The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding User Evaluations of Information Systems
Abstract
Organizations spend millions of dollars on information systems to improve organizational or individual performance, but objective measures of system success are extremely difficult to achieve. For this reason, many MIS researchers (and potentially MIS practitioners) rely on user evaluations of systems as a surrogate for MIS success. However, these measures have been strongly criticized as lacking strong theoretical underpinnings. Furthermore, empirical evidence of their efficacy is surprisingly weak. Part of the explanation for the theoretical and empirical problems with user evaluations is that they are really a measurement technique rather than a single theoretical construct. User evaluations are elicited beliefs or attitudes about something, and they have been used to measure a variety of different “somethings.” What is needed for user evaluations to be an effective measure of IS success is the identification of some specific user evaluation construct, defined within a theoretical perspective that can usefully link underlying systems to their relevant impacts. We propose task-technology fit (TTF) as such a user evaluation construct. The TTF perspective views technology as a means by which a goal-directed individual performs tasks. TTF focuses on the degree to which systems characteristics match user task needs. We posit that higher task-technology fit will result in better performance. Further, we posit that users can successfully evaluate task-technology fit. This latter proposition is strongly supported in a survey of 259 users in 9 companies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60 · Cited by 10,697
Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature*
Vessey, I. (1991) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb00344.x · Cited by 1,263
Determinants of success for computer usage in small business
DeLone, W. H. (1988) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/248803 · Cited by 703
Human Resource Information Systems: A Current Assessment
DeSanctis, G. (1986) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/248875 · Cited by 281
Developing a process model of problem recognition
Cowan, D. A. (1986) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258395 · Cited by 257
Cited by
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249689 · Cited by 6,006
Self-citationUser Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems1
van der Heijden, H. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148660 · Cited by 3,850
Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs
Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(98)00101-3 · Cited by 1,772
AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment
Lee, Y. W., Strong, D. M., Kahn, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(02)00043-5 · Cited by 1,611
Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical Test and Theoretical Analysis
Rai, A., Lang, S. S., & Welker, R. B. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.1.50.96 · Cited by 1,611
NELSON, R. R., TODD, P. A., & WIXOM, B. H. (2005) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2005.11045823 · Cited by 998
Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation1
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148693 · Cited by 869
Extending the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM
Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M. A., & Popovič, A. (2014) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.004 · Cited by 808
Perceived information quality in data exchanges: Effects on risk, trust, and intention to use
Nicolaou, A. I., & McKnight, D. H. (2006) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0103 · Cited by 682
An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (UMEGA)
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Janssen, M., Lal, B., Williams, M. D., & Clement, M. (2017) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.001 · Cited by 622
Technology use and performance: A field study of broker workstations
Lucas, H. C., & Spitler, V. K. (1999) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01611.x · Cited by 561
Toward Meaningful Engagement: A Framework for Design and Research of Gamified Information Systems1
Liu, D., Santhanam, R., & Webster, J. (2017) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41.4.01 · Cited by 521
Ammenwerth, E., Iller, C., & Mahler, C. (2006) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-6-3 · Cited by 459
Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-technology fit perspective.
Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.975 · Cited by 417
Acceptance of mobile banking framework in Pakistan
Afshan, S., & Sharif, A. (2016) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2015.09.005 · Cited by 376
Yen, D. C., Wu, C.-S., Cheng, F.-F., & Huang, Y.-W. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.005 · Cited by 319
Investigating mobile wireless technology adoption: An extension of the technology acceptance model
Kim, S., & Garrison, G. (2009) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-008-9073-8 · Cited by 319
Evaluating the Impact of DSS, Cognitive Effort, and Incentives on Strategy Selection
Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1999) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.10.4.356 · Cited by 312
Investigating evaluation frameworks for health information systems
Yusof, M. M., Papazafeiropoulou, A., Paul, R. J., & Stergioulas, L. K. (2008) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.08.004 · Cited by 304
Towards an understanding of consumers’ FinTech adoption: The case of Open Banking
Chan, R., Troshani, I., Rao Hill, S., & Hoffmann, A. (2022) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-08-2021-0397 · Cited by 281
Adoption of online public grievance redressal system in India: toward developing a unified view
Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Williams, M. D., & Weerakkody, V. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.019 · Cited by 274
Raghunathan, S. (1999) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(99)00060-3 · Cited by 222
Information technology adoption: a review of the literature and classification
Salahshour Rad, M., Nilashi, M., & Mohamed Dahlan, H. (2018) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-017-0534-z · Cited by 181
TSIKNAKIS, M., & KOUROUBALI, A. (2009) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.001 · Cited by 167
User acceptance of media tablets: An empirical examination of perceived value
Yu, J., Lee, H., Ha, I., & Zo, H. (2017) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2015.11.004 · Cited by 161
Factors influencing clinicians' willingness to use an AI-based clinical decision support system
Choudhury, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.920662 · Cited by 64
Attribution Theory: A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Information Systems Success
Snead, K. C., Magal, S. R., Christensen, L. F., & Ndede-Amadi, A. A. (2015) · Systemic Practice and Action Research · doi:10.1007/s11213-014-9328-x · Cited by 42
Organizational adoption of supply chain management system: A multi-theoretic investigation
Cao, Q., Gan, Q., & Thompson, M. A. (2013) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2013.02.003 · Cited by 39
Mobile Nursing Information System Utilization: The Task-Technology Fit Perspective
LIN, T.-C. (2014) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000000039 · Cited by 32
ARAM: A Technology Acceptance Model to Ascertain the Behavioural Intention to Use Augmented Reality
Marto, A., Gonçalves, A., Melo, M., Bessa, M., & Silva, R. (2023) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging9030073 · Cited by 31
Mwendwa, P. (2016) · Development in Practice · doi:10.1080/09614524.2016.1112769 · Cited by 30
User acceptance of complex electronic market mechanisms: Role of information feedback
Adomavicius, G., Curley, S. P., Gupta, A., & Sanyal, P. (2013) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2013.07.015 · Cited by 16
Sun, S., Xiong, C., & Chang, V. (2019) · International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.4018/ijeis.2019010102 · Cited by 11
Kowalczyk, M., & Gerlach, J. (2015) · University of Münster, Münster, Germany · doi:10.18151/7217398 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Goodhue, D. L.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1995-12
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1827-1844
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2037846862
- Cited by
- 1,217
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 26.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
