Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives
though the process of systems deveiopment
Perceived Importance
of Systems Analysts'
Job Skills, Roles, and
Non-Salary Incentives
By: Gary I. Green
Department of Computer
Information Systems
and Production Management
Boise State University
Boise, Idaho 83725
Abstract
System analysts are service providers who are
required to work closely with users for the pur-
pose of defining, developing and implementing
computer-based systems. Analysts and users
in private organizations may have different ex-
pectations and proficiencies than those in public
organizations, in part due to the types of appli-
cations required. Beliefs about how others are
supposed to perform and what motivates them
contribute to a variety of behavioral responses.
Conflict between analysts and users may have
serious consequences that can be very costly,
such as poorly developed systems, behavioral
dysfunctions (e.g., mistrust, avoidance, rejec-
tion), and negative user satisfaction. An inter-
esting research question is whether perceptual
differences exist among systems analysts and
users about how systems analysts perform their
jobs, as well as whether the perceptions are
the same for public and private organizations.
In a survey of perceptual differences about job
skills, job roles, and non-salary incentives of sys-
tems analysts, results from 872 questionnaires
show that analysts and users differ significantly
in their perceptions of skills and roles for sys-
tems analysts. Public and private systems ana-
lysts and users differ significantly on percep-
tions of all three measures. The results provide
evidence that analysts, more so than users, rec-
ognize the importance of behavioral skills for
effective development. This difference may be
a major source of conflict, with users expecting
analysts to exhibit technical skills in situations
where behaviorai skills are required. Public and
private sector differences suggest that even
may be very similar, users and analysts in public
organizations may, in fact, be different than their
counterparts in private organizations. An explo-
ration of these sector differences should be ad-
dressed by future research. Information systems
managers may use the results to guide educa-
tional programs for users, develop better as-
sessment measures for analysts, and establish
better mechariisms for providing important non-
salary incentives for analysts.
Keywords: Systems analysis, systems analysts,
users, perceptions, public and pri-
vate organizations.
ACM Categories: D.2.9, K.6.1
Introduction
Systems development efforts depend to a large
degree upon how well systems analysts and
users work together (Kaiser and Bostrom, 1982).
The relationship between analysts and users
could translate directiy to success or faiiure of
major development projects (Lucas, 1975) and
indirectly to job-related stress (Ivancevich, et al.,
1983) and dissatisfaction (Woodruff, 1980). The
most critical stage for analyst and user interac-
tion occurs in the problem definition and require-
ments stage (Land, 1982). Anaiysts and users
typically work on requirements within a project
team structure. Research evidence suggests that
users should be actively involved during the in-
itial phase ot the development process to have
successful implementation (Baroudi, et ai., 1986;
Ginzberg, 1981; Lucas, 1975; Weike and
Konsynski, 1982). Without user invoivement,
there is a strong possibility that users would
resist impiementation efforts (Argyris, 1971;
1982) or even reject the imposed system (Bos-
trom and Heinen, 1977; Lucas, 1975; Markus,
1984).
Probiems that result from this interaction be-
tween these two diverse groups have been rec-
ognized widely and researched. In its simplest
formulation, the problem involves effective com-
munication {Bostrom and Heinen, 1977; Cheney
and Dickson, 1982; Cheney and Lyons, 1980;
Doll and Ahmed, 1983; Guinan and Bostrom,
1986; Ives and Olson, 1984). In its more com-
plex form, the problem involves confiict (Robey
and Farrow, 1982), power (DeBrabander and
Thiers, 1984; Oison and ives, 1982), role play-
ing (Goldstein and Rockart, 1984), productivity
MIS Quarterly/June 1989 115
Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives
(Green, et al., 1985), design procedures (Bolarxl,
1978), and the behavioral effects of satisfaction
(Woodruff, 1980) and attitudes (Kaiser and Srini-
vasan, 1982),
A potential cause of some problems between
the two groups could be attributed to perceptual
differences. Sound theoreticai models have been
proposed that link perceptions of job tasks, cues
from social interaction in performing job tasks,
and affective and behavioral responses (Griffin,
et al., 1987). Job characteristics could be differ-
entiated by the skiiis required to periorm tasks,
roies necessary to carry out tasks, and incen-
tives (other than salary) for task performance.
Individuals from one group, such as systems ana-
lysts, may perceive the job of systems analysis
differently than individuals from another referent
group, such as users. Gingras and McLean
(1982) find significant perceptual differences be-
tween users and systems analysts with respect
to their profiles of the users within a iarge firm.
Perceptual differences, if they exist, couid affect
behavior. As Watson (1982) states:
The evidence gathered to date strongly in-
dicates that people tend to attribute more
importance to traits than to situations and
that this tendency holds regardiess of
whether they are analyzing their own or
another's behavior (p. 688),
The analyst needs certain technical and behav-
ioral skills to conduct systems development (Vi-
talari, 1985). In the process of conducting sys-
tems development, the analyst will play several
roles, each requinng a different behavioral set
of actions and responses (Cheney and Lyons,
1980; Goldstein and Rockart, 1984). The moti-
vation for undertaking systems tasks and pre-
forming those tasks at some level of proficiency
is related to incentives for doing the job. The
skiiis, roies and non-salary incentives of ana-
lysts performing their job function, to a large
degree, characterize the task environment of sys-
tems development.
How analysts and users, as two different groups,
perceive the task environment of systems ana-
lysts has not been addressed adequately in prior
research. This study is concerned with percep-
tual differences of analysts and users about the
skills, roles, and non-salary incentives of ana-
lysts performing their job function.'
A secondary research interest is the compari-
son of perceptions by analysts and users from
116 MIS Quarteriy/June 1989
public and private organizations to determine
whether perceptual differences, if they exist, are
dependent upon whether the organizations are
public or private. Motivation for investigating
sector differences stems from three observa-
tions. First, application programs in the public
sector are principally either mandated or budg-
etary in nature. Private sector applications are
more diversified and include transformation proc-
esses and competitive anaiysis, which are
largely excluded in the public sector. Second,
the private sector user community generally in-
cludes more functional areas (such as research
and development, marketing, distribution, and pro-
duction) than the pubiic sector. Third, systems
analysts in the private sector appear to have
better training, salaries, and computer resources.
Background
Related research has reported on the topics of
skli!s, roles, non-salary incentives, and differ-
ences between public and private organizations.
The skills analysts need to develop computer-
ized systems may be categorized as either be-
havioral or technicai (Arvey and Hoyle, 1974;
Benbasat, et ai., 1980; Vitalari, 1985), Cheney
and Lyons (1980) investigate the comparative
ranking of 25 different behavioral and technicai
skills for information systems professionals, in-
ciuding systems analysts, and find that behav-
ioral skills are rated as "very important." Arvey
and Hoyle (1974) identify specific skiil groups
required of systems analysts, including maintain-
ing user relations, communications, presenta-
tions, design and analysis, and technical knowl-
edge. The most comprehensive study of
technical skills for systems analysts was com-
pleted by Vitalari (1985), who identifies 23 spe-
cific skiiis categorized by organizational-specific
knowledge, appiications domain knowledge, func-
tional domain knowledge, and technical skills.
However, all analyst skill studies, according to
Vitaiari, show that behavioral skills are perceived
more importantly than technical skiiis for perform-
ance by both systems analysts and users.
' Salary and salary-related benefits were not included
in this study by design. Salary to some degree rep-
resents equity, status, and achievement. This study
was designed to elicit perceptual differences about
what motivates or drives behavior in a work-related,
social interaction. How&ver, the salary variable could
have a confounding effect on perceptions of non-
salary incentives, and this relationship could be ex-
plored in a future investigation.

Perception of what roles individuais should
assume can influence behavior. Roles are
learned behaviors and patterns of actions in
sociai situations (Sarbin and Allen, 1968). If ana-
lysts and users perceive the roles of systems
analysts to be the same, then the expectations
for behavior should be congruent. If perceptual
differences exist about the roles analysts
assume, then these different expectations could
result in behavioral dysfunctions. Very little re-
ported empirical research has dealt specificaily
with roles for systems analysts.
Attribution theory accounts for individuals ascrib-
ing causality for tjehavior based upon beliefs and
expectations (Kelly and Michela, 1980). Beliefs
about what motivates others is an important
basis for behavior, and perceptions about non-
salary incentives for systems analysts to carry
out their assigned tasks is a contributing factor
for gaining an understanding of expectations and
resulting behavior. There has been some reiated
prior work on the motivation of information sys-
tems professionals, in a study by Robey and
Markus (1984), it was reported that analysts act
in their own self interest when working with user
groups, if users perceive anaiysts to be moti-
vated by factors other than providing the best
possibie service, then that perception could
affect the interaction between users and ana-
lysts. Factors such as poiitics, self-serving
achievement, and cover-up protection of errors
could lead to distrust and suspicion. In another
study, Couger, et al., 1979, observe motivational
differences between information systems man-
agers and user managers for social need (ana-
lyst low) and grovrth need (analyst high). Simi-
larly, analysts may not feel a high need for social
interaction.
Public vs. private organizations
Comparisons of pubiic and private organizations
have found differences due to the organizational
culture, such as political role and more extemal
control (Rainey, 1983; Rainey, et ai., 1976). For
example, managers in public organizations ex-
perience less satisfaction In their work and lower
organizationai commitment than their counter-
parts in private organizations (Buchanan, 1974;
Lachman, 1985; Rhinehart, et al., 1969). Lach-
man (1985) claims that much research involving
comparisons of public and private organizalions
does not control for the task environment. How-
ever, the process of systems development rep-
resents a consistent task environment that
Systems Analysts' Skiiis, Roles, Incentives
should be applied the same way regardless of
whether an organization is pubiic or private.
Each project should follow the same stages of
development, starting with problem definition and
requirements and ending with impiementation,
as reported in the literature (Green, et al., 1985;
King, 1984).
Mansour and Watson (1980) compared private
and public organizations for information systems
performance differences over a number of vari-
ables. Their study includes hardware, software,
behavioral, structural, and environmentai vari-
ables. The study concludes that: "Governmen-
tal organizations function in an environment that
is much different from that faced by private busi-
ness organizations" (p. 525). Their results show
computer hardware and software vanables to be
the only common variables utiiized to measure
performance. This suggests that both public and
private organizations should be concerned with
the process of systems development and the per-
formance of that process. Henderson and
Schilling (1985) argue that model aids for the
decision-making process are different for public
organizations principaiiy due to conflicting ob-
jectives and the types of data analysis under-
taken. This would imply that user requirements,
as weil as user expectations, may be different.
Hypotheses
There are two sets of hypotheses for this study.
The first set predicts that users and analysts will
differ in their perceptions about the importance
of factors involvir>g the systems analyst's job func-
tion. This set of hypotheses is based on argu-
ments that analysts and users are from two dif-
ferent populations, that they have different sets
of expectations about the systems development
process, and that they have different degrees
of invoivement for the various stages of systems
development. The first set of hypotheses states
that:
H1: Systems analysts and users differ
in their perceptions of importance
of skilis that systems analysts
shouid exhibit in performing their
duties.
H2: Systems anaiysts and users differ
in their perceptions of importance
of roies that analysts should dis-
piay in performing their duties.
MiS Quarterly/June 1989 117
Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives
H3: Systems anaiysts and users differ
in their perceptions of importance
of non-saiary Incentives that ana-
lysts should receive in performing
their duties.
A second set of hypotheses tests for differences
based on whether an organization is public or
private. The task of systems deveiopment is pre-
sumed to be the same across organizations and
organizationai functions. Surprisingly, reported
research on the comparisons of systems ana-
lysts and users for public and private organiza-
tions is almost non-existent. An assumption may
be made that individuals who wori< as analysts
in the private sector may have better resources
available, have more training opportunities, and
may be more skilled than their public sector coun-
terparts (Matheriy and Stepina, 1985). If this as-
sumption is correct, then there should be differ-
ences of perceptions between analysts and
users. For managers of system analysts in public
organizations issues such as job security and
tumover, satisfaction with opportunities for pro-
fessional growth using new technologies, and
ability to attract qualified candidates may be of
greater concern. Users within public organiza-
tions could differ in qualifications and career as-
pirations from users in private organizations. The
following three hypotheses deal with these
comparisons.
iH4: Systems anaiysts and users in
pubiic organizations differ from
those in private organizations in
their perceptions of importance of
systems anaiysts' sitiiis.
H5: Systems anaiysts and users in
pubiic organizations differ from
those in private organizations in
their perceptions of importance of
systems anaiysts' roies.
H6: Systems anaiysts and users in
public organizations differ from
those in private organizations in
their perceptions of importance of
non-saiary incentives for systems
analysts.
Method
Procedure and measures
The instrument utilized in this research was de-
veioped through two pilot studies and associ-
118 MIS Quarterly/June 1989
ated interviews with both systems analysts and
users. Care was taken to ensure a high level
of internal validity, as suggested by Jarvenpaa,
et al, (1985). The purpose of the first pilot study
was to develop a research instrument; it con-
sisted of two parts: structured interviews and ques-
tionnaire completion. Structured interviews of 26
systems analysts experienced in working with
users from four different organizations (a large
computer manufacturing firm, a full-service finan-
cial institution, a utility, and a large electronics
manufacturing firm) were conducted by the re-
searchers to establish a detailed listing of t)e-
havioral and technical skills necessary to accom-
plish systems development. In part, the interview
questions addressed some of the issues stem-
ming from prior research on specific task skills
(Arvey and Hoyle, 1974; Cheney and Lyons,
1980; Goldstein and Rockart, 1984). The inter-
views averaged one hour in length. A new ques-
tionnaire instrument was developed based on
an assessment of the structured interview
content.
All items on the questionnaire were ordered ran-
domly within each section, in all cases a seven-
point Likert scale was employed with 1 = very
unimportant and 7 = very important, instructions
requested participants to indicate how strongly
they believed the skills, roles, and non-salary
incentives were for systems anaiysts in systems
development. As a second part of the first pilot,
the questionnaire was administered in a con-
troiled setting (conference room) to the same
systems analysts that participated in the struc-
tured interviews. Each group participated in a
debriefing. The questionnaire was revised based
on the debriefings.
The instrument contains: 21 skills (diplomacy;
interviewing; directing; patience; assertiveness;
ieadership; programming; speaking; writing; lis-
tening; empathy; sales; politics; management;
training; cooperation; functional application knowi-
edge; organizational communication; analysis
and design; non-verbal communication; and sen-
sitivity); 20 job roles (intermediary; facilitator;
change agent; programmer; detective; designer;
developer; liaison; trouble shooter; documenter;
diplomat; researcher; communicator; service pro-
vider; manager; salesperson; director; scheduler;
consultant; and trainer); and 10 non-salary in-
centives (knowing work is high quality; a feeling
of challenge; making friends on the job; promo-
tion to the next higher level; personal growth and
development; getting along well with others; avoid-

ing confrontations; learning to pertorm more ef-
fectively; getting others to agree; and recogni-
tion from others). The questionnaire appeared
to be reliable and valid.^ The pilot study showed
the definition of job roies and non-salary incen-
tives to be self-explanatory, so these terms were
not defined on the instrument, whereas a defini-
tion accompanied all skills. Table 1 contains the
skill definitions.
The second piiot study was administered to both
systems analysts and users in eight different or-
ganizations (four public and four private) in two
different states. A total of 53 systems anaiysts
and 42 users completed the questionnaire in a
controlled setting and participated in debriefing.
The average time for completion of the instru-
ment was about 18 minutes. The average age
of the second pilot study participants was 40.08
years. The participants were 49.5 percent
female. Over 38.9 percent of the participants had
completed a college education and 24.1 percent
had attempted graduate work or completed a
graduate degree.
Sample and data collection
A 2 X 2 experimental design (see Figure 1) was
employed, consisting of two independent vari-
ables (also referred to as main effects). The first
independent variabie, the SECTOR grouping, in-
cluded representative public and private organi-
zations. Participating organizations were se-
lected randomly for the appropriate SECTOR
grouping. The second independent variable con-
sisted of both systems analysts and users, as-
' Reliability of the instrument for the second piiot study
was assessed using Cronbach's alpha (SPSS-X
User's Guide, 1986): alpha = .9049 for the construct
skills with 21 items; alpha = .8874 for the constmct
roles with 20 items; and alpha = .7720 for the con-
struct non-salary incentives with 10 items. Given the
feedback from the debriefings and the indication that
the instrument had strong intemai consistency, only
a few minor changes in instructions and the demo-
graphic portion of the instrument were made in re-
vising the questionnaire to its final form. Reliability
of the final form of the questionnaire from the 872
participants of the study was assessed using Cron-
bach's aipha. The measure of internai consistency
for the three constructs shows the instrument to be
reliable (alpha = .8750 for skills; alpha = .8541 for
roles; and alpha = .7331 for non-salary incentives).
A principal components factor anaiysis with a vari-
max rotaiton was undertaken in SAS (SAS User's
Guide: Statistics, 1985). The resuits indicate that the
constructs appear to be valid.
Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives
signed to the grouping USERDP. Systems ana-
lysts are defined as those technical speciaiists
involved with systems development who have
prior experience working with users. Users are
operationaily defined as consumers of computer
information systems (CIS) who have previous ex-
perience working with systems analysts on at
least one user-initiated systems development pro-
ject. The constructs of skilis (with 21 items), roles
(20 items), and non-salary incentives (10 items)
represent the dependent variables.
Thirty organizations from each grouping were se-
lected randomly from the Fortune 500 Industri-
als, Fortune 500 Financial, 50 state govern-
ments, and 100 iargest U.S. cities. A variety of
directories provided the name and titie of the
highest ranking executive in charge of CiS for
each organization. A personal phone call was
made to each executive in the order of the
random selection until the target number of 15
organizations in each category agreed to par-
ticipate. The purpose of the call was to request
support for the research project (i.e., an agree-
ment for that organization to participate). The
researchers requested that each organization
assign (on a voluntary basis) 10 systems ana-
iysts and 10 users with appropriate experience
(as operationally defined above) to complete a
brief questionnaire in a controlled environment
(such as a conference room or learning center).
The selection of who was to participate within
each organization was not made by the research-
ers but rather by the executive (or a designated
subordinate).
The final sample consisted of those organiza-
tions that agreed to participate in the study: 17
city governments, 18 state governments, 19 in-
dustrial firms, and 16 financial firms. A total of
52 organizations out of 70 that agreed to partici-
pate actually participated (74.3 percent organ-
izational participation rate). The participating or-
ganizations included 9 city, 15 state, 18
industrial, and 10 financial organizations.
Questionnaires were mailed in groups of 20. Self-
addressed return envelopes for each question-
naire and a large self-addressed stamped enve-
lope, capable of containing all 20 questionnaires
and envelopes, were enclosed. A script was also
enclosed with instructions for administering the
questionnaire. The instructions for the question-
naire guaranteed strict confidentiality and ano-
nymity. Each subject sealed the questionnaire
in the return envelope and either mailed it back
MIS Quarterly/June 1989 119
Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives

Table 1. Definition of Behaviorai and Technical Skill Requirements for Systems Analysts

Skiii Definition on Questionnaire

Diplomacy Being able to say "no" without being too blunt; displaying tact in dealing
with others.
Interviewing Asking the right questions in order to obtain the information needed.
Directing Giving instructions and communicating user requirements to programming
and support staff.
Patience Continuaily refining user requirements by requesting feedback; tolerating
lack of computer literacy and specificity.
Assertiveness insisting on a course of action or what one believes in, even though it may
be unpopuiar.
Leadership Getting work done while keeping the team satisfied; effectively giving re-
wards and punishment.
Programming Converting system specifications into effective and efficient compuler
code.
Speaking Presenting your ideas in a manner easily understood by your audience.
both in group meetings and person to person.
Writing Preparing written documents that accurately communicate ideas in a man-
ner that is easily understood by intended readers.
Listening Paying attention to and concentrating on what is being said, and asking
questions that refine points about which one is uncertain.
Empathy Being able to understand how others feel; accurately determining what
someone else thinks about an issue.
Sales Promoting the system you advocate; persuading others to accept your
viewpoint.
Politics Understanding what motivates individuals; detennining sources of power
and influence in an organization.
Management Planning, organizing and controlling projects so that they get done on
schedule and within budget.
Training Educating users and other non-technical groups on the capabilities of com-
puters and systems.
Cooperation Working with others productiveiy; resolving conflict in an effective manner.
Functional Sufficiently knowing what the user's functional application entails to accur-
Application ately interpret what he or she really needs.
Knowledge
Organizational Having a broad view of company goals and operations; knowing the
Communications orientation of senior management.
Analysis and Translating user requirements into functional systems specifications.
Design
Non-verbal Reinforcing the message to others through gestures and facial
Communication expressions.

Sensitivity Being aware of the impiications of design and change for the user
community.

120 MiS Quarterly/June 1989


SECTOR Main Effects
Private
Analysts
USERDP
Main Effects
Users
Figure 1 . The 2 x 2 Experimental Design
directly or placed it in the large envelope. A ma-
jority of subjects chose to place their sealed en-
velopes in the large envelope for a group return
mailing.
The self selection in this study raises some in-
teresting methodoiogicai considerations, as weii
as potential bias. For example, users may have
represented one particular functional area within
each organization. There may be differences
among the user population that could stem from
the functional specialty of the users. For exam-
ple, those in the finance and accounting areas
may have different perceptions and expectations
than those in other areas such as marketing or
personnel. Differences, if they exist, may be re-
lated to training, education, and extent of re-
quired computer applications to pertorm the job
function. This area of job function was not in-
cluded in this study, but is an area that shouid
be addressed in future work. Also, the informa-
tion systems executive (or appointed subordi-
nate) may have selected users who were known
to be more favorable to the systems group. The
research ideally would have utilized all employ-
ees in each organization to serve as a popula-
tion for random selection, although this would
have proven to be impractical and most difficult
to implement. Nonetheless, with the large
sample size and variety of organizations, the po-
tentiai for a serious bias is reduced.
A total of 872 questionnaires was returned from
the participating organizations for an 83.3 per-
cent response. The returns were composed of
246 analysts in the private sector, 225 analysts
Systems Analysts' Skills, Rotes, Incentives
Public
in the public sector, 207 users in the private
sector, and 194 users in the public sector. A
number of individuals did not return the ques-
tionnaire, and this differed by USERDP classifi-
cation, with 77.1 percent of the users respond-
ing compared with a 90.6 percent response rate
for systems analysts.
Respondents were mostiy maie (69,9 percent)
and were on the average 38.61 years old with
a range of 20-64 years and a standard devia-
tion of 8.65 years. The respondents were well-
educated, with 35.1 percent have completed col-
lege and an additional 18,3 percent having com-
pleted a graduate degree program. An additional
22,8 percent reported some college-level work.
The average time spent with their organization
was 10.21 years, with a range of 1-38 years and
a standard deviation of 7.59 years. Most of the
users had a job function of manager (154) or
professionai staff (115), aithough 68 were su-
pervisors and 30 were executives. Thirty-two
users were classified as "other." Most of the sys-
tems staff were anaiysts (287) or project man-
agers (163) with 21 ciassified with other job titles.
The demographics by SECTOR indicates that
private-sector participants compared to public-
sector participants were slightly younger (aver-
age age 37.73 years versus 39.63 years) and
received more formal education (37.7 percent
graduated coiiege and 21.2 percent had an ad-
vanced degree versus 32,4 percent college gradu-
ates and 15.3 percent graduate degrees). Both
private and public sector participants had the
same amount of longevity (10.15 years versus
MIS Quarterly/June 1989 121
Systems Ana/ysfs' Skills, Roles, Incentives
10,27 years); however, public sector systems ana-
lysts had more experience in data processing
(13.21 years versus 11.68) and in their current
job function (4.92 years versus 3.54 years). The
demographics by USERDP indicates that users
compared to systems analysts were slightly oider
(39.63 years old versus 37.73 years old); had
more longevity with their organizations (11.73
years versus 8.89 years); had more graduate
degrees (22.4 percent versus 15.4 percent) but
less college degrees (31.7 percent versus 37.6
percent); and had more females (32.6 percent
versus 28.1 percent).
Results
Testing of the hypotheses
To summarize the first set of three hypotheses
states that systems analysts and users differ in
their perceptions of importance of skills (HI),
roles (H2), and non-salary incentives (H3). The
second set of hypotheses states that systems
anaiysts and users in public organizations differ
from those in private organizations in their per-
ceptions of importance of systems analysts' skills
(H4), roles (H5), and non-salary incentives (H6).
The dependent variables for the construct skills
includes 21 items, for roles 20 items, and for
non-salary incentives 10 items, as discussed
above. The hypotheses were tested at the .05
levei of significance^ by simultaneously studying
the relationship of variances between the inde-
pendent variables, the groupings of users and
systems analysts (USERDP) and public and pri-
vate organizations (SECTOR), and all of the de-
pendent variables for each construct. This sta-
tistical procedure, multivariate anaiysis of
variance (MANOVA), provides useful information
about the significance of the main effects (the
independent variables SECTOR and USERDP).
If a main effect is significant, then further statis-
ticai tests would be warranted to determine
which specific dependent variables account for
the difference.
Table 2 presents the overall results of the tests
of significance for the main effects of the six hy-
potheses tested. The USERDP and SECTOR
columns of the table represent the independent
variabies of the study (main effects). The rows
^ A family confidence vaiue for alpha was not com-
puted for each test due to the large number of de-
pendent variables (Kirk, 1982); rather, the .05 level
of significance was utilized as a more conservative
approach.
122 MIS Quarteriy/June 1989
of Table 3 represent the set of dependent vari-
abies of skills, job roles, and non-salary incen-
tives. The interaction effects of USERDP by
SECTOR also are shown in Table 3 but were
not inciuded in the hypotheses of this study be-
cause there is little theoretical basis for consid-
ering interaction.* The only significant interac-
tion effect (skiiis) will be discussed below for
purposes of better clarifying the main effects.
A significant difference in perceptions exists be-
tween analysts and users for skills (H1) and job
roles (H2), as shown in Tabie 2. However, there
are no differences between analysts and users
in the perceived non-salary incentives (H3). Sig-
nificant differences in perceptions between pubiic
and private sector participants were observed
for skills (H4), roles (H5), and non-salary incen-
tives (H6), Thus, all hypotheses of this study are
supported except for the perceptions of the im-
portance of non-saiary incentives by systems ana-
lysts and users. The results suggest that ana-
lysts and users have different perceptions and
that analysts and users in the pubiic sector have
different perceptions than those in the private
sector. Mean values for each set of dependent
variabies of the supported hypotheses are
shown in Figures 2 through 6 beiow. These fig-
ures display the simiiarities and differences in
perceptions for each dependent variable by ana-
lysts and users and private and public sector
organizations.
Significance of dependent variables
Further statisticai analysis was conducted to test
the significance of each dependent variable for
skiiis, roles, and non-salary incentives for the
main effects.^ Analysts and users differ statisti-
cally in their perceptions of the reiative impor-
tance of the following skiiis: diplomacy, direct-
ing, assertiveness, programming, speaking,
saies, poiitics, and non-verbal communication.
* Kirk (1982) states that interpretation of main effects
where interaction occurs shouid be approached with
some caution, i-iowever, according to Neter, et ai.
(1985): "The detenmination of whether interactions
are important or unimportant is admittedly sometimes
difficult. This decision is not a statisticai decision and
shouid be made by the subject area specialist (re-
searcher)" (p. 680).
' For aii significant MANOVA effects, univariate tests
were conducted using an experiment-wise error rate
accounting for additive inequaiity of the appropriate
number of contrasts with the Dunn's procedure (Kirk,
1982).
 Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives

Table 2. MANOVA Summai7 Table for Skills , Job Roles, and

Non-Salary Incentives
Source of Variation
Dependent USERDP SECTOR USERDP X SECTOR
Variable df F p df F P df F P
Skills 21,840 10.39 0.0001 21,840 5.02 0.0001 21,840 1 .81 0.0146
{N=864)
Job Roles 20,812 11.67 0.0001 20,812 6.27 0.0001 20,812 1 .56 0.0569
(N = 835)
Incentives 10,845 1.42 0.1683 10,845 3.29 0.0003 10,845 1 .83 0.0517
(N = 858)

Skill Variables

Diplomacy
Interviewing
Directing
Patience
Assertive
Leadership
Programming
Speaking
Writing
Listening
Empathy
Sales
Politics
Management
Training
Cooperation
Appi Know
Org Comm
Anal Dsgn
Nonverbal
Sensitivity

3,00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6,00 6.50 7.00

Mean Values
Figure 2. Means of Skill Variables for Anaiysts and Users
(Private and Public Sectors Combined)

MIS Quarterly/June 1989 123

Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives

In

(D ^ O) r^ o tn r*
o in CO CO ^
(D CO O OJ
Oi
in
S O) cq 1-; O> h- q
CO i r i
CO iri iri iri -^

m CO o o
•a o o o
c
a.
a>
o
CO CO CJ) o in
o CO ^ O) ^ ^ rt CJ
in CO CO eg O) a> CO O
O CO
CD CJ p in CO
iri ^ CD <b i r i u i

LU

OOOOOOOT-1- O in in in in in in
h^h.f^h»tv.rs.h-inin r^ in in in in in in
Tf^^TfTfTf^TTf Tf Tf Tt Tf

eg
u
'c Tf Oin CO OJ T t CO e g CO : ~
CO CO CO CO o
o Ol eg CO in in I** CO o Tf
CJ CJ CO in OJ o CO ^1- Oi y- Oi CO
C3) •r- C O CO
o> CJ) o CO Oi CO CO r^ eg Tf f^
in CO Tf in in m •f
« •
CO iri iri CD iri Tf

^TtTji3-Tj--<t*tC0C0 Tf o o o o o •^ o
O)O>a)a)cnc3)CJ>T-T-
COCOCOCOCOCOCO'V^
m
CO
CO CO
CO CO S CO CO O
CO CO • * t
CO
CO

coTfincoincoTfcoco
cMOr-incoh-incoco
incoor^coocjcoi^
cococqcqt^, inininoj
CO
in
CO
g CO
Tf •Sr
CO in in
CM Tf in o CJ)
CJ) in Ol CO
CO CO CJl ^*
iricD^iriiriTfTfiriiri C
O in in Tf
b
ai
m

c m
at 0

u c B
en o
tn
•o
CO 'c S O
V]
<D
C E
to — Is t- CO a
ii> o •=•
LJ- <
rtive
irec ting

„o o)
<u 2
E cg.2 s
es

to O) Dl
CU E E CJ) E o S- > .E.E
E CJ)-
ipio

CO

i
og

E £ 0? JC x ;
•.s• =

oo <
•^^SooEo.s-ojoocD C CO (D
CLWCOQ-I—O<Z OQ-QOI-QQCCOCOCO 11) —
o
o c
CO

124 MIS Quarterly/June 1989

 Systems Analysts' Skiiis, Roles, Incentives

Skill Variables

Diplomacy
Interviewing
Directing
Patience
Assertive
Leadership
Programming
Speaking
Writing
Listening
Empathy
Sales
Politics
Management
Training
Cooperation
AppI Know
Org Comm
Anal Dsgn
Nonverbal
Sensitivity

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

Figure 3. Means of Skill Variables for Private and Public Sectors
{Analysts and Users Combined)
Public and private sector respondents differ in
their perceptions of the following skills: program-
ming, training, organizational communications,
and analysis and design.
Significant job role differences exist for USERDP
and SECTOR groupings. Analysts and users
view certain roles (change agent, programmer,
diplomat, researcher, communicator, and sales-
person) of systems analysts differently. Those
in public and private organizations perceive the
programmer, designer, developer, trouble
shooter, and documenter roles differently. Uni-
variate tests on non-salary incentives by
SECTOR, indicate a significant result for the de-
pendent variables "making friends on the job"
and 'getting aiong well with others."
A significant interaction effect (USERDP by
SECTOR) for skiils resuits in only two signifi-
cant univariate tests: diplomacy (SS = 14.24;
Mean Values
F = 11.87; p = 0.0006) and programming (SS
= 24.20; F = 9.54; and p = 0.0021). Users
and analysts in the private sector differ in their
perceptions from users and analysts in the public
sector for both diplomacy and programming, as
shown in Figures 7 and 8. Users in public or-
ganizations differ from users in private organi-
zations in perception of relative importance of
diplomacy. (See Figure 7.) Analysts in private
organizations have a great difference from ana-
iysts in public organizations in perceptions of im-
portance of skills. (See Figure 8.)
A potential explanation to account for percep-
tions of systems analysts for private organiza-
tions differing from those of public organizations
may be related in part to levels of bureaucracy
(diplomacy variable) and to the types of re-
sources avaiiabie (such as code generators) for
ievels of coding (programming variable). These

MIS Quarterly/June 1989 125

Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives

issues should be addressed in further research organizational communication more importantly

comparing pubiic and private organizations. than analysts.

Interpretation of significant differences of skills,
roles,and non-salary incentives is facilitated by
additional statistical analysis. Therefore, appro-
priate comparisons of means were performed
to permit an interpretation of the direction of dif-
ferences.^ Mean values are reported for the
three major sets of applicable dependent vari-
ables in Table 3 (also incorporated in Figures
2 through 6). Analysts perceived the skills of di-
plomacy, assertiveness, speaking, sales, politics,
and non-verbal communication more importantly
than users. On the other hand, users viewed
the skilis of directing, programming, training, and
The Tukey-Kramer (TK) Test was utilized because
it Is conservative in the case of unbalanced designs
(Stoline, 1981).
These differences suggest that systems analysts
consider the ability to work with others more im-
portantly than users perceive to be the case.
Users seem to view technical areas more im-
portantly and, in fact, may have greater expec-
tations for technical performance. Similarly, ana-
lysts perceived the roles of change agent,
diplomat, researcher, communicator, and saies-
person more importantly than users, whereas
the users placed more importance on the roles
of programmer and service provider. This set
of perceptuai differences implies that the users
in this study were not fully aware of the many
roles of a systems analyst. Users perceived the
non-salary incentives of making friends and get-
ting along more importantly than analysts, sug-
gesting that users may be projecting their vaiues

Roie Variabies
Intermediary
Facilitator
Change Agent
Programmer
Detective
Designer
Developer
Liaison
TroubShooter
Documentr
Diplomat
Researcher
Communicator
Sen/Provider
Manager
Salesperson
Director
Scheduler
Consultant
Trainer

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

Mean Values
Figure 4. Means of Role Variables for Analysts and Users
(Private and Public Sectors Combined)

126 MIS Quarteriy/June 1989

 Systems Analysts' Skills, Roies, Incentives

Role Variables
Intermediary
Facilitator
Change Agent
Programmer
Detective
Designer
Developer
Liaison
TroubShooter
Documentr
Diplomat
Researcher
Communicator
ServProvider
Manager
Salesperson
Director
Scheduler
Consultant
Trainer

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

Mean Values

Figure 5. Means of Role Variables for Private and Pubiic Sectors

(Analysts and Users Combined)

to the function of systems anaiysis. Public sector
participants place greater value on the skills of
programming and analysis and design; they per-
ceive as more important the roles of program-
mer, designer, developer, trouble shooter, and
documenter. The differences by organizational
type raises the question as to whether users and
analysts in public organizations have the same
qualifications and knowledge as those in private
organizations.
Discussion and Conciusions
Analyst/user perceptual differences
Beliefs about what people do, how they do it,
and what motivates them can lead to behavior
expectations that could affect the relationship be-
tween users and systems analysts. Systems de-
velopment activities inevitably place analysts and
users in a conflict situation (Paddock, 1986;
Robey and Farrow, 1982). Each group is con-
strained by organizational goals and require-
ments on the one hand and attempts to protect
their own interest on the other (Robey and
Markus, 1984). In some circumstances, users
develop their own applications partly due to dis-
satisfaction with the efforts of systems analysts
(Rivard and Huff, 1984). However, an understand-
ing of differences in perception may be helpful
in improving user/analyst interaction.
Job Skills and Roles
Differences between user and analyst percep-
tions of job skilis and roies could be a source
of potential conflict. Systems analysts value be-
havioral skilis, such as dipiomacy, politics, and
sales more importantly, while users attribute
greater importance to technical skills, such as

MIS Quarterly/June 1989 127

Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives

programming. A likely explanation is that sys-
tems analysts believe they must rely on behav-
ioral skills to effectively interact with the user
during the crucial stages of problem definition
and analysis, whereas a minimum level of tech-
nical skill, such as programming, is assumed by
analysts to be a given but not necessariiy the
most important skill for application program
development.
Management should recognize that successful
systems development is dependent upon both
behavioral and technicai skills. Appropriate train-
ing sessions for analysts dealing with improving
behavioral skiiis, especially interviewing and lis-
tening, should be provided. Simiiarly, manage-
ment should have an orientation program for
users, prior to engaging in new projects, about
the specific activities of systems deveiopment
and the associated skill requirements of analysts.
Such programs would facilitate an increased re-
finement of interaction skiiis and promote a
greater user awareness of the importance of t>e-
havioral skills for the function of systems
development.
As users become more literate in working with
computers they may develop greater expecta-
tions for the display of technical wizardry by sys-
tems analysts when, in fact, users only observe
systems analysts during the stages of project
development requiring interaction skiiis. Because
there have been many recent technoiogical ad-
vances in systems development (e.g., prototyp-
ing, fourth generation languages, code genera-
tors, computer-aided systems engineering),
users may be expecting a corresponding in-
crease in technical sophistication of analysts;
and yet the interaction of users and analysts in
the development process remains virtually un-

Incentive Variables

Knowing

Feeling

Friends

Promotion

Private
Growth
-B-Public

Get Along

Avoid

Perform

Agree

Recognition

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

Mean Values
Figure 6. Means of Incentive Variables for Private and Public Sectors
(Anaiysts and Users Combined)

128 MIS Quarterly/June 1989

 Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives

Mean Values

6.40-

6.20-

6.00-

5.80-

5.60-
Private
-B- Public
5.40

5.20-

5.00-

4.80-

4.60-

Users Analysts
Figure 7. Interaction Effect of USERDP x SECTOR for Diplomacy

changed. The result may be that users perceive
the analysts to be lacking technical sophistica-
tion when analysts actually might be gaining
more technicai sophistication. Users also may
perceive themselves to be in control of develop-
ment projects and relegate systems analysts to
the role of technical supporters and service pro-
viders. Therefore, it may be difficult for systems
analysts as a group to achieve full recognition
from users, who could be assessing the perform-
ance of systems analysts incorrectly, thereby cre-
ating conflict and generating frustration for ana-
lysts. Educational programs about the develop-
ment process and analyst job function, targeted
to prospective users, could help reduce conflict
caused by these perceptual differences. In par-
ticular, users should be introduced to the vari-
ous phases of systems development and the rela-
tive importance of different analyst roles and
skills required for each phase.
Management should exercise a great dsal of
care in the administration and interpretation of
user satisfaction instruments. Based on the re-
sults of this study, users may be biased in their
expectations of anaiyst skills and roles. This bias
could affect not only user evaluation of the per-
formance of systems analysts but ultimately user
satisfaction with systems. Those who claim that
user involvement and user satisfaction are es-
sentiai for systems success (see for example
Ginzberg, 1981; Kaiser and Srinivasan, 1982;
Robey, 1979) also shouid be concerned with the
differences in skill and role perceptions. Certainly
users should be involved, but their involvement
should be based on being well-informed about
both the process of systems development as
well as the skills and roles necessary for ana-
lysts to successfully complete the process. Users
should undertake a systems analyst roie-

MIS Quarterly/June 1989 129

Systems Analysts' Skills. Roles, Incentives

playing exercise to help reduce these percep-
tuai differences.
Non-Salary Incentives
Ttie results of this study show that analysts and
users have similar beliefs about the importance
of non-salary incentives for systems analysts. Pro-
motion to the next highest level, recognition from
others, and personai growth and development
are perceived as very important non-salary in-
centives for systems analysts. However, re-
search shows that systems analysts experience
some dissatisfaction with their jobs (Woodruff,
1980). This dissatisfaction has been related to
job turnover (Bartol, 1983) and high stress
(Ivancevich, et al.. 1983). User/analyst conflict
and the job dissatisfaction of analysts in part may
be attributed to not being abie to achieve the
non-salary rewards commensurate with perform-
ance. It could be argued that professionals en-
gaged in service, such as systems analysts,
have a need for recognition for their accomplish-
ments from their constituencies. Some of the non-
salary incentives for performance, such as rec-
ognition, may be difficult for analysts to achieve
due to the potential disparity in expectations. Ana-
lysts who display skills and roles that are not
perceived as important by users may not
achieve a corresponding level of recognition by
users, even though those same skiiis and roles
may be instrumentai in applications develop-
ment. Professional development, achievement,
recognition and other forms of incentives for
growth of systems anaiysts should be based on
performance. Project managers should ensure
that analysts receive appropriate feedback on

Mean Values
6.00-|

5.80-

5.60-

5.40-

5.20-

5.00-

\ -•- Private
4.80- \ -e- Public
\
4.60-

4.40-

4.20-
\
4.00-
\
1 J
Users Analysts

Figure 8. Interaction Effect of USERDP x SECTOR for Programming

130 MIS Quarterly/June 1989


performance and that performance expectations
are established by specific task requirements
and not driven by user perceptuai expectations.
Pubiic /private sector differences
Analysts and users in the public sector believe
technical skills (programming, analysis and
design) are more important than do those in the
private sector. Given that the stages of systems
development are presumed to be generaliy the
same (Green, et al., 1985; King, 1984), this rela-
tive difference in perceived importance of tech-
nical skills may be attributed to basic differences
of users and analysts by sector, as may be in-
ferred from the interaction effects for diplomacy
and programming skills. Users and analysts in
the public sector differ from users and analysts
in the private sector by some demographic vari-
ables, such as age and education, that could
contribute to perceptuai differences. Are there
also differences between those in public organi-
zations and private organizations by qualifica-
tions, skills, and performance? These and other
questions about sector differences need to be
resolved.
There also could be a difference in user-
generated requirements between pubiic and pri-
vate organizations. For example, private organi-
zations couid concentrate more on marketing ap-
plications than organizations in the public sector.
Other factors, such as deadline requirements,
budgets, database availability, technica! support,
and internal auditing standards, could account
for differences between the sectors. Public
sector participants perceive friendship and get-
ting along with others more importantly than their
private sector counterparts. The work environ-
ment for system analysts in public organizations
may be perceived as offering a source of non-
salary incentives somewhat different from the pri-
vate sector.
Future research directions
Results of this study raise several important
issues that merit continued research. Users typi-
cally oniy witness the skilis and roles that in-
voive interaction with analysts. Further research
is necessary to determine the extent of percep-
tual differences for those skills and roles that
do not involve interaction. This study, based on
extensive pilot research, defines the components
of systems analysts' behavioral skill require-
ments. Additional research is required to spec-
Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives
ify the exact conditions for which the definitions
hold and are applicable.
The question of whether computer-literate users
differ from others in their expectations of per-
formance by anaiysts needs to be resolved.
There is a dramatic difference between the knowl-
edge required to use personal computers for
spreadsheets and world processing versus the
knowledge required to develop and implement
a major application.
Fufiher research on organizational context
issues is recommended. Public and private em-
ployees display some differences in their per-
ceptions. Specificaily, why do public employees
involved in systems development assign greater
strength to technical skills than their private
sector counterparts? Does the private sector
have higher overall skills and better-trained indi-
viduals than the public sector due to higher pay?
Do public organizations have more applications
that are legisiatively mandated with emphasis on
explicit technical requirements?
In conclusion, further research is necessary to
determine the content and context of the sys-
tems analyst job function, particularly with the
potential for new technoiogies to change the task
environment of traditional systems development.
Acknowledgement
This project was supported by a grant from the
Decision Systems Research Center (DSRC) at
Arizona State University. The author is grateful
to the organizations and individuals that partici-
pated in this study. The author thanks^James
Eubanks for his participation in the design and
data collection of this study and also Debbie
Khoury, Linda Olsson, and Stefan Norrbin for
their assistance.
References
Argyris, C. "Management Information Systems:
The Challenge to Rationality and Emotional-
ity," Management Science (17:6), February
1971, pp. 275-292.
Argyris, C. "Organizational Learning and Man-
agement information Systems," Data Base
(13:2 and 3), Winter-Spring 1982, pp. 3-11.
Arvey, R.D. and Hoyle, J.C. "A Guttman Ap-
proach to the Development of Behaviorally
Based Rating Scales for Systems Analysts
and Program mer/Analysts," Joumal of Applied
Psychology (59:1), February 1974, pp. 61-66.
MIS Quarterly/June 1989 131
Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentives
Baroudi, J.J., Olson, M.H. and Ives, B. "An Em-
pirical Study of the Impact of User Involve-
ment on System Usage and Information Sat-
isfaction," Communications of the ACM (29:3),
March 1986, pp. 232-238.
Benbasat, I., Dexter, A.S. and Mantha, R.W.
"Impact of Organizational Maturity on infor-
mation Skiil Needs," MIS Quarterly (4:1),
March 1980, pp. 21-34.
Bartol, K.M. "Turnover Among DP Personnel: A
Causal Analysis," Communications of the
ACM (26:10), October 1983, pp. 807-811.
Boiand, R.J., Jr. "The Process and Product of
System Design," Management Science
(24:9), May 1978, pp. 887-898.
Bostrom, R.P. and Heinen, J.S. "MIS Problems
and Failures: A Socio-Technicai Perspective.
Part I: The Causes," MIS Quarterly (1:3), Sep-
tember 1977, pp. 17-32.
Buchanan, B. "Government Managers, Business
Executives, and Organizational Commitment,"
Public Administration Review (34:4), July/
August 1974, pp. 339-347.
Cheney, P.H. and Dickson, G.W. 'Organizational
Characteristics and Information Systems: An
Exploratory Investigation," Academy of Man-
agement Journal {25 A), March 1982, pp. 170-
184.
Cheney, P.H. and Lyons, N.R. "Information Sys-
tems Skiil Requirements: A Survey," MiS Quar-
terly (4:1), March 1980, pp. 35-43.
Couger, J.D., Zawacki, R.A. and Oppermann,
E.B. "Motivation Levels of MIS Managers
Versus Those of Their Employees," MIS Quar-
terly (3:3), September 1979, pp. 47-56.
DeBrabander, B. and Thiers, G. "Successful In-
formation System Development in Relation to
Situational Factors Which Affect Effective Com-
munication Between MIS-Users and EDP-
Speciaiists," Management Science (30:2). Feb-
ruary 1984, pp. 137-155.
Doil, W.J. and Ahmed, M.U. "Diagnosing and
Treating the Credibility Syndrome," MIS Quar-
terly (7:3), September 1983, pp. 21-32.
Gingras, L. and McClean, E.R. "Designers and
Users of information Systems: A Study in Dif-
fering Profiles," Proceedings of the Third In-
ternational Conference on Information Sys-
tems, Ann Artwr, Ml, December 1982, pp. 169-
181.
Ginzberg, M.J. "Key Recurrent Issues in the MIS
Implementation Process," MIS Quarterly (5:2),
June 1981, pp. 47-60.
Goidstein, D.K. and Rockart, J.F. "An Examina-
tion of Work-Related Correlates of Job Satis-
132 MIS Quarterly/June 1989
faction in Programmer/Analysts," MIS Quar-
teriy (8:2), June 1984, pp. 103-115.
Green, G.L, St. Louis, R.D. and Hershauer, J.C.
"Productivity Ratios for the Systems Develop-
ment Function," Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the American Institute of Decision
Sciences, volume 1, November 1985, pp. 318-
320.
Griffin, R.W., Bateman, T.S., Wayne, S.J. and
Head, T.C. "Objective and Social Factors as
Determinants of Task Perceptions and Re-
sponses: An Integrated Perspective and Em-
pirical Investigation," Academy of Manage-
ment Journal (30:3), September 1987, pp. 501-
523.
Guinan, P.J. and Bostrom, R.P. "Development
of Computer-Based Information Systems: A
Communication Framework," Data Base
(17:3), Spring 1986, pp. 3-16.
Henderson, J.C. and Schilling, D.A. "Design and
Implementation of Decision Support Systems
in the Public Sector," MIS Quarterly (9:2),
June 1985, pp. 157-169.
ivancevich, J.M., Napier, H.A. and Wetherbe,
J.C. "Occupational Stress, Attitudes, and
Health Problems of the Information Systems
Professional," Communications of the ACM
(26:10), October 1983, pp. 800-806.
Ives, B. and Olson, M.H. "User Involvement and
MIS Success: A Review of Research," Man-
agement Science (30:5), May 1984, pp. 586-
603.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Dickson, G.W. and DeSanctis,
G. "Methodological Issues in Experimentai Re-
search: Experiences and Recommendations,"
MIS Quarterly (9:2), June 1985, pp. 141-156.
Kaiser, K. and Bostrom, R.P. "Personality Char-
acteristics of MiS Project Teams: An Empiri-
cal Study and Action-Research Design," MIS
Quarterly (6:4), December 1982, pp. 43-60.
Kaiser, K. and Srinivasan, A. "User-Analyst Dif-
ferences: An Empirical Investigation of Atti-
tudes Related to Systems Development," Acad-
emy of Management Journal (25:3), Septem-
ber 1982, pp. 630-646.
Kelly, H.H. and Michela, J.L. "Attribution Theory
and Research," Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy {^^l 1980, pp. 457-501.
King, D. Current Practices in Software Devel-
opment, Yourdon Press, New York, NY, 1984.
Kirk, R.E. Experimental Design: Procedures for
the Behavioral Sciences, Brooks/Cole Publish-
ing, Monterey, CA, 1962.
Lachman, R. "Public and Private Sector Differ-
ences: CEOs' Perceptions of their Roie Envi-

ronments," Academy of Management Jour-
nal (28:3), September 1985, pp. 671-680.
Land, F. "Adapting to Changing User Require-
ments," Information & Management (5:2),
June 1982, pp. 59-75.
Lucas, H.C, Jr. Why Information Systems Fail,
Columbia University Press, New York, NY,
1975.
Mansour, A.H. and Watson, H.J. "The Determi-
nants of Computer Based Information System
Performance," Academy of Management Jour-
nal (23:3), September 1980, pp. 521-533.
Markus, M.L. Systems in Qrganizations: Bugs
+ Features, Pitman Publishing, Marshfield,
MA, 1984.
Matheriy, T.A. and Stepina, L.P. "Public Sector
Personnel Policies May Threaten DP Opera-
tions," Journal of Systems Management
(36:12), December 1985, pp, 20-25.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W. and Kutner, M.H. Ap-
plied Unear Statistical Models, 2nd edition,
Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, iL, 1985.
Olson, M.H. and Ives, B. "Chargeback Systems
and User Involvement in Information Systems
— An Empirical Investigation," MIS Quarterly
(6:2), June 1982, pp. 47-60.
Paddock, C.E. "A Critical View of Factors Af-
fecting Successful Application of Normative
and Socio-Technical Systems Development Ap-
proaches," Information and Management
(10:1), January 1986, pp. 49-57.
Rainey, H.G. "Public Agencies and Private
Firms," Administration and Society (15:2),
August 1983, pp. 207-242.
Rainey, H.G., Backoff, R. and Levine, C. "Com-
paring Public and Private Organizations,"
Public Administration Review (36:2), March/
April 1976, pp. 233-244.
Rhinehart, J.B., Barrek, R.P., DeWolfe, S.A., Grif-
fin, J.E. and Spaner, F,E. "Comparative Study
of Need Satisfaction in Government and Busi-
ness Hierarchies," Joumai of Applied Psychoi-
ogy (53:3), June 1969, pp. 230-235.
Rivard, S. and Huff, S.L. "User Developed Ap-
plications: Evaluation of Success from the DP
Department Perspective," MIS Quarterly (8:1),
March 1984, pp. 39-50
Robey, D. "User Attitudes and Management in-
formation System Use," Academy of Manage-
ment Journal (22:3), September 1979, pp. 527-
538.
Robey, D. and Farrow, D. "User involvement in
Information System Deveiopment: A Conflict
Model and Empirical Test," Management Sci-
ence (28:1), January 1982, pp. 73-85.
Robey, D. and Markus, M.L. "Rituals in Informa-
Systems Analysts' Skills, Roles, Incentive
tion Systems Design," MIS Quarteriy (8:1),
March 1984, pp. 5-15.
Sarbin, T.R. and Ailen, V.L. "Role Theory," in
Handbook of Sociai Psychology, 2nd edition,
volume 1, G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.),
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1968, pp. 488-
567.
SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 edition,
SAS institute, Cary, NC, 1985.
SPSS-X User's Guide, 2nd edition, McGraw-
Hill, Chicago, IL, 1986.
Stoline, M.R. "The Status of Multiple Compari-
sons: Simultaneous Estimation of Ali Pairwise
Comparisons in a One-Way ANOVA De-
signs," The American Statistician (35:3),
August 1981, pp. 134-141.
Vitaiari, N. "Knowledge as a Basis for Expertise
in Systems Analysis: An Empirical Study," MIS
Quarterly (9:3), September 1985, pp. 221-
241.
Watson, D. "The Actor and the Observer: How
Are Their Perceptions of Causality Divergent?"
Psychological Buiietin (92:3), November
1982, pp. 682-700.
Weike, R.J. and Konsynski, B.R. "Technology,
Methodology, & Information Systems: A Tri-
partite View," Data Base (14:1), Fail 1982, pp
41-57.
Woodruff, O.K. "Data Processing Peopie — Are
They Satisfied/Dissatisfied with Their Jobs?"
Information and Management (3:6), Decem-
ber 1980, pp. 219-225.
About the Author
Gary I. Green is chairman and associate pro-
fessor in the Department of Computer Informa-
tion Systems and Production Management, Coi-
iege of Business, Boise State University. His
current research includes productivity assess-
ment of systems development, utilization of de-
cision support systems, and relationships be-
tween decision makers and support systems. His
work has been published in several journals, in-
cluding Decision Sciences, Journal of Manage-
ment Information Systems, and Computers and
Operations Research.
MIS Quarterly/June 1989 133