IMPACT OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ON ...

IMPACT OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ON PROGRAMMER AND ANALYST JOB OUTCOMES

Jack J . B a r o u d i and M i c h a e l J. G i n z b e r g

November 1984

Center for Research on Information Systems Computer Applications and Information Systems Area Graduate School of Business Administration New York University

W o r k i n g P a p e r Series

CRIS #85 GBA #84-90(CR)

Center for Digital Economy Research Stem School of Business IVorking Paper IS-84-90

Impact of t h e T e c h n o l o g i c a l Environment on Programmer and A n a l y s t J o b Outcomes

Recent r e s e a r c h h a s shown t h a t key IS/DF p e r s o n n e l j o b outcomes ( e . g . , t u r n o v e r , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment, job s a t i s f a c t i o n ) a r e a f f e c t e d by job d e s i g n , l e a d e r s h i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and r o l e v a r i a b l e s . T h i s s t u d y i n v e s t i g a t e s a n o t h e r c l a s s of v a r i a b l e s , t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l environment f a c e d by IS/DP p e r s o n n e l , which might impact t h e s e job outcomes. The t e c h n o l o g i c a l environment i n c l u d e s (1) development methodologies employed, ( 2 ) t h e hardware environment, (3) p r o j e c t teams and r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and (4) work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . V a r i a b l e s from a l l c l a s s e s e x c e p t t h e hardware environment were found t o impact IS/DP job outcomes. A s t h i s w a s a n e x p l o r a t o r y s t u d y , t h e r e s u l t s should be viewed a s h y p o t h e s e s t o be e x p l o r e d i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h .


I.

Introduction The j o b s of d a t a p r o c e s s i n g and i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s (DP/IS) p e r s o n n e l

have become an a r e a of s u b s t a n t i a l r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t i n t h e p a s t few y e a r s . That t h i s i s s o should come a s no s u r p r i s e :

l a r g e s o f t w a r e development

b a c k l o g s have been r e p o r t e d by r e s e a r c h e r s (e.g.,

Alloway & Q u i l l a r d , 1 9 8 3 ) ;

t h e b u s i n e s s p r e s s r e p o r t s t h a t t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t s h o r t a g e of DP/IS p e r s o n n e l and t h a t it i s l i k e l y t o worsen o v e r t h e n e x t d e c a d e ; t h e c o s t of DP/IS p e r s o n n e l k e e p s r i s i n g w h i l e t h e c o s t of hardware f a l l s and t h e demand f o r a p p l i c a t i o n s y s t e m s grows (Birnbaum, 1982); and, DP/IS p e r s o n n e l c o n t i n u e t o e x h i b i t a troublesome t u r n o v e r r a t e ( B a r t 0 1 & M a r t i n , 1982).

Thus, t h e r e

i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g how t o i n c r e a s e DP/IS p e r s o n n e l p r o d u c t i v i t y and s a t i s f a c t i o n and t o d e c r e a s e t u r n o v e r . Much of t h e r e s e a r c h i n t h i s a r e a h a s f o c u s e d on m o t i v a t i o n . t h e b e s t known work i s Couger & Zawaki's (1978).

Probably

T h i s r e s e a r c h u s e s Hackman &

Oldham's (1976) J o b C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Model t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e " m o t i v a t i n g p o t e n t i a l ' ' of DP/IS jobs.

Couger & Zawaki's f i n d i n g s f o r DP/IS p e r s o n n e l a r e

consistent

& Oldham's f i n d i n g s f o r o t h e r t e c h n i c a l and

with

Hackman

p r o f e s s i o n a l employees: dimensions

--

DP/IS p e r s o n n e l w i t h j o b s h i g h on t h e f i v e c o r e

s k i l l v a r i e t y , t a s k i d e n t i t y , t a s k s i g n i f i c a n c e , autonomy, and

f e e d b a c k from t h e job

--

e x p e r i e n c e h i g h e r l e v e l s of s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Goldstein

& Rockart (1984) a r g u e t h a t t h e Hackman & Oldham model was i n t e n d e d f o r j o b s

done i n d e p e n d e n t l y by i n d i v i d u a l w o r k e r s , and t h a t f o r DP/IS p e r s o n n e l who seldom have t h i s t y p e of independence, t h e r e a r e o t h e r f a c t o r s which impact job outcomes (e.g.,

satisfaction).

T h e i r s t u d y added r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s ( r o l e


Introduction

c o n f l i c t and r o l e ambiguity) and l e a d e r s h i p behavior of s u p e r v i s o r s and p e e r s t o t h e job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r e v i o u s l y s t u d i e d .

They found a l l t h r e e s e t s of

v a r i a b l e s t o b e s i n n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o job s a t i s f a c t i o n . e i t h e r of t h e new s e t s of v a r i a b l e s

--

--

The a d d i t i o n of

r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s o r l e a d e r s h i p behavior

provided s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r e x p l a n a t i o n of s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a n d i d job

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s alone. I n a n o t h e r r e c e n t s t u d y , Baroudi (1984a) examined t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among r o l e c o n f l i c t , r o l e ambiguity, boundary spanning ( a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of some DPIIS j o b s and a p o t e n t i a l a n t e c e d e n t of c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y ) , and s e v e r a l job outcoines ( s a t i s f a c t i o n , commitment, and i n t e n t i o n t o q u i t ) .

H e found t h a t

r o l e ambiguity s u b s t a n t i a l l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced job s a t i s f a c t i o n and commitment, which i n t u r n i n c r e a s e d t h e d a t a p r o c e s s i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l ' s intention t o quit.

Role c o n f l i c t w a s a l s o found t o r e d u c e job s a t i s f a c t i o n

and i n d i r e c t l y t o r e d u c e commitment and i n c r e a s e i n t e n t i o n t o q u i t . One a r e a of o b v i o u s p o t e n t i a l f o r e x p l a i n i n g DP/IS job outcomes t h a t h a s s o f a r r e c e i v e d very l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n from r e s e a r c h e r s i s t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l environment i n which t h e work i s done.

G o l d s t e i n & R o c k a r t (1984) s u g g e s t e d

t h a t job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a l o n e were n o t enough t o e x p l a i n DPIIS j o b outcomes, and

they

added r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s and l e a d e r s h i p b e h a v i o r as p o t e n t i a l

explanators.

The t e c h n o l o g i c a l environment i s a l s o l i k e l y t o be a n i m p o r t a n t

d e t e r m i n a n t of work outcomes, e s p e c i a l l y i n a f i e l d where t e c h n o l o g y i s as c e n t r a l a s i t i s i n DP/IS.

T h i s paper r e p r e s e n t s a f i r s t a t t e m p t t o e x p l o r e

some a s p e c t s of t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l environment and t h e i r i m p a c t s on DP/IS job outcomes.


Introduction

11.

T e c h n o l o g i c a l Environment

--

D e f i n i t i o n and P r i o r L i t e r a t u r e

The t e c h n o l o g y w e a r e concerned w i t h i s t h e t e c h n o l o g y o r methodology used f o r t a s k accomplishment, i.e., development.

t h e t e c h n o l o g y of i n f o r m a t i o n system

T h i s i s much b r o a d e r t h a n j u s t t h e computer t e c h n o l o g y (e.g.,

hardware) employed, and i n c l u d e s ( 1 ) programming and system development m e t h o d o l o g i e s , ( 2 ) t h e u s e of p r o j e c t teams, ( 3 ) r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and

( 4 ) t h e t y p e of work accomplished.

There h a s been l i m i t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n of

t h e s e t e c h n o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s i n t h e I S r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e , though much h a s appeared i n t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r l i t e r a t u r e .

The c o n c e r n i n t h e b u l k of t h i s

l i t e r a t u r e h a s been t h e impact on IS/DP p e r s o n n e l p r o d u c t i v i t y , n o t on s a t i s f a c t i o n o r o t h e r s i m i l a r work outcome v a r i a b l e s .

11.1.

Development methodologies

I n c l u d e d i n development methodologies are t h e u s e of s t r u c t u r e d methods f o r system d e s i g n o r programming, t h e u s e of f o u r t h g e n e r a t i o n l a n g u a g e s , and t h e u s e of a l t e r n a t i v e development c y c l e a p p r o a c h e s l i k e p r o t o t y p i n g . There

i s s u b s t a n t i a l agreement i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t h a t t h e u s e of

s t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n m e t h o d o l o g i e s s h o u l d r e s u l t i n i n c r e a s e d p r o d u c t i v i t y as

w e l l a s h i g h e r q u a l i t y work by IS/DP p e r s o n n e l ( s e e e.g.,

G o l d s t e i n , 1982).

There i s l e s s agreement, however, a b o u t t h e impact of s t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n on IS/DP p e r s o n n e l s a t i s f a c t i o n . that

Both K r a f t (1977) and G o l d s t e i n (1982) s u g g e s t

u s e of s t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n methods w i l l r e d u c e s k i l l v a r i e t y , t a s k

i d e n t i t y , and autonomy, t h r e e of t h e c o r e d i m e n s i o n s i n Hackman & Oldham's J o b C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Model.

K r a f t c o n c l u d e s , c o n s i s t a n t w i t h t h e model, t h a t t h i s



w i l l r e s u l t i n reduced s a t i s f a c t i o n .

G o l d s t e i n , however, s u g g e s t s t h a t u s e of

s t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n methods w i l l a l s o reduce r o l e c o n f l i c t and a m b i g u i t y , and w i l l i n c r e a s e t a s k achievement ( t h e a b i l i t y of DP/IS p e r s o n n e l t o accomplish

what t h e y a r e supposed t o ) .

The n e t r e s u l t , a c c o r d i n g t o G o l d s t e i n , should be

an i n c r e a s e i n s a t i s f a c t i o n . The e a r l y w r i t i n g s about s t r u c t u r e d programming s u g g e s t e d t h a t i t t o o would r e s u l t i n i n c r e a s e d p r o d u c t i v i t y of IS/DP p e r s o n n e l .

More r e c e n t l y ,

t h i s assumption h a s been c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n , a s r e s e a r c h e r s have found i n c o n s i s t e n t i m p a c t s of s t r u c t u r e d programming on p r o d u c t i v i t y ( s e e Vessey & Weber, 1984 f o r a review of r e s e a r c h on t h e impact of s t r u c t u r e d programming). Some have s u g g e s t e d t h a t maintenance of s t r u c t u r e d code w i l l be e a s i e r t h a n maintenance of t y p i c a l " s p a g h e t t i " code; t h u s , u s e of s t r u c t u r e d programming f o r system development should i n c r e a s e p r o d u c t i v i t y i n system maintenance. know of no t e s t s of t h i s c o n j e c t u r e which have been performed s o f a r .

W e

Very

l i t t l e a p p e a r s t o have been w r i t t e n a b o u t t h e impact of s t r u c t u r e d programming

on job s a t i s f a c t i o n , t u r n o v e r , e t c . F o u r t h g e n e r a t i o n l a n g u a g e s (4GL) can be d i v i d e d i n t o a p p l i c a t i o n s g e n e r a t o r s which a r e t o o l s f o r u s e by IS/DP p r o f e s s i o n a l s , and g e n e r a t o r s f o r u s e by end u s e r s ( H e s s i n g e r , 1984). r e p l e t e w i t h a r t i c l e s a b o u t 4GL.

information

The p r a c t i t i o n e r p r e s s i s

The primary message i n t h e s e a r t i c l e s i s

t h a t 4GLs can s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c r e a s e p r o d u c t i v i t y , b o t h t h r o u g h enhancing performance of DP/IS p r o f e s s i o n a l s and t h r o u g h o f f - l o a d i n g some of t h e work t o end u s e r s .

A second message i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e i s t h a t u s e of 4GL e n a b l e s

b e t t e r communication between IS/DP p e r s o n n e l and u s e r s , which w i l l improve r e l a t i o n s w i t h u s e r s and r e s u l t i n g r e a t e r

u s e r s a t i s f a c t i o n (Computer World,



101'311'83).

The impact of 4GL u s e on IS/DP p e r s o n n e l s a t i s f a c t i o n i s n o t

addressed d i r e c t l y .

There i s , however, t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t 4GL u s e w i l l

r e s u l t i n " d e s k i l l i n g W of ".journeyman COBOL programmers" ( G a l l a n t , 1984). And, i t h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t 4GLs w i l l wash o u t t h e " e x p e r i e n c e gap" between e x p e r i e n c e d and n o v i c e programmers ( P a r k s , 1983).

E i t h e r of t h e s e

e f f e c t s c o u l d impact s a t i s f a c t i o n of ( a t l e a s t some) DP/IS p e r s o n n e l . P r o t o t y p i n g i s a development approach which h a s been g a i n i n g many adherents i n recent years.

Proponents of p r o t o t y p i n g s u g g e s t t h a t once an

i n i t i a l i n v e s t m e n t i n hardware and s o f t w a r e r e s o u r c e s i s made, p r o t o t y p i n g can v a s t l y i n c r e a s e p r o d u c t i v i t y i n s y s t e m development (Naumann & J e n k i n s , 1982). In

perhaps

the

only p u b l i s h e d e m p i r i c a l assessment of t h e impact of

p r o t o t y p i n g , A l a v i (1984) r e p o r t s t h a t u s e r s were more s a t i s f i e d and t h e r e w a s less p e r c e i v e d c o n f l i c t between IS/DP and u s e r p e r s o n n e l when p r o t o t y p i n g was used compared t o a c o n v e n t i o n a l , l i n e a r development approach,

Unfortunately,

A l a v i d o e s n o t r e p o r t on IS/DP p e r s o n n e l s a t i s f a c t i o n . 11.2.

Hardware environment

There a r e numerous ways t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e hardware environment f a c e d by IS/DP p e r s o n n e l , very few of which have been c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e a s d e t e r m i n a n t s of job outcomes.

Among t h e dimensions which c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d

are: b a t c h vs. on-line; system a v a i l a b i l i t y and r e p o n s e t i m e ; mainframe, m i n i , micro; and brand name (hardware vendor).



I n a n e a r l y s t u d y , Sackman (1970) showed t h a t u s e r s of o n - l i n e s y s t e m s g e n e r a l l y t o o k less human t i m e b u t more computer t i m e t o complete t h e i r t a s k s , b u t t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t as l a r g e a s t h o s e between i n d i v i d u a l s .

He a l s o

found a g e n e r a l p r e f e r e n c e f o r o n - l i n e r a t h e r t h a n c o n v e n t i o n a l b a t c h systems. S i n c e t h e m a j o r i t y of DP/IS p e r s o n n e l now work i n a n o n - l i n e environment, i n t e r e s t h a s s h i f t e d t o o t h e r d i m e n s i o n s , n o t a b l y system a v a i l a b i l i t y and response.

Thadhani (1984) d e s c r i b e s s e v e r a l s t u d i e s which show t h e impact of

a v a i l a b i l i t y and r e s p o n s e on IS/DP p r o d u c t i v i t y .

W e a r e unaware, however, of

any s t u d i e s which l o o k a t t h e impact of hardware environment on IS/DP job s a t i s f a c t i o n , commitment, e t c .

11.3.

P r o j e c t teams

There i s a s u b s t a n t i a l e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e on t h e u s e of teams o r g r o u p s f o r problem s o l v i n g i n g e n e r a l , and i t shows t h a t i n d i v i d u a l performance i s a function

of

t h e t y p e of t a s k and t h e e x p e r i e n c e d r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e

i n d i v i d u a l t o t h e group (see Hackman, 1976 f o r a r e v i e w ) .

Group membership

sometimes enhances and sometimes r e d u c e s i n d i v i d u a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s very complex.

The l i t e r a t u r e a b o u t teams i n i n f o r m a t i o n

system development i s l a r g e l y normative:

t h e u s e of teams i s presumed t o

improve t h e outcomes of s y s t e m development ( s e e , e.g.,

Weinberg, 1974).

In a

r e c e n t a r t i c l e , Miles (1983) recommended t h e u s e of Nominal Group T e c h n i q u e t o e n s u r e r e a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s y s t e m development of a wide r a n g e of p e r s o n n e l . She 11

suggested

that

among t h e r e s u l t s of t h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n would be

e n t h u s i a s m and s e n s e of commitment."



D e s p i t e t h e g e n e r a l b e l i e f t h a t teams a r e v a l u a b l e and i m p o r t a n t t o I S development, we know of no e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e which t e s t s t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n . There i s no p u b l i s h e d e v i d e n c e concerning t h e impact of p r o j e c t teams on IS/DP p e r s o n n e l s a t i s f a c t i o n , commitment, etc. 11.4.

Work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

A s d i s c u s s e d i n t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n , s e v e r a l a u t h o r s have examined t h e impact of t a s k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on IS/DP p e r s o n n e l s a t i s f a c t i o n , and have g e n e r a l l y found g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h j o b s t h a t s c o r e h i g h on t h e Hackman & Oldham J o b C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Model.

from

these

reults.

Zawacki

A number of i m p l i c a t i o n s can be drawn

(1984) s u g g e s t s t h a t "high scope" j o b s

(development r a t h e r t h a n maintenance) w i l l be more m o t i v a t i n g and more satisfying. motivating

Chapin (1984) s u g g e s t s t h a t more complex p r o j e c t s w i l l be more and s a t i s f y i n g .

productivity:

He i s , however, more e q u i v o c a l c o n c e r n i n g

p r o j e c t complexity i s l i k e l y t o have a d i r e c t n e g a t i v e e f f e c t

on p r o d u c t i v i t y and a n i n d i r e c t p o s i t i v e e f f e c t ( t h r o u g h i t s impact on motivation).

A s w i t h a number of t h e o t h e r v a r i a b l e s d i s c u s s e d above, t h e

l i t e r a t u r e which d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e s t h e impact of t h i s a s p e c t of t h e IS/DP environment

t e n d s t o be c o n j e c t u r a l and h a s n o t y e t been s u b j e c t e d t o

empirical testing.


Research Q u e s t i o n s

111.

Research Questions From t h e d i s c u s s i o n i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n i t should be a p p a r e n t t h a t

t h e r e a r e a g r e a t many f a c t o r s i n t h e IS/DP t e c h n o l o g i c a l environment w i t h t h e p o t e n t i a l t o impact IS/DP job outcomes, and t h e r e h a s been very l i t t l e t e s t i n g of t h e s e i m p a c t s .

For outcomes o t h e r t h a n p r o d u c t i v i t y , t h e r e h a s , i n f a c t ,

been l i t t l e w r i t t e n a t a l l , be it t h e o r e t i c a l , c o n j e c t u r a l o r e m p i r i c a l .

It

was our p u r p o s e i n t h i s r e s e a r c h t o i d e n t i f y s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t a r e a s of p o t e n t i a l impact and g a t h e r some d a t a which b e g i n s t o e x p l o r e t h o s e i m p a c t s . S i n c e f o r t h e most p a r t t h e r e were no p r i o r h y p o t h e s e s t o be t e s t e d nor were t h e r e v a l i d a t e d measures f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t s t o be examined, t h i s r e s e a r c h should be viewed more as h y p o t h e s i s g e n e r a t i o n t h a n a s h y p o t h e s i s t e s t i n g . Much of t h e l i t e r a t u r e h a s focused on immediate p r o d u c t i v i t y as t h e outcome of i n t e r e s t .

Our concern i s w i t h a d i f f e r e n t s e t of outcomes which w e

would e x p e c t t o have an i m p o r t a n t impact on l o n g r u n p r o d u c t i v i t y .

These

c r i t i c a l outcomes are s a t i s f a c t i o n ( w i t h t h e work, t h e j o b i n g e n e r a l , and s u p e r v i s i o n ) and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment.

Baroudi (1984a) h a s shown t h e s e

t o be c l o s e l y l i n k e d t o i n t e n t i o n t o q u i t (and hence t o e v e n t u a l t u r n o v e r ) f o r IS/DP p e r s o n n e l .

W e a r e a l s o concerned w i t h two v a r i a b l e s which ~ a r o u d i ' s

s t u d y showed t o be i m p o r t a n t p r e c u r s o r s of s a t i s f a c t i o n and commitment, r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e ambiguity.

He found t h a t r o l e c o n f l i c t w a s e x p l a i n e d

s i g n i f i c a n t l y by t h e d e g r e e t o which IS/DP p e r s o n n e l were i n v o l v e d i n boundary spanning r o l e s . ambiguity.

However, he found no e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e c a u s e s of r o l e

I n t h i s s t u d y w e a r e concerned w i t h t h e e x t e n t t o which a s p e c t s of

t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l environment might c o n t r i b u t e t o r o l e c o n f l i c t o r c a u s e r o l e ambiguity.



111.1.

Development methodologies

Three q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s a r e a were i n v e s t i g a t e d :

Q1:

What impact does t h e u s e of s t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n t o o l s have on S a t i s f a c t i o n , Commitment, r o l e C o n f l i c t , o r r o l e Ambiguity (SCCA)?

On t h e b a s i s of p r i o r l i t e r a t u r e , w e would e x p e c t t h e u s e of s t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n methods t o r e d u c e c o n f l i c t and ambiguity.

The e x p e c t e d impact on

s a t i s f a c t i o n and commitment i s u n c l e a r . 42:

What impact d o e s t h e u s e of s t r u c t u r e d programming have on SCCA?

S t r u c t u r e d programming p r o v i d e s a s e t of r u l e s t o be f o l l o w e d and t o o l s t o be used i n a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h e programming t a s k , and t h i s s h o u l d r e d u c e r o l e ambiguity.

We make no o t h e r p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t t h e impact of s t r u c t u r e d

programming.

Q3:

What impact d o e s t h e u s e of 4 t h g e n e r a t i o n l a n g u a g e s h a v e on SCCA?

There are no d i r e c t p r e d i c t i o n s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e a b o u t t h e impact of 4GL u s e on any of t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s . impact of 4GL u s e on s a t i s f a c t i o n .

T h e r e a r e , however, h i n t s a b o u t t h e

As a r e s u l t of b e t t e r communications w i t h

u s e r s , IS/DP p e r s o n n e l performance s h o u l d improve, and t h i s s h o u l d i n c r e a s e satisfaction.

The p o s s i b l e " d e s k i l l i n g l ' which might r e s u l t from 4GL u s e

would, however, s u g g e s t a r e d u c t i o n i n s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Since these h i n t s

a ~ r i o r pi r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t 4GL u s e . s u g g e s t o p p o s i t e e f f e c t s , w e make no 111.2.

Hardware environment

Two q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s a r e a were i n v e s t i g a t e d : Q4:

What impact d o e s a n o n - l i n e v s . a b a t c h environment have on SCCA?

Most programmers t o d a y o p e r a t e i n a n o n - l i n e e n v i r o n m e n t ; t h o s e who d o n o t a r e l i k e l y t o f e e l ( p r o b a b l y c o r r e c t l y ) t h a t t h e y a r e working i n a n


Research Questions

a n t i q u a t e d environment which i s l i k e l y t o s t u n t t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l growth.

We

would, t h e r e f o r e , p r e d i c t t h a t t h e a b s e n c e of a n o n - l i n e environment would l e a d t o l o w e r s a t i s f a c t i o n and commitment.

There i s no b a s i s f o r p r e d i c t i n g

any impact on ambiguity o r c o n f l i c t .

Q5:

What impact d o e s t y p e of hardware used -- h a v e on SCCA?

--

m i c r o , m i n i , o r mainframe

The s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t i n microcomputers i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n g e n e r a l l y would s u g g e s t t h a t a c c e s s t o them would be s a t i s f y i n g t o DP/IS p e r s o n n e l .

On

t h e o t h e r hand, t h e bread and b u t t e r of DP/IS o p e r a t i o n s r e m a i n s t h e mainframe computer

system.

We,

t h u s , would p r e d i c t a weak p o s i t i v e impact of

microcomputer u s e on s a t i s f a c t i o n .

There i s no b a s i s f o r p r e d i c t i n g an i m p a c t

on commitment, c o n f l i c t , o r ambiguity.

111.3.

P r o j e c t teams and r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s

Four q u e s t i o n s were i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s a r e a : Q6:

Does t h e u s e of p r o j e c t teams impact SCCA?

The I S p r a c t i t i o n e r l i t e r a t u r e s u g g e s t s t h a t u s e of p r o j e c t teams enhances

performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n ,

W e n o t e , however, t h a t t h e I S

p r a c t i t i o n e r l i t e r a t u r e i s much more p o s i t i v e a b o u t t h e b e n e f i c i a l i m p a c t of teams t h a n i s t h e e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e on groups.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p between

p r o j e c t teams and s a t i s f a c t i o n , t h e n , i s n o t l i k e l y t o b e l a r g e .

Arguments

can be made t o s u g g e s t t h a t u s e of p r o j e c t teams w i l l b o t h i n c r e a s e and d e c r e a s e r o l e c o n f l i c t ; t h u s , no p r e d i c t i o n w i l l be made. to

T h e r e d o e s n o t seem

be any b a s i s f o r p r e d i c t i n g a n impact on e i t h e r commitment o r r o l e

ambiguity.


Research Questions

For t h o s e DP/IS p e r s o n n e l who a r e a s s i g n e d t o p r o j e c t teams, d o e s t h e manner i n which team a s s i g n m e n t s a r e made a f f e c t SCCA?

Q7:

P r o j e c t team members can s t a y t o g e t h e r and move from p r o j e c t t o p r o j e c t a s a team, team members can move from assignment t o a s s i g n m e n t i n d i v i d u a l l y , o r some o t h e r method can be used f o r team r o t a t i o n .

There i s no b a s i s f o r

p r e d i c t i n g a n impact of t h e method of team assignment on s a t i s f a c t i o n , commitment, o r r o l e c o n f l i c t . those

who

are

Role a m b i g u i t y , however, s h o u l d be lower f o r

t o permanent teams, s i n c e i n s u c h cases t h e

assigned

i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e group and r o l e w i t h i n t h e group a r e l i k e l y t o be c l e a r e r and b e t t e r known. What impact d o e s r e p o r t i n g t o a p r o j e c t l e a d e r have on DP/IS p e r s o n n e l SCCA?

Q8: There

a r e many p o s s i b l e f o r m a l r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r DP/IS Among t h e s e are ( 1 ) r e p o r t i n g t o a p r o j e c t l e a d e r , ( 2 ) r e p o r t i n g

personnel.

t o a f u n c t i o n a l manager i n t h e DP/IS d e p a r t m e n t , and ( 3 ) r e p o r t i n g t o a manager i n a u s e r a r e a .

S i n c e s o much of t h e work of DPlIS p e r s o n n e l i s

p r o j e c t o r i e n t e d , f o r m a l l y r e p o r t i n g t o a p r o j e c t l e a d e r might r e s u l t i n lower r o l e c o n f l i c t and ambiguity.

T h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r p r e d i c t i n g a n i m p a c t on

s a t i s f a c t i o n o r commitment. Q9:

What impact d o e s r e p o r t i n g t o m u l t i p l e s u p e r i o r s h a v e on SCCA?

The I S l i t e r a t u r e p r o v i d e s no s u g g e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e i m p a c t of m u l t i p l e reporting relationships. does.

The b r o a d e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e , however,

R o l e c o n f l i c t o c c u r s when t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e c e i v e s c o n f l i c t i n g j o b

performance i n f o r m a t i o n , w h i l e r o l e a m b i g u i t y r e s u l t s from a l a c k of c l e a r and p r e c i s e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t what i s e x p e c t e d of t h e r o l e incumbent (Van S e l l , e t al.,

1981).

A s t h e number of s u p e r i o r s one r e p o r t s t o and r e c e i v e s d i r e c t i o n



from i n c r e a s e s , s o does t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r r o l e c o n f l i c t .

Number of s u p e r i o r s

d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y , however, a f f e c t ambiguity, s i n c e each s u p e r i o r c o u l d p r o v i d e c l e a r and p r e c i s e i n f o r m a t i o n about t a s k s , rewards, e t c .

Thus, w e

would e x p e c t t h a t r e p o r t i n g t o m u l t i p l e s u p e r i o r s w i l l i n c r e a s e r o l e c o n f l i c t , but w e make no p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t t h e impact on s a t i s f a c t i o n , commitment, o r ambiguity. 111.4.

Work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

S i x c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e work i t s e l f were i n v e s t i g a t e d : Q10:

What impact does t h e number of p r o j e c t s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y worked on by DP/IS p e r s o n n e l have on SCCA?

I f c o n c e n t r a t e d work on a s i n g l e p r o j e c t i m p l i e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a l a r g e r p o r t i o n of t h e p r o j e c t , i t i s l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e t a s k i d e n t i t y . Working on a r a n g e of p r o j e c t s , on t h e o t h e r hand, i s l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e t a s k variety,

Both a r e i m p o r t a n t dimensions i n t h e Hackman & Oldham model, and

each should c o n t r i b u t e t o s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Thus, t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o e x p e c t a n

impact of t h e number of s i m u l t a n e o u s p r o j e c t s on s a t i s f a c t i o n . t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r p r e d i c t i n g an impact on commitment.

Likewise,

Arguments s i m i l a r

t o t h o s e made above c o n c e r n i n g r e p o r t i n g t o m u l t i p l e s u p e r i o r s would s u g g e s t t h a t r o l e c o n f l i c t may be i n c r e a s e d by having t o d e a l w i t h a l a r g e number of p r o j e c t s ( a n d , hence, p r o j e c t l e a d e r s , u s e r s , e t c . ) s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , w h i l e t h e r e would be no n e c e s s a r y impact on r o l e ambiguity.

Q 1 1 & Q12:

To what e x t e n t do p r o j e c t s i z e and d u r a t i o n i m p a c t SCCA?

No s t r o n g arguments can be made c o n c e r n i n g t h e l i k e l y impact of p r o j e c t s i z e on s a t i s f a c t i o n , commitment, c o n f l i c t o r a m b i g u i t y .

Similarly, t h e r e is

no b a s i s f o r p r e d i c t i n g a n impact of p r o j e c t d u r a t i o n on commitment, c o n f l i c t ,



o r ambiguity.

D u r a t i o n , however, i s l i k e l y t o a f f e c t s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Longer

p r o j e c t s w i l l probably r e s u l t i n less f r e q u e n t feedback (one of Hackman and Oldham's key job d i m e n s i o n s ) , and t h i s w i l l r e d u c e s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Q13:

What i s t h e impact of p r o j e c t i n n o v a t i v e n e s s on SCCA?

Innovative

pro-jects

are

commonplace, mundane p r o . i e c t s .

inherently

more i n t e r e s t i n g t h a n more

F u r t h e r , i n n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t s keep DP/IS

p e r s o n n e l ' s s k i l l s c u r r e n t , and hence more marketable.

a s t r o n g impact on s a t i s f a c t i o n .

W e would, t h e n , e x p e c t

No r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h commitment, c o n f l i c t o r

ambiguity c a n b e p r e d i c t e d . 414 & Q15: What i s t h e impact of doing maintenance work and development work on SCCA? The message i n much of t h e l i t e r a t u r e i s t h a t maintenance i s low s c o p e , unmotivating, u n s a t i s f y i n g work w h i l e development i s j u s t t h e o p p o s i t e .

There

have been numerous a r t i c l e s i n t h e p a s t few y e a r s e x p l a i n i n g t h e importance of maintenance, and s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t should be r e g a r d e d a s a n i m p o r t a n t and c h a l l e n g i n g assignment.

The importance of maintenance i s u n q u e s t i o n a b l e .

However, w e would p r e d i c t t h a t a h i g h r e l a t i v e maintenance work l o a d w i l l l e a d t o reduced s a t i s f a c t i o n , w h i l e a h i g h r e l a t i v e amount of development work w i l l increase satisfaction.

We make no p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t t h e impact of maintenance

o r developement work on commitment, c o n f l i c t o r ambiguity. The 1 5 q u e s t i o n s i n v e s t i g a t e d and t h e p r e d i c t e d i m p a c t s on s a t i s f a c t i o n , commitment, c o n f l i c t and ambiguity a r e summarized i n F i g u r e 1.



P r e d i c t e d Impacts of 15 Environmental F a c t o r s Satisfaction

Commitment

Role Conflict

?

?

-

?

?

?

Hardware environment 4. On-line v s . b a t c h

+

+

?

5. Micro, m i n i , mainframe

-

?

?

P r o j e c t teams 8 r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s 6. Use of p r o j e c t teams + ?

?

Development methodologies 1. S t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n 2. S t r u c t u r e d programming

Role Ambiguity

3. 4 t h g e n e r a t i o n language

.

7. Team a s s i g n m e n t s

8. Report t o p r o j e c t leader 9. Multiple r e p o r t i n g relationships

Work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 10, No. of s i m u l t a n e o u s projects

11. S i z e of team 12. P r o j e c t d u r a t i o n 13. I n n o v a t i v e n e s s 14. % maintenance 15. % development

F i g u r e 1.


R e s e a r c h Methodology

IV.

R e s e a r c h Methodology The d a t a f o r t h i s s t u d y were c o l l e c t e d as p a r t of a l a r g e r p r o j e c t t h a t

i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e a n t e c e d e n t s of DP p e r s o n n e l i n t e n t i o n t o q u i t .

The r e s u l t s

of t h i s s t u d y are r e p o r t e d i n B a r o u d i (1984b).

IV.l.

The Sample and S e l e c t i o n

Nine c o m p a n i e s , p r i m a r i l y from t h e New York/Boston area, p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e s t u d y w i t h d a t a c o l l e c t e d from a t o t a l o f 229 i n d i v i d u a l s .

The 229

s u b j e c t s r e p r e s e n t s a n o v e r a l l r e s p o n s e r a t e of 85 p e r c e n t . The

study

participants

programmer/analysts,

and

included

systems

applications

programmers,

a n a l y s t s i n c e n t r a l i z e d DP g r o u p s .

A d d i t i o n a l l y , t o a s s u r e t h a t t h e s t u d y p a r t i c i p a n t s were engaged i n c o m p a r a b l e t a s k s , o n l y t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s working on i n t e r n a l s y s t e m s development p r o j e c t s

were i n c l u d e d .

The p a r t i c i p a t i n g companies v a r i e d i n s i z e from a p p r o x i m a t e l y

30 programmers and a n a l y s t s t o o v e r one t h o u s a n d .

The d i f f e r e n t i n d u s t r i e s

r e p r e s e n t e d are l i s t e d i n F i g u r e 2.

-----I n s e r t

F i g u r e 2 here------

D e s c r i p t i v e information about t h e i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i s p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 3.


NUMBER OF CCMPANIES

INDUSTRY

NUMBER OF SUBJECTS

COMHERCIAL BANKING 3

INSURANCE

84

2

BROKERAGE

41

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING INVESTMENT

BANKING 1

26

ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING

26 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 2


Research Methodology

-----I n s e r t

F i g u r e 3 here-----

The d a t a were g a t h e r e d by o n - s i t e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . q u e s t i o n n a i r e took approximately 45 minutes t o complete.

The

A l l s u b j e c t s were

g u a r a n t e e d anonymity and t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g companies were provided w i t h a summary of t h e o v e r a l l f i n d i n g s . IV.2.

Measures

I n c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e i n s t r u m e n t t o t e s t t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , measures w i t h e x t e n s i v e h i s t o r i e s of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y were employed whenever possible.

Accordingly, t h e JDI (Smith e t a l , 1969) was used t o measure

g e n e r a l j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n and i t s v a r i o u s f a c e t s .

The R i z z o e t a l . (1970)

s c a l e s were used t o measure r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e ambiguity.

The r o l e

ambiguity s c a l e was expanded based on t h e work of S c h u l e r e t a l . (1982) which recommended t h e a d d i t i o n of t a s k and reward ambiguity items.

Organizational

commitment w a s measured u s i n g t h e P o r t e r and Smith (Mowday e t a l . , 1979) instrument.

D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s and r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r t h e s e scales are

p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 4.

----I n s e r t Unfortunately,

F i g u r e 4 here----

no s t a n d a r d i z e d measures of t h e t e c h n o l o g y and DP

environemnt were a v a i l a b l e .

I n most c a s e s however, i t was p o s s i b l e t o simply

a s k t h e s u b j e c t what c a t e g o r y h e / s h e belonged t o ( e . g . ,

do you r e p o r t t o a

p r o j e c t l e a d e r ? does your department u s e p r o j e c t teams?) o r t o what e x t e n t t h e y used a p a r t i c u l a r technology ( r a t e d on a 5-point s c a l e ) .

I n many cases

r e s p o n d e n t s were asked t o l i s t t h e t o o l s o r l a n g u a g e s t h e y used and t h e


DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AGE -

RANGE

NUMBER

PERCENT

GENDER 92

Female

40%

Male YEARS EXPERIENCE I N DATA PROCESSING Mean

6.1 y e a r s

Minimum

1.0 y e a r s

Maximum

27 years

S.D.

4.5 y e a r s YEARS \.TITP, COMPMTY

Mean

4.332 y e a r s

Minimum

1.0 years

Maximum

25.0 years

S.D.

4.9 years EDUCATION

High School Degree

6

3%

Technical School Experience

8

4%

Some College

37

16%

College Degree

99

43%

Some Graduate Work

35

152

44 229

100%

Master's o r Higher Degree -\

19X

Figure 3




p e r c e n t of t i m e t h e y used them. percentage

of

their

S u b j e c t s were a l s o a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e what

time was s p e n t i n enhancement, development, and

m a i n t e n a n c e work. While w e h a v e no r e l i a b i l i t y d a t a f o r t h e s e v a r i a b l e s and must depend s t r o n g l y on t h e f a c e v a l i d i t y of t h e s e m e a s u r e s , i t was p o s s i b l e t o p r o v i d e some e v i d e n c e f o r t h e v a l i d i t y of a number of them by b u i l d i n g a n o m o l o g i c a l network ( B a g o z z i , 1980).

Nomological v a l i d i t y i s d e m o n s t r a t e d by showing t h a t

t h e s p e c i f i c c o n s t r u c t relates as e x p e c t e d t o a w i d e r t h e o r e t i c a l scheme.

For

example, i t was e x p e c t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s u s i n g f o u r t h g e n e r a t i o n l a n g u a g e s would be i n v o l v e d i n enhancement and development work and n o t i n m a i n t e n a n c e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t was e x p e c t e d t h a t p e o p l e u s i n g f o u r t h g e n e r a t i o n l a n g u a g e s would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p r o j e c t s t h e y worked i n were s t a t e of t h e a r t and innovative.

I n f a c t , p e r c e n t a g e of t i m e s p e n t i n enhancement and development

work d i d i n d e e d c o r r e l a t e p o s i t i v e l y w i t h 4GL w h i l e p e r c e n t a g e of t i m e s p e n t i n m a i n t e n a n c e work c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y .

The s u b j e c t s r a t i n g s of how

i n n o v a t i v e t h e i r p r o j e c t s were a l s o c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h u s e of 4GL. I n n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t s c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h t i m e s p e n t i n enhancement and development and c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y w i t h p e r c e n t o f time s p e n t i n maintenance

as w a s e x p e c t e d .

The u s e of s t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n t o o l s h a d ,

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o u r e x p e c t a t i o n s , a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h enhancement a n d development work and a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h m a i n t e n a n c e work.

Structured

programming, l i k e w i s e , c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h enhancement b u t d i d n o t c o r r e l a t e w i t h m a i n t e n a n c e work.



While t h e f i n a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n of v a l i d i t y i s a complex and t i m e consuming t h e above d a t a p r o v i d e some e v i d e n c e f o r t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e

process, measures.

IV.3.

Testing

C o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s and a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e were u s e d t o t e s t t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s w a s u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e o v e r a l l amount of v a r i a n c e a c c o u n t e d f o r i n t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s .

a p r i o r i p r e d i c t i o n s of d i r e c t i o n a l i t y c o u l d b e made, o n e - t a i l e d Where O t h e r w i s e , a l l t e s t i n g of s i g n i f i c a n c e w a s

s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t i n g w a s used. two-tailed.

V.

Results I n t h i s s e c t i o n , b a s i c r e s u l t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e 15 r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s

discussed

above

are p r e s e n t e d .

The r e l a t i o n s h i p between e a c h of t h e

t e c h n o l o g i c a l environment f a c t o r s and s a t i s f a c t i o n , commitment, r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e a m b i g u i t y was examined. relationships

were examined.

Where it seemed r e l e v a n t , s p e c i f i c o t h e r

I n t h e d i s c u s s i o n which f o l l o w s , u n l e s s

o t h e r w i s e s t a t e d , t e s t s of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h s a t i s f a c t i o n i n c l u d e s e p a r a t e

t e s t s of g e n e r a l j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e work i t s e l f . D i s c u s s i o n of t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e s e r e s u l t s i s d e f e r r e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g section.


Results

V.1.

Impact of development methodologies

The r e s u l t s of t h e i n q u i r i e s i n t o Q u e s t i o n s 1, 2 , and 3 a r e summarized i n F i g u r e 5.

N e i t h e r t h e use of s t r u c t u r e d programming nor s t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n

methods was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o s a t i s f a c t i o n o r commitment.

The u s e of

s t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o r o l e c o n f l i c t , c o n t r a r y t o expectations; i.e.,

people who used s t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n methods e x p e r i e n c e d more

r o l e c o n f l i c t t h a n d i d t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s who d i d n o t u s e t h e s e methods.

Use

of s t r u c t u r e d programming r e s u l t e d i n lower r o l e a m b i g u i t y , as p r e d i c t e d .

The

e x t e n t of u s e of 4 t h g e n e r a t i o n l a n g u a g e s was u n r e l a t e d t o commitment, c o n f l i c t , o r ambiguity.

It w a s , however, p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o g e n e r a l j o b

satisfaction.

Impact of Development Methodologies Satisfaction

Commitment

Role Conflict

Role Ambiguity

1. S t r u c t u r e d d e s i g n

NS

NS

.I28 (p=.03)*

NS

2. S t r u c t u r e d programming

NS

NS

NS

3. 4 t h g e n e r a t i o n language

.I76 (p=.012)

NS

NS

-------

*

-------

--------

---------

-.

106 (p=.057)* NS

one-tailed test F i g u r e 5.


Results

V.2.

I m p a c t of t h e hardware environment

I n g e n e r a l , t h e v a r i a t i o n i n hardware environments a c r o s s r e s p o n d e n t s w a s t o o s m a l l t o a l l o w a meaningful t e s t of t h e s e q u e s t i o n s .

Only 9 of 229

r e s p o n d e n t s worked i n a b a t c h environment, and only 39 used any computer o t h e r t h a n a mainframe. V.3.

Impact of p r o j e c t teams and r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s

Only t e n i n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t e d working i n d a t a p r o c e s s i n g groups which d i d n o t u s e p r o j e c t teams.

Thus, r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n 6 could n o t b e t e s t e d .

The method of a s s i g n i n g i n d i v i d u a l s t o p r o j e c t teams had a n impact on t h r e e of t h e f o u r dependent v a r i a b l e s ; only c o n f l i c t was n o t r e l a t e d t o t h e method of team assignment o r r o t a t i o n .

I n d i v i d u a l s who r o t a t e d t o teams w i t h

d i f f e r e n t members (n=126) had t h e h i g h e s t s a t i s f a c t i o n , f o l l o w e d by t h o s e who always worked w i t h t h e same team members (n=43), followed by t h o s e who d i d n e i t h e r ( n = l l ) (e.g.,

t h e y were n o t a s s i g n e d t o p r o j e c t teams, though t h e i r

o r g a n i z a t i o n used teams).

The mean j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n s c o r e s f o r t h e s e t h r e e

groups were 145.40, 138.47, and 119.00, r e s p e c t i v e l y ( F s i g n i f i c a n t a t .016). O r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment was n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l f o r t h o s e who r o t a t e from team t o team and t h o s e who were permanently a s s i g n e d t o a team (mean commitment s c o r e s of

-

99.77 and

-

100.74, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) ; however, t h o s e who d i d n e i t h e r

showed s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower commitment (mean s c o r e of -121.00, .102).

F significant a t

F i n a l l y , as p r e d i c t e d , t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s who were permanently a s s i g n e d

t o a p r o j e c t team r e p o r t e d l e s s ambiguity t h a n t h o s e who r o t a t e d o r d i d n e i t h e r (means of -31.67,

-29.97,

and -28.13,

repectively; F significant at

.037).


Results

Whom

a n i n d i v i d u a l r e p o r t e d t o was found t o i m p a c t s a t i s f a c t i o n ,

commitment and c o n f l i c t , b u t n o t ambiguity.

Reporting t o a p r o j e c t l e a d e r

r e s u l t e d i n l o w e r o v e r a l l .job s a t i s f a c t i o n (mean s c o r e of 138.80 v s . p=.087), lower s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h s u p e r v i s i o n (mean of 40.3 v s .

146.65, p=.103),

42.8,

and l e s s r o l e c o n f l i c t (mean of 30.2 vs. 32.5, p=.027 o n e - t a i l e d t e s t ) when compared t o a l l o t h e r r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

Those r e p o r t i n g t o a p r o j e c t

l e a d e r a l s o had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment (mean of v s . -47.19,

F s i g n i f i c a n t a t ,004).

-

53.54

Individuals reporting t o a functional

manager i n t h e DP/IS department had t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment (mean of -47.81

vs. -52.69,

F s i g n i f i c a n t a t .035).

Having m u l t i p l e r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s was found t o be u n r e l a t e d t o r o l e c o n f l i c t , r o l e a m b i g u i t y , commitment t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , and s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e j o b , t h e work i t s e l f , o r s u p e r v i s i o n .

The r e s u l t s f o r Research

Q u e s t i o n s 6 through 9 are summarized i n F i g u r e 6.


Results

I m p a c t s of P r o j e c t Teams and R e p o r t i n g R e l a t i o n s h i p s Satisfaction

Commitment

-----------

6. Use of p r o j e c t teams

Role Conflict

not t e s t e d

Role Ambiguity

-----------

7. Team a s s i g n m e n t s

see text

see text

NS

8. Report t o p r o j e c t leader

-

-

-

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

9. M u l t i p l e r e p o r t i n g relationships

see text

F i g u r e 6.

V.4.

Impact of work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

N e i t h e r t h e number of p r o j e c t s worked on s i m u l t a n e o u s l y nor t h e s i z e of p r o j e c t teams was r e l a t e d t o any of t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s .

Project duration

was n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e work i t s e l f , as p r e d i c t e d , b u t was u n r e l a t e d t o commitment, ambiguity o r c o n f l i c t . The

hypothesized

r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s a t i s f a c t i o n and p r o j e c t

i n n o v a t i v e n e s s , t i m e s p e n t i n maintenance, and t i m e s p e n t i n development were a l l found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t .

The s t r o n g e s t of t h e s e were between p r o j e c t

i n n o v a t i v e n e s s and s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e work i t s e l f (r=.485) and g e n e r a l job s a t i s f a c t i o n (r=.504).

P e r c e n t of t i m e s p e n t i n development and enhancement

was a l s o p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o b o t h s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e work (r=.196) and general

job

satisfaction

(r=.176).

The p e r c e n t of t i m e s p e n t doing

maintenance was n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o work s a t i s f a c t i o n , b u t n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y


Results

r e l a t e d t o g e n e r a l job s a t i s f a c t i o n .

The p e r c e n t of t i m e s p e n t i n development

and enhancement and t h e p e r c e n t of time s p e n t i n maintenance were u n r e l a t e d t o any of t h e o t h e r t h r e e dependent v a r i a b l e s .

P r o j e c t i n n o v a t i v e n e s s , however,

was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h e r commitment.and lower r o l e ambiguity.

Figure 7

summarizes t h e r e s u l t s f o r Research Q u e s t i o n s 10-15.

Impacts of Work C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Satisfaction

Commitment

10. No. of s i m u l t a n e o u s projects

NS

NS

NS

NS

11. S i z e of team

NS

NS

NS

NS

12. P r o j e c t d u r a t i o n

-.I23 ( p=. 053)*

NS

NS

NS

13. I n n o v a t i v e n e s s

-485 .466 (p