1 / 34

Reconceptualizing System Usage

Reconceptualizing System Usage . Andrew Burton-Jones University of British Columbia Detmar Straub. J. Mack Robinson College of Business Georgia State University. Agenda . Research Questions Research Framework Motivation Theoretical Approach Empirical Investigation

amy
Download Presentation

Reconceptualizing System Usage

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reconceptualizing System Usage Andrew Burton-Jones University of British Columbia Detmar Straub J. Mack Robinson College of Business Georgia State University

  2. Agenda • Research Questions • Research Framework • Motivation • Theoretical Approach • Empirical Investigation • Contributions

  3. Research Questions • What is system usage? • How should it be conceptualized and measured?

  4. Research Framework • What is system usage? • Critical realist assumptions (Cook and Campbell, 1979) Focus of this paper. Theoretical Context Cronbach & Meehl 1955 Focus of other papers. Meaning of the System Usage Construct Method of Measurement Campbell & Fiske 1959 Morgeson & Hofmann 1999 Level of Analysis Key: Arrows indicate influence, not causation

  5. Motivation • “…the effects of advanced technologies are less a function of the technologies themselves than of how they are used” (DeSanctis and Poole 1994) • “System usage is an example of a deceptively simple construct that needs to be looked at more carefully” (Zigurs 1993) • “…the problem to date has been a too simplistic definition of this complex variable” (DeLone and McLean 2003)

  6. Motivation • The Importance of System Usage

  7. Motivation • Plethora of usage measures • Lack of theory (exception: Trice and Treacy, 1986) • Lack of validation • Incomplete conceptualization

  8. 8 Motivation 1970’s-1980’s

  9. Motivation 1990-1995

  10. 10 Motivation 1996-2004

  11. Motivation • Problems: • Noaccepted definition of system usage • No accepted approach for selecting the relevant content of usage for a given study

  12. Theoretical Approach • Staged Approach: • Definition stage • Selection stage Construct space: Undefined Construct space: Defined Construct space: Defined & Selected

  13. Theoretical Approach • Staged Approach Definition Stage Define distinguishing characteristics of system usage and explicate assumptions regarding these characteristics. Selection Stage Choose the best measures for the part of the usage activity that is of interest. Step 1: Composition: Select the elements of usage that are most relevant for the research model and context. Step 2: Function: Select measures for the chosen elements that tie to the other constructs in the nomological network. Cronbach and Meehl, 1959

  14. Theoretical Approach • Definition Stage: • System Usage is an activity involving a user, IS, and task • Assumptions: • User: An individual person who can be studied in their own right. • IS: Provides representations of task domain(s). Offers features designed to support functions in those domains. • Task: A goal directed activity performed by the user. Outputs can be assessed in terms of pre-defined task requirements. • Definition of System Usage: An individual user’s employment of one or more features of a system to perform a task • Implication: System usage is distinct from information usage, habits, dependence, task-technology fit, appropriateness, IT adoption.

  15. Theoretical Approach • Selection Stage: • Step 1: Composition: Select the elements of usage that are most relevant for the research model and context.

  16. Theoretical Approach • Selection Stage (cont.): • Step 2: Function: Select measures for the chosen elements that tie to the other constructs in the nomological network. Usage X Construct A Construct B Usage Y Measures X-A Measures Y-B

  17. Empirical Investigation • Proposition: • If a researcher selects measures of system usage according to the staged approach, s/he will obtain more meaningful and persuasive results for the relationship between system usage and another construct than if s/he does not.

  18. Empirical Investigation • Context of Empirical Investigation: • Theoretical context: • System usage  short-run, individual task performance • Important relationship but mixed results • Calls for new measures (Chin and Marcolin, 2001) • Substantive Context: • Analysts’ use of spreadsheets for financial analysis. • Cognitively engaging • Important in practice: Panko, 1998; Carlsson, 1988

  19. Empirical Investigation • Proposition: • If a researcher selects measures of system usage according to the staged approach, s/he will obtain more meaningful and persuasive results for the relationship between system usage & another construct than if s/he does not. • Test: • Compare results for usageperformance when usage measured as: • Lean measure of usage: duration • Rich measure of user/IS during usage: cognitive absorption • Rich measure of task/IS during usage: deep structure usage • Very rich measure of user/task/IS during usage: exploitive usage (i.e., cognitive absorption and deep structure usage)

  20. Empirical Investigation • Definition Stage: • An individual user’s employment of one or more features of a system in a task • Selection Stage: • Step 1: Composition: User, system, and task all relevant • Step 2: Function: Map from performance to usage

  21. Empirical Investigation • Selection Stage (cont.): • Working backwards from individual performance to usage: • Individual task performance: • An assessment of task outputs in terms of effectiveness (i.e., the degree to which task outputs meet the task goals) Usage Perf.

  22. 22 Empirical Investigation • Selection Stage (cont.): • Working backwards from individual performance to usage (cont.) • System Usage: • Exploitive System Usage (March, 1991) Usage Perf. Cognitive Absorption Exploitive System Usage Deep Structure Usage + = The degree of cognitive resources a user applies when using the IS. The degree of use of features in the IS that are designed to support the task. The degree to which a user exploits features in an IS to perform a task.

  23. + System Usage Exploit Task Performance Short-run Cognitive Absorption Deep Structure Usage Empirical Investigation • Selection Stage (cont.): • Working backwards from individual performance to usage (cont.) • Research model: Usage Perf.

  24. Empirical Investigation • Experiment: • Task: • Financing asset purchase, 10% of students’ grade • Design: • Free simulation • Allowed exploitive use: subjects performed similar task 8 times • Subjects/Sample: • 229 students; 23% mortality; N = 171 clean responses • Procedure • Instructions (5 mins), task (90 mins), questionnaire (15 mins) • Pre-test and pilot-test

  25. Empirical Investigation • Instrumentation:

  26. Empirical Investigation • Results: • Descriptive Statistics

  27. Empirical Investigation • Results: • Construct Validity and Reliability

  28. Empirical Investigation • Results: • Discriminant Validity

  29. Empirical Investigation • Results: • Structural Models

  30. Empirical Investigation • Results: • The Impact of Errors of Omission

  31. Empirical Investigation • Sensitivity Tests: • Self-Report vs. Independent Measures

  32. Empirical Investigation • Sensitivity Tests: • Control Variables

  33. Contributions

  34. Thank You! Any Questions?

More Related