The present study suggests a method of integrating user performance and attitudes toward the computer system into the quality control procedures (QCP). The objective of this approach is to enable the decision makers to manage by exceptions (MBE) and thus be more effective and more efficient. Accordingly, this study computes the correlations between performance related variables and users' attitudes. The computer facility management will investigate only systems whose users have demonstrated performance or attitudes below a desirable minimum level and thus manage by exception. Likewise, the relationship between performance and attitude will be investigated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SwansonE. B., Management Information Systems: Appreciation and Involvement, Management Science, 21: 2, pp. 178–188, 1974.
2.
GallagherC. A., Perceptions of the Value of a Management Information System, Academy of Management Journal, 17: 1, pp. 46–55, 1974.
3.
ZmudR. W., An Empirical Investigation of the Dimensionality of the Concept of Information, Decision Science, 9: 2, pp. 187–195, 1978.
4.
ChandraG., A Study of the Consensus on Disclosure Among Public Accountants and Security Analysts, The Accounting Review, 49: 4, pp. 733–742, 1974.
5.
EstesR. W., An Assessment of the Usefulness of Current Cost and Price-Level Information by Financial Statement Users, Journal of Accounting Research, 6: 2, pp. 200–207, 1968.
6.
PankoffL. D. and VirgilR. L., On the Usefulness of Financial Statement Information: A Suggested Research Approach, The Accounting Review, 45: 2, pp. 269–279, 1970.
7.
RushinekA. and RushinekS., A User Evaluation of Information Characteristics Related to Demand-Deposit Systems: An Empirical Analysis, Information and Management, 7, pp. 9–12, 1984.
8.
NunnallyJ. C., Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.
9.
KerlingerF. N., Foundations of Behavioral Research, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, p. 454, 1964.
10.
RunkelP. J. and McGrathJ. E., Research on Human Behavior, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 162–167, 1972.
11.
RomaniukE. W. and MontgomerieT. C., After Implementing Your CAI Course-What's Next?, Alberta University, Edmonton, June 1976, ERIC Ed. 151022.
12.
BarrA., The Computer as a Tutorial Laboratory: The Stanford BIP Project, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 8: 5, pp. 567–596, 1976.
13.
BoyleT. and WrightG., Computer-Assisted Evaluation of Student Achievement, Engineering Education, 68, pp. 1–5, 1977.
14.
BrownB. R., An Instrument for the Measure of Expressed Attitude Toward Computer-Assisted Instruction, in Experimentation with Computer Assisted Instruction in Technical Education, MitzelH. E. and BradonG. L. (eds.), (Semi-Annual Progress Report, Project No. OEC-5-85-074), The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, December 31, 1966.
15.
BundersonC. V., The Computer and Instructional Design, in Computer-Assisted Instruction, Testing and Guidance, HoltzmanW. E. (ed.), Harper and Row, New York, 1970.
16.
BussA. and KearsleyG., Individual and Small-Group Learning with Computer-Assisted Instruction, A V Communication Review, 24: 1, pp. 79–86, 1976.
17.
CaldwellE.NixD., and PeckhamP., The Use of CAI to Provide Problems for Students in Introductory Genetics, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3: 1, pp. 13–20, August 1976.
18.
ChizmarJ., Assessing the Impact of an Instructional Innovation on Achievement Differentials: The Case of Computer-Assisted Instruction, Journal of Economic Education, 9, pp. 42–46, 1977.
19.
Computer-Assisted Instruction in Programming: AID Project, Progress Reports-Stanford Program in Computer-Assisted Instruction, July 1, 1968 to September 30, 1969.
20.
Computer-Assisted Instruction in Programming: SIMPER and LOGO Project, Progress Reports-Stanford Program in Computer-Assisted Instruction, July 1, 1968 to September 30, 1969.
21.
DornC., Computer Assistance in Veterinary Medical Education, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 3, pp. 7–21, 1976.
22.
EllingerR. and FranklandP., Computer-Assisted and Lecture Instruction: A Comparative Experiment, Journal of Geography, 75, pp. 109–120, 1968.
23.
DzidaW.HerdaS., and ItzefeldtW. D., User-Perceived Quality of Interactive Systems, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-4: 4, July 1978.
