Model of Acceptance with Peer Support: A Social Network Perspective to Understand Employees' System Use

Prior research has extensively studied individual adoption and use of information systems, primarily using beliefs as predictors of behavioral intention to use a system that in turn predicts system use. We propose a model of acceptance with peer support (MAPS) that integrates prior individual-level research with social networks constructs. We argue that an individual's embeddedness in the social network of the organizational unit implementing a new information system can enhance our understanding of technology use. An individual's coworkers can be important sources of help in overcoming knowledge barriers constraining use of a complex system, and such interactions with others can determine an employee's ability to influence eventual system configuration and features. We incorporate network density (reflecting "get-help" ties for an employee) and network centrality (reflecting "give-help" ties for an employee), drawn from prior social network research, as key predictors of system use. Further, we conceptualize valued network density and valued network centrality, both of which take into account ties to those with relevant system-related information, knowledge, and resources, and employ them as additional predictors. We suggest that these constructs together are coping and influencing pathways by which they have an effect on system use. We conducted a 3-month long study of 87 employees in one business unit in an organization. The results confirmed our theory that social network constructs can significantly enhance our understanding of system use over and above predictors from prior individual-level adoption research.

[1]  Mary C. Jones,et al.  Organizational Knowledge Sharing in ERP Implementation: Lessons from Industry , 2004, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[2]  P. Bonacich.  Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[3]  Ray Reagans,et al.  Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range , 2003 .

[4]  Chittibabu Govindarajulu.  The status of helpdesk support , 2002, CACM.

[5]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[6]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[7]  S. Barley.  The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. , 1990, Administrative science quarterly.

[8]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[9]  Subhasish Dasgupta,et al.  Modeling use of enterprise resource planning systems: a path analytic study , 2003, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[10]  C. Koch,et al.  The role of Spaces and Occasions in the Transformation of Information Technologies: Lessons from the Social Shaping of IT-systems for Manufacturing in a Danish Context , 1999 .

[11]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test , 1995, MIS Q..

[12]  Rajiv Kohli,et al.  Performance Impacts of Information Technology: Is Actual Usage the Missing Link? , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[13]  D. Krackhardt,et al.  Bringing the Individual Back in: A Structural Analysis of the Internal Market for Reputation in Organizations , 1994 .

[14]  James N. Baron,et al.  Resources and Relationships: Social Networks and Mobility in the Workplace , 1997 .

[15]  Anne Beaudry,et al.  IT-Induced Adaptation and Individual Performance: A Coping Acts Model , 2001, ICIS.

[16]  Daniel Robey,et al.  An investigation of user-led system design: rational and political perspectives , 1984, CACM.

[17]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[18]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .

[19]  P. Shah.  Network Destruction: The Structural Implications of Downsizing , 2000 .

[20]  B. Wellman,et al.  Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support , 1990, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization , 1988 .

[22]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Power, Social Influence, and Sense Making: Effects of Network Centrality and Proximity on Employee Perceptions. , 1993 .

[23]  Venkatesh,et al.  A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in Individual Technology Adoption Decision-Making Processes. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[24]  Lynne P. Cooper,et al.  Knowledge Reuse for Innovation , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[25]  V. Venkatesh,et al.  AGE DIFFERENCES IN TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION DECISIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR A CHANGING WORK FORCE , 2000 .

[26]  S. Borgatti,et al.  The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology , 2003 .

[27]  Rob Cross,et al.  A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[28]  Jane M. Howell,et al.  Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization , 1991, MIS Q..

[29]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Predicting Different Conceptualizations of System Use: The Competing Roles of Behavioral Intention, Facilitating Conditions, and Behavioral Expectation , 2008, MIS Q..

[30]  Daniel J. Brass.  Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. , 1984 .

[31]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Reconceptualizing System Usage: An Approach and Empirical Test , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[32]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Gender Differences in the Perception and Use of E-Mail: An Extension to the Technology Acceptance Model , 1997, MIS Q..

[33]  H. Ibarra.  Personal Networks of Women and Minorities in Management: A Conceptual Framework , 1993 .

[34]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior , 2000, MIS Q..

[35]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  NETWORK DATA AND MEASUREMENT , 1990 .

[36]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[37]  Raymond T. Sparrowe,et al.  Process and Structure in Leader-Member Exchange , 1997 .

[38]  R. Rice,et al.  Attitudes toward New Organizational Technology: Network Proximity as a Mechanism for Social Information Processing. , 1991 .

[39]  H. Ibarra.  NETWORK CENTRALITY, POWER, AND INNOVATION INVOLVEMENT: DETERMINANTS OF TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ROLES , 1993 .

[40]  Harold G. Levine,et al.  Politics and the Function of Power in a Case Study of IT Implementation , 1994, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[41]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[42]  J. Galaskiewicz.  Exchange Networks and Community Politics , 1979 .

[43]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Communication across Boundaries: Work, Structure, and Use of Communication Technologies in a Large Organization , 1995 .

[44]  Randall P. Settoon,et al.  A Relational Perspective on Turnover: Examining Structural, Attitudinal, and Behavioral Predictors , 2005 .

[45]  R. Coombs,et al.  Culture, Control and Competition; Towards a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Information Technology in Organizations , 1992 .

[46]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Role of time in self-prediction of behavior , 2006 .

[47]  Lynda Aiman-Smith,et al.  Implementing New Manufacturing Technology: The Related Effects of Technology Characteristics and User Learning Activities , 2002 .

[48]  Lori Rosenkopf,et al.  Social Network Effects on the Extent of Innovation Diffusion: A Computer Simulation , 1997 .

[49]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[50]  John Scott.  Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[51]  Jerry Kanter.  Have we Forgotten the Fundamental it Enabler: Ease of Use , 2000, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[52]  John Hulland,et al.  Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies , 1999 .

[53]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  Network Studies of Social Influence , 1993 .

[54]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[55]  S. Wasserman,et al.  Statistical Models for Social Support Networks , 1993 .

[56]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Technology adaption: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team 1 , 2000 .

[57]  Raymond T. Sparrowe,et al.  Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups , 2001 .

[58]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: implications for software project management , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[59]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Individual Centrality and Performance in Virtual R&D Groups: An Empirical Study , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[60]  W. Orlikowski,et al.  Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technological Adaptation in Organizations , 2011 .

[61]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated with Information Technology Enabled Work Systems , 2005, MIS Q..

[62]  M. Fishbein,et al.  Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta-analysis. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[63]  M. Baba.  Dangerous Liaisons: Trust, Distrust, and Information Technology in American Work Organizations , 1999 .

[64]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation , 1985 .

[65]  Blair H. Sheppard,et al.  The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research , 1988 .

[66]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[67]  Michael D. Mumford,et al.  Measuring occupational difficulty: A construct validation against training criteria. , 1987 .

[68]  I. Ajzen.  The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[69]  David Krackhardt,et al.  The snowball effect: Turnover embedded in communication networks. , 1986 .

[70]  Noah E. Friedkin.  Structural bases of interpersonal influence in groups: a longitudinal case study , 1993 .

[71]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  Social Networks and Planned Organizational Change , 2003 .

[72]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  The Illusory Diffusion of Innovation: An Examination of Assimilation Gaps , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[73]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Power, politics, and MIS implementation , 1987, CACM.

[74]  L. Clark,et al.  Extraversion and Its Positive Emotional Core , 1997 .

[75]  Lee,et al.  When the Going Gets Tough, Do the Tough Ask for Help? Help Seeking and Power Motivation in Organizations. , 1997, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[76]  M. Tushman,et al.  Uncertainty, Social Location and Influence in Decision Making: A Sociometric Analysis , 1983 .

[77]  B. Wellman,et al.  Studying On-Line Social Networks , 1999 .

[78]  J. House,et al.  Structures and Processes of Social Support , 1988 .