The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Social Process Model of User-Analyst Relationships
Abstract
The development of an information system is a social process involving users and systems analysts, carried out in an organizational setting. This paper presents a process model of user-analyst relationships to guide research into the social dynamics of system development. The model identifies antecedent conditions, encounters, episodes, and outcomes over the course of a project. The model asserts that established relationships between analysts and users will persist unless critical encounters change the trajectory of the project. By conceiving of systems development as a series of encounters and episodes, researchers may identify critical encounters and study the connections between preceding events and their consequences. Practitioners may use the model to diagnose problems and to enact critical encounters that move a project in a different direction. The descriptive and predictive capacities of the process model are illustrated with two case studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.398 · Cited by 4,957
The Adolescence of Institutional Theory
Scott, W. R. (1987) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392880 · Cited by 3,699
Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.5.583 · Cited by 2,108
Self-citationUser Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research
Ives, B., & Olson, M. H. (1984) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.5.586 · Cited by 1,318
Longitudinal Field Research Methods for Studying Processes of Organizational Change
van de Ven, A. H., & Huber, G. P. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.213 · Cited by 832
Cited by
The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update
(2003) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748 · Cited by 11,791
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change
Robey, D., Ross, J. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2002) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045713 · Cited by 1,023
Self-citationA disaster for everyone to see: An interpretive analysis of a failed is project
Myers, M. D. (1994) · Accounting, Management and Information Technologies · doi:10.1016/0959-8022(94)90022-1 · Cited by 203
Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E. R., & Monod, E. (2015) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.31 · Cited by 167
Cho, S., Mathiassen, L., & Nilsson, A. (2008) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2008.49 · Cited by 161
Najmul Islam, A. K. M. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.010 · Cited by 107
The sensemaking-coevolution-implementation theory of software design
Ralph, P. (2015) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/j.scico.2014.11.007 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Newman, M., & Robey, D.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1992-06-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 249-266
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W1494401083
- Cited by
- 538
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 43.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
