Information systems and performance: the role of technology, the task and the individual

Organisations require good performance from individuals to achieve their objectives. In view of the growing presence of technology, it becomes necessary to understand performance in the context of information systems. However, the research streams that study performance (e.g. industrial psychology or the impact of technology on performance) focus primarily on a single component (the individual or the technology). The systemic perspective, for its part, considers all three components (technology, the individual and the task) and their relationships in order to explain performance. From this perspective, this article develops a research model where individual (knowledge of the task and the technology), task (ease) and technology (usefulness and ease) factors determine performance. Links are also established between these factors. Data were collected from 246 individuals and the results show that the proposed links are significant. This research highlights that management should take into account all three components to boost performance. The study emphasises in which factors of these components special care should be taken. The lack of improvement in performance after the introduction of an information system may not be solved merely by tackling the features of the technology but also by simplifying the tasks or reviewing the users’ knowledge gaps.

[1]  Steven L. Alter A General, Yet Useful Theory of Information Systems , 1999, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Melvin Blumberg,et al.  The Missing Opportunity in Organizational Research: Some Implications for a Theory of Work Performance , 1982 .

[3]  D. Krathwohl A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview , 2002 .

[4]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Impact of sales force automation on technology-related stress, effort, and technology usage among salespeople , 2005 .

[5]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[6]  Suzanne P. Weisband,et al.  Understanding Process Knowledge Change in Enterprise System Implementation: A Framework and Case Study , 2005, AMCIS.

[7]  Hua Dai,et al.  Antecedents of Online Service Quality, Commitment and Loyalty , 2011, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

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

[9]  A. Burton-Jones Minimizing Method Bias Through Programmatic Research , 2009 .

[10]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[11]  R. Wood Task complexity: Definition of the construct , 1986 .

[12]  Steven L. Alter Desperately Seeking Systems Thinking in the Information Systems Discipline , 2004, ICIS.

[13]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[14]  Raj Sharman,et al.  Assessing roles of people, technology and structure in emergency management systems: a public sector perspective , 2012, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[15]  Dale L. Goodhue,et al.  User evaluations of MIS success: what are we really measuring? , 1992, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[16]  Peter A. Bamberger,et al.  Beyond situational constraints: Job resources inadequacy and individual performance at work , 1995 .

[17]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model , 2003, MIS Q..

[18]  Lori Baker-Eveleth,et al.  The impact of information technology on individual and firm marketing performance , 2007, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[19]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model , 2008, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Straub,et al.  Editor's Comments: An Update and Extension to SEM Guidelines for Administrative and Social Science Research , 2011 .

[21]  Rui Sousa,et al.  Understanding Exploratory Use of ERP Systems , 2003, AMCIS.

[22]  Brent Furneaux,et al.  Task-technology fit theory: A survey and synopsis of the literature , 2012 .

[23]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  Practical Issues in Structural Modeling , 1987 .

[24]  S. West,et al.  Effects of sample size and nonnormality on the estimation of mediated effects in latent variable models. , 1997 .

[25]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[26]  John P. Campbell,et al.  A Confirmatory Test of a Model of Performance Determinants , 1994 .

[27]  C W Clegg,et al.  Sociotechnical principles for system design. , 2000, Applied ergonomics.

[28]  Yuan Sun,et al.  Extending technology usage to work settings: The role of perceived work compatibility in ERP implementation , 2009, Inf. Manag..

[29]  J. Hair Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .

[30]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Perspectives on Models of Job Performance , 2000 .

[31]  M. Markus,et al.  The Enterprise System Experience— From Adoption to Success , 2000 .

[32]  Raul P. Lejano,et al.  Technology and Institutions , 2008 .

[33]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  The Past, Present, and Future of "IS Success" , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[34]  Cheryl Gaimon,et al.  The Creation of Output and Quality in Services: A Framework to Analyze Information Technology‐Worker Systems , 2004 .

[35]  Jacek Gwizdka,et al.  What Can Searching Behavior Tell Us About the Difficulty of Information Tasks? A Study of Web Navigation , 2007, ASIST.

[36]  Sue Newell,et al.  Knowledge Integration as a Key Problem in an ERP Implementation , 2001, ICIS.

[37]  Edward J. Garrity,et al.  Success Measures of Information Systems , 2002, Encyclopedia of Information Systems.

[38]  P. Ackerman,et al.  Motivation and cognitive abilities: an integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition , 1989 .

[39]  Nils Urbach,et al.  The Updated DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success , 2012 .

[40]  Darshana Sedera,et al.  Re-conceptualizing Information System Success: The IS-Impact Measurement Model , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[41]  Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson,et al.  An exploration of factors that impact individual performance in an ERP environment: an analysis using multiple analytical techniques , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[42]  Jacek Gwizdka,et al.  Assessing Cognitive Load on Web Search Tasks , 2009, ArXiv.

[43]  J. B. Quinn,et al.  Managing professional intellect: making the most of the best. , 1996, Harvard business review.

[44]  Joseph N. Luchman,et al.  7 Personnel Selection and Employee Performance , 2012 .

[45]  Xianggui Qu,et al.  Multivariate Data Analysis , 2007, Technometrics.

[46]  F. Schmidt,et al.  The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. , 1998 .

[47]  Arun Rai,et al.  Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical Test and Theoretical Analysis , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[48]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[49]  M. Hakel,et al.  Effects of Objective and Subjective Task Complexity on Performance , 1997 .

[50]  Kelly J. Fadel User Adaptation and Infusion of Information Systems , 2012, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[51]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test† , 1996 .

[52]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  An Update and Extension to SEM Guidelines for Admnistrative and Social Science Research , 2011 .

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

[54]  Richard C. Hicks,et al.  Task Complexity and Informing Science: A Synthesis , 2006, Informing Sci. Int. J. an Emerg. Transdiscipl..

[55]  Christopher A. Higgins,et al.  Testing Klein and Sorra's innovation implementation model: An empirical examination , 2008 .

[56]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[57]  Venkateshviswanath,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000 .

[58]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  End-User Training: What we know, What we need to know? , 2006 .

[59]  Tim O. Peterson,et al.  Self‐Efficacy: The Foundation of Human Performance , 2008 .

[60]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[61]  Gerold Riempp,et al.  The State of Research on Information Systems Success , 2009, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[62]  David A. Waldman,et al.  Putting Together the Pieces: A Closer Look at the Determinants of Job Performance , 1989 .

[63]  Ali F. Farhoomand,et al.  A structural model of end user computing satisfaction and user performance , 1996, Inf. Manag..

[64]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other? , 2001, MIS Q..

[65]  Albert H. Segars,et al.  Information systems effectiveness: The construct space and patters of application , 1996, Inf. Manag..

[66]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  MIS Problems and failures: a sociotechnical perspective part I: the cause , 1977 .

[67]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  A proposed index of usability: A method for comparing the relative usability of different software systems , 1997, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[68]  D. Campbell Task Complexity: A Review and Analysis , 1988 .

[69]  Sally A. Seven,et al.  Selecting Performance Measures: "Objective" versus "Subjective" Measurement , 1992 .

[70]  John R. Anderson,et al.  A Theory of the Origins of Human Knowledge , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[71]  Peter B. Seddon A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[72]  Fred D. Davis A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : theory and results , 1985 .

[73]  Knowlton W. Johnson Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: Testing a Theory for Research Use , 1998 .

[74]  John P. Campbell,et al.  Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. , 1990 .

[75]  William J. Doll,et al.  A Model of Interrelationships Among Individual Level Knowledge Management Success Measures , 2009, Int. J. Knowl. Manag..

[76]  Gillian B. Yeo,et al.  A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: effects; of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[77]  Christian Leyh,et al.  Enterprise Systems , 2017, HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik.

[78]  Peter William Edbury,et al.  The State of Research: Cyprus under the Lusignans and Venetians, 1991–1998 , 1999 .

[79]  N. Schmitt,et al.  Personnel Selection and Employee Performance , 2003 .

[80]  W. Borman,et al.  A Theory of Individual Differences in Task and Contextual Performance , 1997 .

[81]  L. H. Peters,et al.  Situational Constraints and Work Outcomes: The Influences Of a Frequently Overlooked Construct , 1980 .

[82]  Jacek Gwizdka,et al.  Revisiting search task difficulty: Behavioral and individual difference measures , 2008, ASIST.

[83]  Allard J van der Beek,et al.  Conceptual Frameworks of Individual Work Performance: A Systematic Review , 2011, Journal of occupational and environmental medicine.

[84]  Walter C. Borman,et al.  Models of supervisory job performance ratings , 1991 .

[85]  RaiArun,et al.  Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models , 2002 .

[86]  Shahnawaz Muhammed Antecedents and Impacts of Knowledge Management Practices Supported by Information Technology: An Empirical Study in Manufacturing Context , 2006 .

[87]  Sia Siew Kien,et al.  Misalignments in ERP Implementation: A Dialectic Perspective , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[88]  S. West,et al.  The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. , 1996 .

[89]  Phillip M. Mangos,et al.  The Role of Subjective Task Complexity in Goal Orientation, Self-Efficacy, and Performance Relations , 2001 .

[90]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships , 2008, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[91]  Zhizhong Li,et al.  Toward Understanding the Relationship between Task Complexity and Task Performance , 2011, HCI.

[92]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  End-user training methods: what we know, need to know , 2010, Data Base.

[93]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice , 2000, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[94]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Assessment of Individual Job Performance: A Review of the past Century and a Look Ahead , 2001 .

[95]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Validation in Information Systems Research: A State-of-the-Art Assessment , 2001, MIS Q..

[96]  Peter B. Seddon,et al.  A Partial Test and Development of Delone and Mclean's Model of IS Success , 1996, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..