IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v17y2006i3p228-246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reconceptualizing System Usage: An Approach and Empirical Test

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Burton-Jones

    (Management Information Systems Division, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, 2053 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T 1Z2 Canada)

  • Detmar W. Straub

    (Department of Computer Information Systems, J. Mack Robinson College of Business Administration, Georgia State University, Box 4015, Atlanta, Georgia 30302)

Abstract

Although DeLone, McLean, and others insist that system usage is a key variable in information systems research, the system usage construct has received little theoretical scrutiny, boasts no widely accepted definition, and has been operationalized by a diverse set of unsystematized measures. In this article, we present a systematic approach for reconceptualizing the system usage construct in particular nomological contexts. Comprising two stages, definition and selection, the approach enables researchers to develop clear and valid measures of system usage for a given theoretical and substantive context. The definition stage requires that researchers define system usage and explicate its underlying assumptions. In the selection stage, we suggest that system usage be conceptualized in terms of its structure and function. The structure of system usage is tripartite, comprising a user, system, and task, and researchers need to justify which elements of usage are most relevant for their study. In terms of function, researchers should choose measures for each element (i.e., user, system, and/or task) that tie closely to the other constructs in the researcher's nomological network.To provide evidence of the viability of the approach, we undertook an empirical investigation of the relationship between system usage and short-run task performance in cognitively engaging tasks. The results support the benefits of the approach and show how an inappropriate choice of usage measures can lead researchers to draw opposite conclusions in an empirical study. Together, the approach and the results of the empirical investigation suggest new directions for research into the nature of system usage, its antecedents, and its consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Burton-Jones & Detmar W. Straub, 2006. "Reconceptualizing System Usage: An Approach and Empirical Test," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 228-246, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:17:y:2006:i:3:p:228-246
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1060.0096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0096
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1060.0096?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Detmar Straub & Moez Limayem & Elena Karahanna-Evaristo, 1995. "Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(8), pages 1328-1342, August.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Jon Hartwick & Henri Barki, 1994. "Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 440-465, April.
    4. Maryam Alavi & John C. Henderson, 1981. "An Evolutionary Strategy for Implementing a Decision Support System," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(11), pages 1309-1323, November.
    5. Gerardine DeSanctis & Marshall Scott Poole, 1994. "Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 121-147, May.
    6. Allen S. Lee & Richard L. Baskerville, 2003. "Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 221-243, September.
    7. Calder, Bobby J & Phillips, Lynn W & Tybout, Alice M, 1981. "Designing Research for Application," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(2), pages 197-207, September.
    8. William H. DeLone & Ephraim R. McLean, 1992. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 60-95, March.
    9. Terri L. Griffith & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1994. "Distinguishing Between the Forest and the Trees: Media, Features, and Methodology in Electronic Communication Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 272-285, May.
    10. Jarvis, Cheryl Burke & MacKenzie, Scott B & Podsakoff, Philip M, 2003. "A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(2), pages 199-218, September.
    11. Nancy Paule Melone, 1990. "A Theoretical Assessment of the User-Satisfaction Construct in Information Systems Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 76-91, January.
    12. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    13. Peter B. Seddon, 1997. "A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 240-253, September.
    14. Daniel Robey, 1996. "Research Commentary: Diversity in Information Systems Research: Threat, Promise, and Responsibility," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 400-408, December.
    15. Michael J. Ginzberg, 1981. "Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure: Promising Results and Unanswered Questions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 459-478, April.
    16. Sarv Devaraj & Rajiv Kohli, 2003. "Performance Impacts of Information Technology: Is Actual Usage the Missing Link?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 273-289, March.
    17. Wynne W. Chin & Barbara L. Marcolin & Peter R. Newsted, 2003. "A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 189-217, June.
    18. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    19. Wynne W. Chin & Peter R. Newsted, 1995. "Research Report ---The Importance of Specification in Causal Modeling: The Case of End-User Computing Satisfaction," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 73-81, March.
    20. Wynne W. Chin & Abhijit Gopal & W. David Salisbury, 1997. "Advancing the Theory of Adaptive Structuration: The Development of a Scale to Measure Faithfulness of Appropriation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 342-367, December.
    21. Dale L. Goodhue, 1995. "Understanding User Evaluations of Information Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(12), pages 1827-1844, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henri Barki & Ryad Titah & Céline Boffo, 2007. "Information System Use--Related Activity: An Expanded Behavioral Conceptualization of Individual-Level Information System Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 173-192, June.
    2. Rajiv D. Banker & Robert J. Kauffman, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: The Evolution of Research on Information Systems: A Fiftieth-Year Survey of the Literature in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 281-298, March.
    3. Kwahk, Kee-Young & Ahn, Hyunchul & Ryu, Young U., 2018. "Understanding mandatory IS use behavior: How outcome expectations affect conative IS use," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 64-76.
    4. Hou, Chung-Kuang, 2012. "Examining the effect of user satisfaction on system usage and individual performance with business intelligence systems: An empirical study of Taiwan's electronics industry," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 560-573.
    5. Barbara H. Wixom & Peter A. Todd, 2005. "A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 85-102, March.
    6. Peng, Zeyu & Sun, Yongqiang & Guo, Xitong, 2018. "Antecedents of employees’ extended use of enterprise systems: An integrative view of person, environment, and technology," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 104-120.
    7. Andrew Burton-Jones & Camille Grange, 2013. "From Use to Effective Use: A Representation Theory Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 632-658, September.
    8. Brown, Susan A. & Venkatesh, Viswanath & Kuruzovich, Jason & Massey, Anne P., 2008. "Expectation confirmation: An examination of three competing models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 52-66, January.
    9. Yajiong Xue & Huigang Liang & Liansheng Wu, 2011. "Punishment, Justice, and Compliance in Mandatory IT Settings," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 400-414, June.
    10. Sun, Jonghak & Teng, James T.C., 2017. "The construct of information systems use benefits: Theoretical explication of its underlying dimensions and the development of a measurement scale," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 400-416.
    11. Wen-Lung Shiau & Yogesh K. Dwivedi, 2013. "Citation and co-citation analysis to identify core and emerging knowledge in electronic commerce research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1317-1337, March.
    12. Kim, Hyo-Jeong & Mannino, Michael & Nieschwietz, Robert J., 2009. "Information technology acceptance in the internal audit profession: Impact of technology features and complexity," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 214-228.
    13. Kuo-Yu Huang & Yea-Ru Chuang, 2016. "A task–technology fit view of job search website impact on performance effects: An empirical analysis from Taiwan," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1253943-125, December.
    14. J. J. Po-An Hsieh & Arun Rai & Sean Xin Xu, 2011. "Extracting Business Value from IT: A Sensemaking Perspective of Post-Adoptive Use," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 2018-2039, November.
    15. Tsung Teng Chen, 2012. "The development and empirical study of a literature review aiding system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 105-116, July.
    16. Abdesamad Zouine & Pierre Fenies, 2014. "The Critical Success Factors Of The ERP System Project: A Meta-Analysis Methodology," Post-Print hal-01419785, HAL.
    17. Sarv Devaraj & Robert F. Easley & J. Michael Crant, 2008. "Research Note ---How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 93-105, March.
    18. Riffat Ara Zannat Tama & Md Mahmudul Hoque & Ying Liu & Mohammad Jahangir Alam & Mark Yu, 2023. "An Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to Examining Farmers’ Behavioral Attitude and Intention towards Conservation Agriculture in Bangladesh," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-22, February.
    19. Xu, Jinying & Lu, Weisheng, 2022. "Developing a human-organization-technology fit model for information technology adoption in organizations," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    20. Gelderman, Maarten, 1997. "Task difficulty, task variability and satisfaction with management support systems: consequences and solutions ˜," Serie Research Memoranda 0053, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:17:y:2006:i:3:p:228-246. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.