Expert Systems Usage: Task Change and Intrinsic Motivation

Gill, T. Grandon

doi:10.2307/249658

Cited by 85 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A particularly interesting subset of the definitions propose that task complexity can, itself, be defined in terms of the amount of knowledge required to perform the task (e.g., Ackerman, 1992;Gill, 1996) or in terms of qualitative characteristics of the strategies available for performing the task (e.g., number of paths ;Campbell, 1988). While these types of definitions (definitions 5-7) do not appear with great frequency in the administrative behavioral literature, they are central to attempts to quantify the complexity of software.…”

Section: Does the Definition Directly Relate The Complexity Of A Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The distinction between overall task complexity and individual task case complexity has been made, for example, in examining complexity changes brought about by the adoption of expert systems (Gill, 1996).…”

Section: Does the Definition Treat Task Complexity As A Construct Thamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where a task performer must perform a stream of task cases, the technology-performer pairing can impact the mix of task cases performed. An example of such a task-mix change can be found in the case of the Authorizer's Assistant expert system, used to authorize American Express card charges (Gill, 1996). The system reduced the IP requirements associated with any given authorization (e.g., by accessing appropriate databases on different computers and presenting them in a single organized summary to the human authorizer, along with an accept/deny recommendation).…”

Section: Task Complexity and External Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The introduction of search engines, as another example, dramatically reduced the amount of knowledge required to conduct an effective search of the Internet. In the adoption of expert systems, both increasing and decreasing knowledge requirements resulting from system adoption have been observed (Gill, 1996).…”

Section: Task Complexity and External Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With few exceptions (e.g., Handzic, 2001), most of the research in the area has been situated in the field of management information systems (MIS). Even there, its use has been limited to a rapidly growing a number of studies that have used the construct as an independent variable (e.g., Barki, Rivard, & Talbot, 1993;Blili, Raymond, & Rivard, 1998;Bolt, et al, 2003;Fisher, et al, 2003;Gill, 1996;Jacko & Salvendi, 1996;Kishore, Agrawal, & Rao, 2004;Liao & Palvia, 2000;Mascha, 2001;Mykytyn & Green, 1992;Roberts, Cheney, Sweeney, & Hightower, 2004;Speier & Morris, 2003;Swink & Speier, 1999;) in the prediction of some other outcome. There are also examples of research that employ MIS-related tasks as part of general investigations of the construct (e.g., Campbell & Gingrich, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Task Complexity and Informing Science: A Synthesis

Gill

Hicks²

2006

InSITE Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Task complexity is a construct widely used in the behavioral sciences to explore and predict the relationship between task characteristics and information processing. Because the creation and use of IT in the performance of tasks is a central area of informing science (IS) research, it follows that better understanding of task complexity should be of great potential benefit to IS researchers and practitioners. Unfortunately, applying task complexity to IS is difficult because no complete, consistent definition exists. Furthermore, the most commonly adopted definition, objective task complexity, tends to be of limited use in situations where discretion or learning is present, or where information technology (IT) is available to assist the task performer. These limitations prove to be severe in many common IS situations.The paper presents a literature review identifying thirteen distinct definitions of task complexity, then synthesizes these into a new five-class framework, referred to as the Comprehensive Task Complexity Classes (CTCC). It then shows the potential relevance of the CTCC to IS, focusing on different ways it could be applied throughout a hypothetical information systems lifecycle. In the course of doing so, the paper also illustrates how the interaction between different classes of task complexity can serve as a rich source of questions for future investigations.

show abstract

Section: Does the Definition Directly Relate The Complexity Of A Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Does the Definition Treat Task Complexity As A Construct Thamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Task Complexity and External Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Task Complexity and External Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Task Complexity and Informing Science: A Synthesis

Gill

Hicks²

2006

InSITE Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: A two-factor model for website design and evaluation

Ping¹,

Dran²

2000

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

350

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proliferating Web‐user interface studies prompt a need for theoretical approaches. This study presents a two‐factor model that can guide Website design and evaluation. According to the model, there are two types of Website design factors: hygiene and motivator. Hygiene factors are those whose presence make a Website functional and serviceable, and whose absence causes user dissatisfaction (thus dissatisfiers). Motivator factors, on the other hand, are those that add value to the Website by contributing to user satisfaction (thus satisfiers). An empirical study is conducted in two phases. In Phase I, 44 core features and 12 categories of features were identified by a total of 76 subjects as Web design factors. In Phase II, 79 different subjects distinguished hygiene and motivator factors in the context of a particular Website (http://www.CNN.com). The results showed that the two‐factor model provides a means for Web‐user interface studies. In addition, Subjects in Phase II commented that, as time passes or familiarity increases with certain design factors, their identification of what are hygiene and motivator factors might change, promoting further investigation and possible expansion of the model. Suggestions for Website designs and evaluation, and further research directions are provided.

show abstract