Year 2000: A Reality Check

The paper examines the risks, cost, size, implications, and likely outcomes of the Year 2000 or Y2K Problem, as well as the lessons learned, opportunities, and silver linings of Y2K projects. The MIS academic community has largely missed a unique opportunity to be relevant to practitioners as well as our communities. Fortunately, it is not too late since knowledgeable and rational voices are needed to help communities, and the people and enterprises in them, intelligently deal with the challenges of Y2K. Strangely, in spite of billions of bytes of data about year 2000 problem appearing each week, we still know surprisingly little about the reality of the Y2K risks we face. And there is little chance that a complete assessment of even the greatest risks faced by our enterprises and communities can be made, let alone repairs completed. Then there are the global risks of Y2K, and the thorny fact that most Y2K risks are beyond our direct control anyway. So what can ethical, conscientious, and concerned MIS professionals do about this situation? How can we help our communities reduce risks, appropriately plan for contingencies, and quickly manage failures? With only a few months to go, this may be the last chance we have to be relevant, enhance our collective credibility, and genuinely help improve IS practices

The Year 2000 Problem: An Ethical View

After years of avoidance, many organizations are struggling to make their computer systems year 2000 compliant. There is little question thatmeeting the year 2000 challenge is important from a business perspective since the survival of organizations may depend on it. However, a second, more neglected concern is whether system developers and their organizations have an ethical obligation to address the year 2000 problem. This paper examines three codes of ethics for information systems professionals to draw conclusions about this issue

Electronic Data Interchange: Guidelines for Development, Implementation, & Use

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)provides new and expanded methods for communications between business partners. EDI is the inter-organizational transmission of business transactions in a standard format. With EDI, companies can bypass the traditional methods of sending physical documents, and instead send electronic ones. EDI is a form of communication that promises increased productivity. The original aims of EDI were to reduce cycle time and replace paper with electronically transmitted documents between trading partners (Figure 1). But, the contribution of EDI to business has grown beyond the goals of paperless high-speed communications. EDI is transforming entire industries. ATM networks and electronic-funds-transfer systems have altered the way we bank and trade securities. Now EDI is changing the face of retailing, supplier/customer relations, international trade, and many other areas. EDI represents an opportunity to directly improve business processes and business controls. Traditionally, organizations have used paper forms such as acknowledgements, orders, inquiries, checks, and the like to exchange information. But large volumes of paper-based exchanges created problems because they are slow and require extensive human handling. Many organizations have realized the importance offinding a more expedient way to communicate and process business data. There were 21,000 registered EDI users in 1991. In 1993, Data Interchange Standards Association, Inc. (DISA) reported that 37,000 companies were using EDI in the USA. Internationally,Singapore and Hong Kong both regard EDI as an important source of competitive advantage in trade. Australian Custom Service also uses EDI to communicate with European countries. Technically, there are few barriers to implementing EDI. The implementation of EDI is more a management problem; because, to really do it properly requires a complete rethinking of organizational structure, processes, procedures, and methods of doing business. This paper identifies several important issues associated with EDI development, implementation, and use. These factors, which include EDI technical considerations and implementation strategies, can serve as guidelines for organizations contemplating the use of EDI

THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF USER PARTICIPATION AND USER INVOLVEMENT IN INFORMATION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS

Consistent with the conceptualizations of participation and involvement in psychology, organizational behavior, consumer behavior, and other disciplines, this paper redefines the participation construct to distinguish its behavioral and psychological dimensions. \u27User participation is defined as the observable behavior of information system users in the information system development process; user involvement as a need-based attitude or psychological state of users with regard to that process and to the resultant information system; and user engagement as the set of user behaviors and attitudes toward information systems and their development. A field study was conducted in a $40 billion interstate bank during the installation and conversion of an information system. A questionnaire was developed, pre-tested, and validated for internal consistency, temporal stability, factorial validity, and multicollinearity. Path analysis was used for theorytesting (i.e., model comparison). There was strong empirical evidence to support: (1) that user involvement is something distinct from, although associated with, user participation; (2) that this psychological state of user involvement may be more important than user participation in understanding information system success; (3) that the behavioral-attitudinal theory of information system success (i.e., that participation causes involvement which mediates the participation-success relationship) is superior to the behavioral theory (i.e., participation causes success); and (4) that user engagement during the installation phase is strongly associated with user satisfaction

Electronic Data Interchange- Key to Electronic Commerce: Guidelines for Development, Implementation, and Use

Leon A. Kappelman is an Assistant Professor of Business Computer lntormation Systems in the College of Business Administration at the University of North Texas. Thomas C. Richard is Professor of Business Computer lnformation Systems in the College of Business Administration at the University of North Texas. Barry L. Myers is a Research Associate in the lnterdisciplinary lnformation System, Doctoral Program at the University of North Texas. Ray J. Tsai is Professor ol Business Computer lntormation Systems in the College of Business Administration at St. Cloud State University