Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
One interesting problem arising from Kling and Iacono's pioneering work on computerization movements (CMs) is the question of empirically determining a movement's success or failure. This article questions the question and argues that it is based on two assumptions that upon closer examination seem problematic. The first is that Kling and Iaconco's concept of a CM is sufficient to cover the range of CMs. Their approach to CMs is explicated, pointing out three ways in which it is limited, concluding that it should be reconceptualized. The second is that CMs are similar enough so that a single set of criteria is sufficient to judge the success or failure of any given CM. Using a heuristic analysis to examine a set of 41 CMs, a typology is introduced demonstrating that there are important differences among CMs. The article concludes that since a single set of criteria is no longer appropriate, different sets of criteria are needed to evaluate the success or failure of different types of CMs. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2008 | 10.1080/01972240802191605 | Inf. Soc. |
Keywords | DocType | Volume |
interesting problem,heuristic analysis,article question,computerization movement,computerization movements,different set,single set,pioneering work,closer examination,different type,important difference,typology,difference set | Journal | 24 |
Issue | ISSN | Citations |
4 | 0197-2243 | 4 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.42 | 7 | 2 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Noriko Hara | 1 | 449 | 40.32 |
| Howard Rosenbaum | 2 | 48 | 7.43 |