A Review of Potential Motivational Factors Behind End-User Programming

A Review of Potential Motivational Factors Behind End-User Programming

Abdullah Azzouni (Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA) and Christopher Scaffidi (Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA)
Copyright: © 2018 |Pages: 20
DOI: 10.4018/IJEUCD.2018010101
OnDemand PDF Download:
No Current Special Offers


End-user programming, which consists of people writing programs for their own use, has the potential to provide diverse benefits both personally and professionally. Yet, while studies indicate over 70 million American workers use spreadsheets or do other programming at least monthly, hundreds of millions do not. To identify opportunities for motivating broader and deeper levels of end-user programming, this article reviews existing literature on what factors drive adoption of end-user programming. A total of 15 factors were identified as potential motivations. Viewing these results through the lens of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs suggests opportunities for future research.
Article Preview

2. Background

Adoption of any innovation, such as end-user programming, normally consists of a series of stages: knowledge of the innovation, persuasion to consider it, decision to try it, implementation of that evaluation, and confirmation to continue (Rogers, 2010). At each stage, a potential user could choose to move forward or to remain, in response to whatever incentives are perceived to be offered by use of the innovation. Not all users choose to move forward.

Motivations play the key role in determining this choice. “Motives are modifiers of incentives—this is, if the incentive value of a given consequence is of a certain absolute strength, it will be more attractive to a person with a high motive for that consequence, and less attractive to a person with low motive for that consequence” (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981).

Such motivations stand in contrast to barriers that inhibit the use of an innovation. The current paper does not examine the barriers that inhibit end-user programming primarily because many barriers arise from the nature of the programming tools, whose relative strengths and weaknesses have already been reviewed and discussed at length (Ko, et al., 2011) (Lieberman, Paterno, Klann, & Wulf, 2006).

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Open Access Articles
Volume 8: 2 Issues (2019)
Volume 7: 2 Issues (2018)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing