of hypotheses which were tested in a
real-world MIS setting.
The results of the tests indicate that managers who involve themselves with the
MIS will appreciate the system, and that managers who are uiunvolved will be un-
appreciative. Neither manager nor researcher is likely to find this too surprising.
What should be of interest, however, is the research methodology. For the approach
described here can be generally applied to measuring the acceptance of MIS's by
their usens And when this task is more widely undertaken, our knowledge of MIS
design and implementation should be correspondmgly extended.

Involvement and Appreciation

Both a manf^er and an MIS are regarded to be purposeful systems, i.e. systems
which display "will" through the selection of ends as well as means [3]. The involve-
ment between two such purposeful systems corresponds to their "entanglement" in
the pursuit of their respective ends. The activities of each may facilitate or frustrate
the attainment of the ends of the other. Thus:
(1) A manager and an MIS are cooperatively involved to the extent that the ac-
tivities of each facilitates (rather than frustrates) the attainment of the ends of the
other.'
The involvement of the manager may be either in his role as a user of the system,
i.e. as an inquirer, or in association with those activities necessary to make this use
possible. Thus:
(2) The inquiry involvement of a manager consists of his cooperative involvement
with the MIS inquiry process.
(3) The a priori involvement of a manager consists of his cooperative involvement
with MIS design, implementation, and operation processes.
The characterization of a manf^er as "involved" with an MIS must therefore be
stated in terms of the activitira and ends of both purposeful systems. Thus, we might
describe a manager as "involved" in MIS inquiry if his activity of entering a query
from a terminal contributes to the MIS objective of a high utilization rate, and if his
own need for information is met by the report produced by the MiS. (The objective
of a "high utilization rate" is admittedly a weak one, but is typical of file interroga-
tion systems which must justify their occupation of computer resources.)
Whereas involvement is characterized in terms of purposeful activities, the concept
of appreciation is defined in terms of the individual's cognitive state:
(4) The MIS appreciaiion* of a manager consists of his manifold of beliefs about
the relative value of the MIS as a means of inquiry.
A manager's appreciation of the MIS is to be described in terms of his assessment
of the system aa a meana.to his own ends. Thus, if a manager believes his MIS re-
ports to be "timely", "informative", "easy to understand", and so forth, we might
Bay that he appreciated the system's reports.
It waa postulated that the conceptual variables are related according to the fol-

* A more formal definition of involvement is contained in the report [16] on which this article
is based. This definition is itself derived from the work of Ackoff and Churchman [1].
* The uae of the term "appreciation" in this context is my own idea. For a similar concept of
'appreciation" see VIckers [17].
180 E. BtTBTON SWAKSON

bwing model:
coproduces coproduces Inquiry
A Priori MIS
^ » Involvement
Involvement Appreciation coproduces

The term "coproduees" refers to probabilistic causality. A "producer" is necessary

but not sufficient for its "product" [3]. For this reason, it always has one oj: more
coproducers, and b said to "coproduce" its product. The above mode] is thus in-
complete. An "MIS environment" (consisting of a particular organizational structure
and computer technology) may be said to coproduce each of the three variables
above. In addition, an inquirer's world view, i.e. his overall "image" of the world
[5], within which his MIS appreciation is imbedded, also serves a coproductive func-
tion.
Three conjectures are derived from the model:
(5) An increase in the o priori involvement of an individual with an MIS will
increase his MIS appreciation.
(6) An increase in the MIS appreciation of an individual will increase his inquiry
involvement, and vice versa.
And hence, indirectly:
(7) An increase in the a priori involvement of an individual with an MIS will
increase his inquiry involvement.
These conjectures were tested as part of a study (15] of an infoi^nation system in a
real-world organization referred to here as "SQC Engineering."
SQC Engineering and its Activity Reporting Jnformation System
SQC Engineering is a department of more than 200 employees of a large inter-
national manufacturer of complex electronic equipment. The department, referred
to as a "group" within the formal oi^nizational structure, is responsible for the
production quality control of one of the rompany's West Coast manufacturing plants,
employing several thousand individuals. The Group itself consists of three "second-
level" departments referred to as "programs." Each program consists in turn of four
or five "first-level" departments. The Group's personnel are primarily engineers and
technicians, supplemented by various forms of clerical support.
SQC Engineering employs an internally-developed "Activity Reporting Informa-
tion System" (known as "ARIS") as a vehicle for self-management. The Group's
budget, apart from capital expenditures, consists predominately of personnel wages.
Thus, the allocation of manpower to the various tasks at hand constitutes a significant
management problem. The ARIS system gathers data on the planned and actual
work activity of the Group's members, and makes it available to management on a
"need to know" basis. Each department manager has access to the data within his
formally defined responsibility; that is, his access is limited to the departments and
personnel reporting to him. In addition, certain engineers have access to work activity
data pertaining to their product responsibilities. These data often cut across formal
organizational lines.
ARIS utilizes a computer program system known as "Management Information
System/360" (or, more popularly, as "MIS/360")' to make its data accessible to

• Noi an IBM product, but a "Type III" program at the time of this study. For details, see
the documentation for contributed program 360D-06.7.009, published by the IBM Corporation.
 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS: APPRECIATION AND INVOLVEMENT 181

"generalized" inquiry from remote terminals.* The feature of generalized inquiry

allows the terminal operator to specify the format and content of his report at the
terminal by means of a query language.
ARIS makes two data files available for management inquiry. The first, the Activity
Status File, contains work activity data from the most recent 13 weeks, at a level of
detail which includes the activity records of individual Group members. The second
file, derived from the first, maintains an 18-month summary of work activity at the
department level. This second file is referred to as the Activity History File. Both
files are relatively simple in structure.
Despite the limited nature of the ARISfiles,there is no practical limit to the number
of unique reports which can be produced through generalized inquiry. Some ex-
amples;
(i) A summary of man-hours charged to a particular product type during a recent
month, broken down by employee skill code.
(ii) An exception listing of those product types for which the actual man-hours
charged exceeded the budgeted man-hours, for each month, over a one-year period.
(Ui) A profile of the man-hours charged by a given employee to various work ac-
tivities during each week of the current month.
Inquiry into the ARIS data base takes place from terminals scattered throughout
the plant. Security provisions restrict inquiry privileges to those defined to have the
"need to know." A prospective inquirer must supply the system with his "security
code." This code allows the inquirer to access the ARIS files according to the desired
restrictions. During the course of the study, 46 individuals had personal access to the
ARIS data base. Others had indirect access, delegated by their management.
All queries entered are recorded by MIS/360, which maintains an Inquiry History
File of user activity. This extensive record served as the data base for my own inquiry
into ARIS use.
Measurement of ARIS Involvement and Appreciation
In order to test the research conjectures, the conceptual variables were opera-
tionalized. The problem was to define indices which represent the relative presence or
absence of o priori involvement, MIS appreciation, and inquiry involvement with
respect to each ARIS user.
A set of measurement criteria were chosen as methodological linkages between
the theoretical constructs and their representational measures. Each criterion is thus
a presupposition of the research.
The first presupposition is:
(i) An indicator of the inquiry involvement of a manner with respect to an MIS
is his submission of a report-producing query. An index of his inquiry involvement is
the relative frequency of this query-submitting activity.
It 18 assumed that query submission is a cooperative form of activity with respect
to the common MIS objective of a "high utilization rate."
Similarly, it is assumed:
(ii) An indicator of the a priori imiohement of a manager with respect to an MIS
is his initiation of change in the design or operational state of the system. An index
of his o priori involvement is the relative frequency of this change-producing activity.
It is a^eumed that the initiation of change is cooperative with respect to the MIB

• IBM 2741 typewriter tenninals and 2260 cathode ray tube (CRT) display stations.
 182 B, BtmTON SWAN80N

objective of "satisfying the user's needs." That is, the manager is presumed to initiate
changes in the interest of the user group of which he is a member.
Lastly, it is presupposed that:
(iii) An indicator of the MIS appreciation of a manager is his verbal evaluation of
MIS inquiry as a means of informing himself. An index of his MIS appreciation is an
average of these evaluations.
Thus, a manager who judges his MIS reports to be "timely" might be assumed to
indicate more appreciation than one who judges them "untimely." And an index
could be constructed from a set of judgments such as these.
The actual measures used were operationalized by means of the instruments utilised
n data collection. The MIS/360 Inquiry History File was used as the source of indi-
cators of inquiry involvement. A research questionnaire was constructed to obtain
indicators of MIS appreciation and o priori involvement.
The Inquiry History File was monitored over a period of almost four months, and
a complete record of system use during 30 consecutive working days preceding the
administration of the questionnaire was used to measure the inquiry involvement of
the MIS users. An inquirer was judged to be "active" on a given working day if he
entered one or more queries. The index of his inquiry involvement was then the rela-
tive frequency of these active days during the 30 days sampled. This measure may
thus be interpreted as indicating the "probability" that the client will use the terminal
(i.e. enter at least one query) on a given working day.
The measure of MIS appreciation was based on a set of 16 questionnaire items
such as the following:
For me, the reports are
I 1 I I I I I I
very somewhat neither somewhat very don't
timely timely timely untimely untimely know
0.9 0.7 nor 0.3 0.1 0.0
untimely
0.5
For me, the average on-line response to an MIS/360 terminal inquiry is
I I I ! I I I 1
very somewhat neither somewhat very don't
prompt prcanpt prompt unprompt unprompt know
0.9 0.7 nor 0.3 0.1 0.0
unprompt
0.5
Eight of th^e items (including the first item above) sought indications of the respond-
ent's "report appreciation," and cuciother eight (including the second item above)
sought indications of his "report-production appreciation." Roughly speaking, the
idea was to obtain indicators of the perceived benefits (e.g. "timely" reports) and
costs (e.g. "somewhat unprompt" on-line response) of MIS inquiry.
The scoring of the indicators of MIS appreciation is shown, by example, in the
two items above. MIS appreciation may be thought of as having "knowledge" and
"valuation" components. The «x>ring of the questionnaire items may be explained
in these terms. An appreciation aoote is taken as the "product" of a valuation and
(implicit or explicit) expression of knowledge. Valuation scores of 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3,
and 0.1 are based upon an arbitrary 0.0 to 1.0 scale range, subdivided into five inter-
 MANAOBMBNT INFORMATION SYSTaiMS: APPSBSCTATION AND INVOLVEMENT 183

vals, assumed to be "equal." A "don't know" response is scored 0.0 on a corresponding

knowledge scale, and it is assumed that to not check "don't know" is to indicate
"know," scored 1.0. Thus, a valuation response results in an appreciation score equal
to the valuation score, and a "don't know" response results in an appreciation score
of 0.0,
The index of MIS appreciation was defined as the simple average of the 16 indi-
vidual items.
Two important assumptions underly the construction of this index. First, it is
assumed that the items chosen are an adequate sample from a universe of items which
would indicate the relative presence or absence of MIS appreciation. Secondly, it is
assumed that the items are equivalent indicators and that they should be weighted
equally in the scoring. (This second assumption might be challenged on the grounds
that the item scales are unique, and that to combine them, as in averaging scores,
would be to "add apples and oranges." This argument loses its force when one con-
siders that apples and oranges may be summed in answer to the question, "How
many items of fruit?" It is assumed only that the questionnaire items are equivalent
as indicators of appreciation.)
A complete list of the 16 items comprising the indicators of MIS appreciation are
included in the Appendix to this article. To conserve space the scales are not repro-
duced; the terms from which they are constructed are simply stated in parentheses.
The measure of a priori involvement was developed from 10 questionnaire items
such as the following:
How frequently (on the average) do you initiate change to the content or
format of inputs to the Weekly Update Program?
J L
once a twice a once a once in never
week month month two months 0.0
1.0 0.50 0.25 0.125
The scoring of these items requires little explanation. Each is based upon a relative
frequency range of "never" (arbitrarily scored 0.0) to "once a week" (arbitrarily
scored 1.0). The scoring of intermediate responses (e.g. "once a month," scared 0.25)
is then obvious.
The index of a priori involvement was then computed as the simple average of the
10 item scores.
The assumptions of sample adequacy and item equivalence applied to this index as
well as to the index of MIS appreciation. In fact, the questionnaire results indicated
that the item equivalence assumption was in this instance violated. Because of the
generally low level of a priori involvement reported, one item tended to dominate
the scoring. The vast majority of responses to nine of the indicators were "never,"
but about half of the rrapondents indicated that they submitted a personal Activity
Report to update the ARIS files "once a week." This was subsequently judged to be
a relatively weak indicator of involvement insismuch as the activity was found to be
"required" in many cases. To offset this "distortion," the ten items were rescored,
using 0.0 for "never" as before, but scorit^ the other four responses equally with 1.0,
indicating in effect "more than never." The index of a priori involvement was then
recomputed accordingly.'

' An alternative method of correction would have been to eliminate the distorting item from
the scoring. Thu result, however, would have been the scoring of several respondents' a priori
 B. BVKOiH HWAMHUM

All ten indicators of o priori involvement are listed in the Appendix.

Of the 46 questionnaires distributed to the ARIS users, 37 were returned with
reaponsas complete enough to be included in the results which will now be presented.
Resitlts
Inasmuch aa the above indices are defined on interval scales, the assumption of a
multivariate normal distribution would permit the application of correlation and
regression analysis to the results. However, it was decided to use a more simple classifi-
cation and nonparametric analysis.* The users were classified as "involved" or "un-
involved" on both involvement scales, and aa "appreciative" or "unappreciative"
on the appreciation scale. The points of divisbn in the classification were chosen so
as to preserve natural groupa of BOOKS while distributing them among the cells of the
contingency tabl^.'
The viability of the three research conjectures can now be examined. Consider
first the covariation of a priori mvolvement with MIS appreciation:

MIS appreciation

a priori * 'unappreciative'' "appreciative" totals

involvement

"uninvolved" 18 6 24
"involved" 2 11 13

totals 20 17 37
X* - 9.79
significant at 0.01 level
The direction of covariation is as expected.
Secondly, consider the covariation of MIS appreciation with inquiry involvement:

MIS appreciation

inquiry "unappreciative" "appreciative" totals

involvement

"uninvolved" 18 7 25
"involved" 2 10 12

totals 20 17 37
x« - 7.89
significant at 0.01 level
Again, the direction of covariation ia aa expected.

involvement as .0, when, in fact, they were (however weakly) somewhat involved through their
submission of personal Activity Reports.
* Correlations were ctmpttted, however. The results were pretty much the suae (IS]. All statisti-
cal computations were made using IBM's System/360 Scientific Subroutine P a c k i ^ (PL/I),
Ptogftm Number %0A-CM.O7X.
• SpecificdUy, letting X,, Ai, and /< represent tin indices of a priori involvement, MIS ap-
preciation, and inquiry involvement of the tth user, the following classifications were made:
 BIANAOEMBNT INFORMATION SYSTBiMS: APPRBCUTION AND INVOLVKMENT 185

Thirdly, consider the covariation of a priori involvement with inquiry involvement:

inquiry involvement

a priori "uninvolved" "involved" totals

involvement

"uninvolved" 19 6 24
"involved" 6 7 13

totals 25 12 37

X* - 2.82
significant at 0.10 level"

The relationship here is found to be weaker than in the first two cases, which is con-
sistent with the assumption that the coproduction is indirect, and mediated by another
variable.
Finally, the covariation of a priori involvement with inquiry involvement, given
MIS appreciation, naay be examined:

MIS appreciation

"unappreciative" "appreciative"

inquiry involve. inquiry involve.

a priori
involvement "uninv." "involved" "uninv." "involved" totals

"uninvolved" 17 I 2 4 24
"involved" 1 1 5 6 13

totals 18 2 7 10 37

x> - 0.566 x» - 0.001.

insignificant insignificant

In neither half of the combined table are the results statistically significant. The
covariation between a priori involvement and inquiry involvement is thus "explained"
by the intervening variable, MIS appreciation. But the "insignificance" in the results
is for quite a different reason in each case, however! In the first, knowledge that a
manager is unappreciative is almost suflScient to imply complete noninvolvement.
In the second, knowledge that a manager is appreciative is almost sufficient to predict
involvement in »om£ form, but nothing can be said about which form. Thus, for any

Xi Si 0.100 "uninvolved"
> 0.100 "involved"
A{ < 0.50 "unappreeiative"
S; 0.50 "appreciative"
li < 0.100 "uninvolved"
& 0.100 "involved"
«• The Fisher exact probability was computed to be 0.048, which indicates a somewhat more
significant result.
186 S. BtmTON SWANBON

Tparticulair form of involvement, MIS appreciation appears to be a necessary, but not

sufficient conditbn.
The above results are consistent with the research conjectures stated earlier. It
should be noted, however, that the direction of the original causal argument has not
been tested. In the postulated model of appreciation and involvement, a priori in-
volvement was regarded as the independent variable. However, no controlled experi-
mentation was imdertaken in this study. Nor do the measures used order the variables
in time. In short, there is no beginning for a causal argument. A priori involvement
may be regarded as a product of MIS appreciation as well as a producer of it.
Generally, however, it seems reasonable to conclude that MIS appreciation co-
produces (and is coproduced by) MIS involvement.
Conclusion
Several problems have been raised by this first study. First, it is apparent that the
model of MIS appreciation and involvement must be revised to include additional
coproducers of MIS involvement. Given that an individual appreciates the system,
what motivates his inquiry and/or a priori involvement? Why d o ^ he choose one
form of involvement rather than another?
Two directions may be identified for an elaboration of the model. The first consists
of introducing those aspects of the "MIS environment" which do not aflfect the MIS
users equally, and which provide plausible explanations of variations in involvement.
An example here would be a measure of an individual's organizational position"
within the formal hierarchy. The functional responsibiliti^ associated with varying
positions may obviously account for differences in MIS involvement. What is not so
clear, however, is how such a measure ought to be constructed.
A second direction would be to introduce new cognitive variables which together
with MIS appreciation could explain the form of an individual's MIS involvement.
An MIS appreciation is after all but one aspect of a person's overall world view. It
is likely that other aspects are also of explanatory importance. One possibility here
would be an individual's conception of his organizational role in terms of its responsi-
bility for introducing organizational change. To the extent that an individual perceives
himself to be a "change agent" [4] in the organization, he might then be expected to
be a priori involved with an MIS, i.e. engaged in the process of making inquiry involve-
ment possible for others.
A second problem with the pr^ent work was suggested by the informal findings
of the ARIS study. The monitoring of the Inquiry History File and the administration
of the questionnaire were supplemented by several extensive interviews, an examina-
tion of departmental communications, and direct observations which indicated that
MIS involvement assumes important interpenmal forms. An individual's involvement
wa8 found to be typically based in attempts to influence others in the organization.
One particularly interesting example: ARIS proponents, seeking to motivate others
to use the system, involved themselves in raising organizational decision problems
which <»uld be addressed through ARIS inquiry, and then forced the consideration
of these problems through the use of oi^^anizational leverage. Problems were thus
used as a means to inquiry, standing the usual concept of inquiry (as a means of
problem solving) on its head. Such findings indicate that an adequate theory of MIS
involvement must be sociologically b a i ^ . (The previous suggestions for an elabora-
tion of the model of appreciation and involvement were made with this conclusion
in mind.)
 MANAOEHBKT INFORMATION BYSTEUS: APPRBCIATION AND INVOLVEMENT 187

More work is also needed in developing the measures of MIS involvement. Although
the scaling technique applied to MIS appreciation was successful in discriminating
effectively among questionnaire respondents, the technique applied to a priori in-
volvement was much less so. While the assumed indicator of a priori involvement
(the initiation of change in the design or operational state of the system) still seems
to me a good choice, the method for effectively operationalizing its measure remains
a problem. More sophisticated measures of inquiry involvement (perhaps incorporating
some of the sociological implications cited above) are also called for.
Further studiefl of appreciation and involvement in other real-world MIS settings
are also obviously needed." The single case presented here does not permit effective
generalization. And, of course, experimentation should be undertaken. Causal infer-
ences based on observation alone are much too constrained.

Appendix
Questionnaire items indicating MIS appreciation
1. For me, the reports are (timely—untimely).
2. For me, the data is (relevant—irrelevant).
3. For me, the information is (unique—redundant).
4. For me, the data is (accurate—inaccurate).
5. For me, the data is (instructive—misinstructive).
6. For me, the reports are (concise, to the point—diffuse, not to the point).
7. For me, the meaning of the data is (unambiguous, clear—ambiguous, unclear).
8. For me, the reports are (readable—unreadable).
9. For me, the MIS/360 query language is (efficient—inefficient).
10. For me, the MIS/360 operating schedule of 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily is (convenient—
inconvenient).
11. For me, the operation of the MIS/360 system is (reliable—^unreliable).
12. For me, the use of the 2260 and 2741 terminals is (untroublesome—troublesome).
13. For me, the MIS/360 report formatting capabilities are (adequate—inadequate).
14. For me, the average on-line response to an MIS/360 terminal inquiry is (prompt^—
unprompt).
15. For me, the MIS/360 Users Guide is (valuable—^valueless).
16. Relative to my needs for systems and programming support of MIS/360, the
Systems and Programming Group is (cooperative—uncooperative).
Questionnaire items indicating a priori involvement
1. How frequently (on the average) do you complete a personal Activity Reporting
Card for yourself?
2. How frequently (on the average) do you complete Activity Description Cards
or Product. Description Cards to update the Activity Status File?
3. How frequently (on the average) do you initiate changes to the content or format
of inputs to the Weekly Update Program?
4. How frequently (on the average) do you initiate changes to the update programs
for the ARIS files?
5. How frequently (on the average) do you update the Activity Status File from a
terminal?

" For a typology of possible MIS settinp see Mason and Mitroff [12]. Several of these settings
provide vivid contrasts to systems such as ARIS. It is interesting to speculate on the implications
of involvement and appreciation in such cases.
188 E. BtTBTON SWAN80N

6. How frequently (on the average) do you initiate changes to the content or format
of the ARIS files?
7. How frequently (on the average) do you initiate changes to the MIS/360 pro-
grams?
8. How frequently (on the average) do you initiate changes to the File Description
or Report Description tables for the ARIS files?
9. How frequently (on the average) do you initiate a written communication (e.g.
a memorandum, report, or newsletter) for the purpose of educating others in the
use of MIS/360?
10. How frequently (on the average) do you initiate a meeting (either formal or
informal) for the purpoire of educating others in the use of MIS/360?
References
1. AcKorF, RcssiiLL L. AND CHUBCHUAN, C. WBST, Pspchologistics, The University of Penn-
sylvania Press (mimeographed).
2. , "Management Misinformation SystenM," ManaffemerU Science, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Decem-
(ber 1967), p. 147.
3. , "Towards a System of Systems Concepts," Management Science, Vol. 17, No. 11 (July
1971), p. 661.
4. BKNNIS, WAEKBN G . , BENNB, KKNNBTR D . AND CHIN, ROBERT (editors), The Plomning of
Change, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.
5. BouLDiNO, KKNNKTH E . , The Image, The University of Michigan Press, 1956.
6. CHCKCHMAN, C. WBST, The Sytiema Approach, Delaeorte Press, 1968.
7. , The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Books, 1971.
8. DBARDEN, JOHN, "Myth of Real-Time Man««ement Information," Harvard Business Review,
(May-June 1966).
9. HBBSHUAN, ABUSNE "A Mess in MIS," Dun's Review (January 1968).
10. HOSE, EDOAB F . , "The Impact of Computerized Programs on Managers and Organizations:
A Case Study in an Integrated Manufacturing Company," in Charles A. Myers (editor)
The Impact of Computers on Management, The M. I. T. Press, 1967.
11. MCLEAN, EPHBAIU R . , "A Computer-Based Medical History System: Factors Affecting Its
Acceptance and Use by Physicians," Ph.D. Dissertation, Alfred P. Sloan School of Manage-
ment, Massachusetts Institute of Technolc^y, (February, 1970).
12. MASON, RICHABD O. AND MiTBorr, IAN I., "A Program for Research on Management In-
formation Systems," Management Science, Vol. 19, No. 6 (January 1973), p. 475.
13. NICHOLSON, CHABLES, "MIS in Perspective," Chemical Engineering Progress (January
1970).
14. RAPPAPOBT, ALFBED, Lettes to the Editor, Management Science, Vol. 16, No. 4 (December
1968), p. B-133.
15. SWANSON, E. BURTON, "On Being Informed by a Computer-Based Management Information
System: A Study in Involvement and Appreciation," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, (December, 1971), available as Internal Working Paper No. 9, Social
Applications of Resource Information, Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California,
Berkeley.
1«. , "A Parable on the Understanding of a Management Information System," Interfaces
(February 1973).
17. VicKBBS, GEO»FBET, Freedom in a RocHnng Boat, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1970.