Categories of EUADers

motivated (satisfied, affected) in using computers the more they also search new possibilities to apply the technology as EUADers using the DD pattern of adoption.

use the DD pattern of adoption by actively looking for application areas to create. Their motivation is basically intrinsic because they are interested in programming and information technology as a whole. This group of EUADers focuses on the application development itself and not so much on the work they are doing. This perhaps explains our finding that they develop applications for others, too.

Flensburg (1986) points out the final intention of the end-user. The concept of 'intention' works in a similar way as the concept of 'motivation' of our study. The issue of tools can be interpreted in the light of intentions of the actions made by the end-user.

The real aims of the actions should be the subject of interest and not the tools used.

According to him, the tools are not the subjects of choice but they mediate the actions of the end users. For instance, the 'Power Users' choose office tools because they suit best their intentions to get their tasks done and 'End-User Programmers' choose program- ming languages because they can enjoy programming and develop all kinds of applications for others. In this sense, the tools have no contribution on what the users are aiming at in their work.

The second classification relates to a more holistic interpretation about the role of technology for the end-user. The EUAD activity plays different roles depending on the person and his work context. The role of the EUAD works differently with persons in relation to their status in the working community. We found four roles for the EUAD. In each of the roles, the EUAD is significant, but in a different way.

The first group, (i) the inventors are EUADers for whom the EUAD activity has become a part of their work and hobby. They follow the DD pattern of motivation and like to develop applications for others, too. These people are technically oriented and have also had computer related hobbies in childhood. The second group, (ii) the Utilitarian Users, use the EUAD just as a tool. They want to alleviate their work by automating routines.

These people are mostly business oriented and use the computers mostly for accounting.

The third group, (iii) the work enrichers, consists of people who want to make the work more interesting by applying new 'trendy' tools. They also have some 'playfulness' at their work. Finally, (iv) the opportunity seekers are people for whom the EUAD gives a chance to gain significant advance in his or her position in the working community. They usually take the EUAD activity seriously and are ready to work for it.

In the earlier studies the users are mainly categorised based on the types of tools used or on their organisational tasks. McLean (1979) found three types of users: DP Professionals, DP amateurs, and non-DP trained users. Rockard and Flannery (1983) cate- gorised the users into six groups (see sub-Section 2.1): non-programming end-users, command-level users, end-user programmers, functional support personnel, end-user computing support personnel, and DP-professionals. Rivard and Huff (1985) found three

categories: Micro DP Department Users, Staff Analysts, and Opportunity Seekers.

McLean’s and Rockard and Flannery’s studies covered the whole area of users. Rivard and Huff ’s study covered only those users who also developed applications including persons who did it as part of their duty. The EUADers in our study covered only voluntary users who also developed applications. In our study, the EUAD had a special, personal motivation to start the EUAD activity. We eliminated those individuals who did not develop applications or who developed applications as part of their organisational duty. The persons of our data covered only the 'DP amateurs' in McLean's, and the 'end- user programmers' in Rockard and Flannery's study.

The categories found by Rivard and Huff are closer to our findings. Our categories cover the 'Staff Analysts' and 'Opportunity Seekers' of their study. Rivard and Huff ’s 'Micro DP Department Users' includes users "who respond to requests from other users". They were in principle not included in our study because they develop applications as their formal duty. However we have to notice that the job among some of our EUADers changed towards a direction that the job finally resembled the description of 'Micro DP Department Users'.

The Staff Analysts consist of users "who perform studies that are used by other managers to control, plan or make decisions". "They develop applications that they themselves use to solve problems". This group resembles our Utilitarian Users. They use computers for the same type of tasks. The Utilitarian Users in our study were both using the computers for business planning and financial analysis.

The second type of Rivard and Huff: "Opportunity Seekers" consist of persons "who have considerable expertise in their own function and who often work in a managerial capacity such as a supervisor or a budget director… They are more independent, more creative and proactive". "They also actively identify problems. They are 'rising managers' who view computer related skills as a job asset providing a relative advantage in their work". These people correspond quite closely to the people in our category with the same name. Our Opportunity Seekers differ in their organisational status. The persons in our study did not (yet) work in managerial capacity in areas of the 'complex analysis of data'.

They were more technically oriented people who developed mainly transaction processing systems or database systems for organisational use. The future professional career of Opportunity Seekers of our study shows that they more likely wanted to do real IT tasks than become managers in their own area.

Generally there are still some differences between our and Rivard and Huff categories. The categorization of Rivard and Huff, as well as McLean, and Rockard and Flannery described above are mainly based on the characteristics of the job and the types of applications and tools used. The commonly used method was survey. Rivard and Huff

also conducted personal interviews to explore the entire concept of the EUA. None of the earlier studies has stressed the personal motivation as we did in our study. We tried to find out the intentions of the end-user and what he or she is aiming at. This being the case, the fundamental classification criterion in our study is the intention of the EUADer and how the EUAD activity in his or her work context can help him or her to fulfil that intention. In other words, our main criterion of classification is the motivation of the EUADer and not what he or she is actually doing. Therefore, it is difficult to compare our categories to the ones in IS literature. The same person with the same job characteristics who is categorised as Staff Analysts in Rivard and Huff ’s study can be an Inventor, Utilitarian User, Work Enricher or Opportunity Seeker depending on his or her personal motivation to develop applications. If he or she is intrinsically interested in computers and just likes to try all new things in his/her workplace, he or she is categorized as an Inventor. If he or she just wants to perform his or her actual task more efficiently, he or she is a Utilitarian User.