22.12.2012 Views

www.sharexxx.net - free books & magazines

www.sharexxx.net - free books & magazines

www.sharexxx.net - free books & magazines

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

188 Mullany and Lay<br />

proposition, he claims, is relevant to the analysis of organizational change, and offers<br />

new insights into the concept of resistance to change. Kirton’s enquiry into the<br />

blocking of new initiatives in several large corporate institutions offers a fundamental<br />

conclusion regarding resistance to change. In general, a person will exhibit less<br />

resistance to ideas put forward by another of similar cognitive style. He further<br />

discusses the notion of an “agent for change”, and stresses that it is not necessarily<br />

associated with innovation. An agent for change is rather a person “who can<br />

successfully accept, and be accepted into, an environment alien to his own”, or ‘’as<br />

a competent individual who has enough skill to be successful in a particular<br />

environment” (Kirton, 1984).<br />

The Kirton Adaption-innovation Inventory (KAI) instrument provides a<br />

means for measuring individuals’ cognitive problem-solving styles (Kirton, 1987).<br />

These scores are stable, and little variation is reported with time or age. This<br />

instrument rates innovators with higher scores than adaptors. These scores have<br />

relative as well as absolute significance; hence if A’s KAI score is higher than E’s,<br />

it is meaningful to describe A as “more innovative” than E, and B as “more adaptive”<br />

than A.<br />

As a final point, Huber (1983) in a literary survey concludes that the literature<br />

available on cognitive style research in IS does not support a satisfactory basis for<br />

recommendations on IS design. Also, he expresses pessimism that this approach<br />

will ever provide such guidelines. However, he does recommend cognitive style<br />

research in three areas: career counseling, personnel selection and placement, and<br />

coaching and training. The second of these has implications for the placing of the<br />

most suitable analyst with a given user, or vice versa. This, together with the previous<br />

discussion of A-I theory, suggests that the KAI might be used for matching users<br />

and analysts successfully. It was thus obvious to select the KAI as the instrument<br />

to measure cognitive style in this study.<br />

Measures of System Success and User Satisfaction<br />

The final research area to be analyzed was that of system success and the<br />

related area of user satisfaction. Attempts are found in the literature to identify those<br />

attributes of systems that tend to satisfy (and/or dissatisfy) users. In one of the most<br />

comprehensive analyses of user satisfaction instruments, Ives, Olson and Baroudi<br />

(1983) conducted a psychometric analysis of four “User Information Satisfaction”<br />

instruments. These were, Gallagher’s questionnaire, Jenkins and Rickett’s 20-item<br />

measure, Larcker and Lessing’s perceived usefulness instrument, and Pearson’s<br />

39-factor instrument. In conclusion, they favoured Pearson’s instrument as the most<br />

predictive and exhibiting the greatest construct validity. The shortened version of<br />

Pearson’s instrument that they subsequently developed, they considered a prom-<br />

Copyright © 2003, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written<br />

permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!