1 / 21

Using the WOSP Model to Improve End-user Productivity of Information Systems

Using the WOSP Model to Improve End-user Productivity of Information Systems. Edward Mahinda - NJIT (USA) Brian Whitworth - Massey University (NZ) Presented at the International Conference on Business IT 2006 (BIZIT 2006), August 8 – 10, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Significance of IT/IS.

marlie
Download Presentation

Using the WOSP Model to Improve End-user Productivity of Information Systems

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. Using the WOSP Model to Improve End-user Productivity of Information Systems Edward Mahinda - NJIT (USA) Brian Whitworth - Massey University (NZ) Presented at the International Conference on Business IT 2006 (BIZIT 2006), August 8 – 10, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

  2. Significance of IT/IS • A primary organizational survival factor • organizations cannot afford weak information systems (Davenport et al, 1994) • IT/IS benefits fall into four purpose categories: • Increasing productivity and performance • Better management support • Gaining competitive advantage • A framework for business restructuring • Some quantitative indications: • In the last two decades, approximately 50% of all new capital investments in organizations has been in IT (Westland et al, 2000) • Total worldwide expenditure on IT exceeded USD1Tril. per annum in 2001, with a 10% annual compounded growth rate (Seddon et al, 2000)

  3. Need for System Evaluation • However, organizations today have less financial resources available for IT (Rivard et al, 1997). • Increasing desire to control IT related spending by better information system evaluation, i.e. “buying smarter”. • Improves overall performance (Taylor et al, 1995) • Gives senior executives the information needed to justify huge IT investments (Hitt et al, 1996; Brynjolfsson, 1993).

  4. Need for User Involvement • Many system development projects are abandoned before or after completion, and most fail to meet user expectations • Organization IS/IT project failure annual costs estimated to exceed $100 billion in the US alone (Ewusi-Mensah, 1997; Standish, 1996) • Main reason: Lack of end user involvement in development and purchasing processes (Vassey et al, 1994) • Customers who pay for the system are not those who actually work with it Gause et al (1993) • Requires IS/IT performance evaluation by the non-specialist primary users of IT-related products and services (Chang et al, 2000)

  5. Evaluation Requirements • End-user evaluation would let end-users influence IS development and purchase processes (Isomaki et al, 2005) • IS/IT end-user evaluation should be: • Valid: Its dimensions predict IS/IT performance • Comprehensive: Includes all relevant IS/IT performance factors • Consistent: Constructs do not overlap or contradict • Understandable: Usable by non-expert IT/IS users • IS/IT Applicable: Applies in many IS/IT contexts • The Web of System Performance (WOSP) model seems to satisfy these requirements • It is a broad yet simple performance model, based on well known IS/IT constructs, carefully defined so as to not overlap conceptually, and applies to any system

  6. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) • Dominant user acceptance model • Perceived Usefulness (PU)+ Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) ==> Attitude ==> Intention to adopt • Made usability a key IS/IT quality requirement • TAM advantages (Hu, Chau, Sheng and Tam, 1999) : • Valid. Good theory base, significant empirical support • IS/IT ApplicableApplicable to diverse technologies, users, organizational contexts • Understandable: Parsimonious

  7. TAM (cont’d) • TAM weakness: • Not comprehensive:Ignores IS/IT criteria like: • Flexibility (Knoll & Jarvenpaa, 1994), Security (OECD,1996), Reliability (Jonsson, 1998) • Privacy (Benassi,1999), Scalability (Berners-Lee, 2000) and standards (Alter, 1999) • In a study of telemedicine acceptance(Hu, Chau, Sheng and Tam, 1999): • PU+PEOU explained only 37% of attitude variance • PU+Attitude explained only 44% of intention variance • Attempts to make Usefulness include say Security make the model inconsistent • The UTAUT model adds non-system factors like facility infrastructure and normative influence • TAM is validly describes IS/IT performance, but seems incomplete

  8. WOSP Model • Based on Systems theory • Information systems are like any other natural system • Performance is how well a system interacts with its environment • Involves 4 system elements, each with a dual role: • Effectors: change external environment • Functionality: to act on environment • Usability: to reduce action costs • Boundary: determines what enters system • Security: to prevent entry • Extendibility: to use outside objects • Structure: Manages and supports system • Reliability: to perform the same despite internal change • Flexibility: To perform differently given external change • Receptors: Enable communication • Connectivity: to exchange social meaning • Privacy: to limit social meaning exchange

  9. WOSP cont’d • Performance = Fu+Se+Fl+Ex+Re+Us+Co+Pr • All dimensions in natural tension

  10. Research Question • WOSP particularly applies to social-technical systems (STS) (Whitworth and Whitworth, 2004) • That have a social performance level, e.g. email, browsers, bulletin boards, chat, e-bay • Do users take account of the WOSP factors when comparing the performance of alternative social technical systems?

  11. Application assessed • Browser ( increasingly): • An important universal platform for information searches; email; discussion groups; internet; intranet; and extranet applications • A socio-technical system • Many different browser versions • Organizations may choose/recommend one for compatibility reasons

  12. Analysis Method • Multivariate dependence analysis • Dependent variable - Perceived performance • Independent (predictor) variables - WOSP factors • The predictor variables are known • Method of choice: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black, 1995) • People evaluate by adding up part utilities: • Widely used in marketing and agriculture • New to IS research

  13. Subjects • Conjoint analysis gives higher quality data than surveys – over four hours per person • 28 grad students: 43% female, 53% male • Diverse cultural background • Experienced browser users: average 8 years total, with 23hrs/week in last 6 months • Reasons for use: e.g. information search; online banking; online purchasing: email; taking courses

  14. Experimental Method • Preliminary priming phase (questionnaire): • Subjects asked to rate on 1-5 scale illustrative factor statements on clarity, validity, importance • Second phase: to evaluate each browser: • Grade as strong, good, adequate, limited, weak • Score each browser 1-100 • Rank each browser 1-33 (no two with same rank) • Explain reasoning behind decisions • Whole procedure carried out via email

  15. Results I • Accuracy of results: • Internal consistency of subjects for all but 3: • Kendall’s tau (holdout/actual responses)> 0.4 (p<0.01) • Extreme outliers of part worths: • One outlier (for usability) • 4 data sets excluded from further analysis • Interpreting results: • If av. Importance >= 12.5% factor is significant • The percentage of subjects giving a factor av.importance>= 12.5%

  16. Results II

  17. Results III(Graphical representation)

  18. Conclusion • All factors are not of equal significance • Security, usability, functionality, reliability, and connectivity are more significant • Extendibility, flexibility not as significant, but still important • A high correlation (0.95) between %age of subjects giving importance>= 12.5% and the av. importance of the factors

  19. Discussion I • These results are only for browsers • Other software may have different criterion weights - software types may have distinct performance profiles • WOSP dimensions outside TAM were used in the evaluation, e.g. security and privacy • The WOSP model seems more inclusive • It adds to TAM factors well recognized in the system requirements literature • The WOSP model lets users better indicate their software preferences to system designers. • Helps tighten relationship between developers and customers, and foster collective creation and sharing of knowledge (Fuller et al, 2004; Franz et al, 2003)

  20. Discussion II • Using Conjoint Analysis, the WOSP model can facilitate the following product development functions (Hair et al, 1995): • Segmentation: segment users according to the importance they attach to each of the eight factors. • Match users with systems of their preference to reduce resistance • Marketing information: get information on the relative importance of the factors, plus the cost of providing them • Provides insight on the profitability of providing applications • Simulation: involving 3 steps: • Estimation and validation of conjoint models for sample subjects • Selection of stimuli for testing, based on an issue of interest • Simulation of subject’s choices for selected stimuli to predict application evaluations

  21. Questions? • See brianwhitworth.com, “Papers”,for more papers

More Related