Explaining IT system use:
a case study of IT system usage at a large temporal
employment company quoted on the stock exchange
P.H. Verberne Student number: 1449648 University of Groningen
MscBA, Faculty of Management and Organization Davidstraat 68
9725 BT Groningen tel: 06-24841224
e-mail: piet_hein@hotmail.com
date: 24
thOctober 2007
Supervisor University: Dr. B.J. M. Emans
Co–assessment: Prof. Dr. A. Boonstra
Abstract
The implementation of a new IT system in an organization is of great influence on further usage of the IT system. Ten factors, regarding IT implementation, are presumed to have an explanatory value on (low) system use. As well as a direct relation, a mediating factor (willingness to change) is also presumed to have explanory value. The willingness to change is used to assess the behaviorial intention towards organizational change. These presumptions were tested at XXXXXXXXXXX, a temporal employment agency in the Netherlands. A survey was held under 87 intermediaries and branch managers of XXXXXXXXXXX area north, who were users of an in 2005 newly implemented IT system. The results indicate that the most important explanatory factors of (low) system use are one’s perceived job consequences and perceived organizational surplus value. The social environment is also of significant importance to system use.
Keywords: IT implementation, willingess to change, change management
1. Introduction
As the digitalization of the developed countries marches on, the activities conducted using the Internet continues to expand daily. Not only the number of activities, but also the scope of activity types grows. The increasing complexity of services offered on the Internet has not yet come to an end. One of the successful services on the Internet is employment advertisement sites or job sites. The number of job sites and the number of advertisement placements have increased significantly in the past few years. It has become such an important service that the Monster Employment Index, a barometer for the online job market, has officially been recognized in the US as an indicator of employment. These job sites have led to serious competition for the employment agencies. This growth has meant a change in the market of job mediation: from written applications to applying online. As the agencies recognized that they were losing ground, they introduced their own job sites. Additionally, due to the increasingly embedded nature of Internet usage, customers expect the online ability to contact an organization through the World Wide Web (WWW). Service organizations, such as temporary employment companies (temp agencies), are dependent on such things as the quality of their services to ensure customers loyalty, and continuous growth in first-time customers. With the increasing importance of public reaction to and use of Internet advertisements, the temporal employment business has entered a new era. This is no less true for the job market in the Netherlands.
not to fall behind their competitors, the general management of XXXXXXXXXXX launched its mediation website in August, 2005. The accompanying IT support system was simultaneously implemented. Intermediaries could now personally upload advertisements onto the website by the use of IT support system (Flexportal), clients could respond to those advertisements, and intermediaries could receive their clients’ applications. In figure 1 the graphical reproduction op the system is displayed.
Figure 1 Communication flows in the system of job seeker subscription
Flexportal Website Job seeker
Several months after the implementation of the site, XXXXXXXXXXX launched a national advertisement campaign on television, printed media and the Internet for their new online service. In April 2007, visitors to the website multiplied by 500%. Yet, despite this substantial increase, management stated that use of the system had still not reached its full potential (referring to commercial return, not the number of visitors) two years after implementation. Commercial return is realized primarely when the staff uses the system on a frequent basis and place vacancies on the corporate website. In this case, management believed staff did not use the system frequently, which was why management suspected commercial return lagged. Management was not able to identify whether the vacancies filled was a result of registration at a local branch or by use of the Internet, since the method used for subscribing was not monitored. These facts help to illustrate why management had no understanding of the magnitude of the issue. In addition, the decreasing number of registrations at local branches and the enormous growth in the number of website visitors led to acknowledgement of the issue by the management. Although management did not provide specific figures on commercial return, the alleged lag of commercial return lies at the center of this paper.
It raises the question as to why the employees of XXXXXXXXXXX use this system in the way they do, and why it has not been more successful. Some have suggested the former is due to peoples’ inability and inexperience working with IT. Yet, XXXXXXXXXXX has used other IT systems for more than a decade, and these are fully incorporated into daily business activities. Every individual at XXXXXXXXXXX works with several IT systems on a continual basis. The most obvious questions would be directed toward the user-friendliness of the system. Alternatively, one could investigate possible problems stemming from the way the system was implemented, and whether the system’s implementation influenced work processes.
Although all employees of XXXXXXXXXXX work with several IT systems on a daily basis, most of them are still reluctant to use the latest IT system, Flexportal, according to the management. The more unwilling the employees are to work with a new IT system, the greater the chance that the system is not being used to it’s full potential. By investigating the reasons behind the degree of system usage by the intermediaries and branch managers, one can better understand the range of possibilities for reaching advantageous service levels. Individual IT acceptance is one of the keys to both proper implementation and optimal usage of new IT systems.
This paper will focus on the individual usage of IT and possible reasons for alleged lack of such activity. An explanatory conceptual model, based on the diagnosis model of willingness to change of Metselaar (1997), is developed. In the case study conducted for this investigation, the behavior of the employees regarding systems usage will be analyzed. The proposed model will be used to explain the behavior of the intermediaries and managers, based on their attitude and perception of the systems use. Furthermore, the model will enable us to uncover which factors have an influence on the level of use of ‘the system’. The central question for this investigation is, respectively:
Which factors have an influence on the level of use of the ‘system’ for job seeker subscription by intermediaries and branch managers?
in Dent and Goldberg, 1999: 34), he regards resistance as: ‘Behavior which is intended to protect an individual from the effects of real or imagined change’. Because organizations consist of people and are made by people, organizational change is assumed to be mediated through individual changes (Schein, 1980). Implied in this view of resistance is the need to overcome resistance in order to make an organizational change a success. Resistance is regarded as a negative side-effect of a change process. This negative perspective of resistance has been attacked by a new perspective, a more positive view of resistance. The willingness to change has emerged as a counter reaction to the, more or less, generally accepted theorem that people resist to change (Jansen, 2000). Metselaar (1997) disagrees with this theorem and regards resistance as the willingness to change. Inspired by the perspectives of Merron (1993), for Goldstein (1988) and Fiorelli & Margolis (1993), resistance is a sign of employee involvement and a signal that employees are concerned about the future of the organization. Metselaar defines the ‘willingness to change’ as a positive behavioral intention of an employee towards the introduction of changes in the structure, culture or procedures of an organization or department, resulting in an effort by employees to support the change process or accelerate it.
In the IS literature resistance is referred to as ‘user resistance’, the resistance of an individual towards a newly implemented IT system. According to the system-oriented theory (Jiang, Muhanna & Klein, 2000) resistance is inducted externally by factors inherent in the design of the system or technology used. The people-oriented theory posits that resistance to IT systems is made by factors internal to users as individuals or groups (Jiang et al., 2000). A third theory, the interaction theory, argues that neither the system nor the people’s characteristics themselves are the causes of resistance. Instead, it argues that the reasons for resistance are the user’s perceived values and social content gain or loss before and after the systems’ implementation (Jiang et al., 2000).
The interaction theory corresponds, for a great deal, with the behavioural model of Metselaar, as the determinants of resistance or ‘willingness to change’ of his model are also concerned with the social content gain or loss due to organizational changes. However, a system that is perceived by users as ‘hard to manage’ can also influence resistance regarding system use. The latter corresponds with the system-oriented theory (Jiang et al., 2000). Therefore, both theories will be combined in this investigation.
are appealing due to their relative simplicity and their frequent usage (Pijpers, Montfort van & Heemstra, 2002). They have produced satisfying, valid results. Therefore, they are attractive for this investigation. Subsequently, this exceedingly accounts for Metselaars’ model of willingness to change. Besides the points of relative simplicity and frequent usage as described above, this model is especially tailored for change situations. Hence, the model proposed (Figure 2) is based on Metselaars’ model in essence, but does not contain all variables of the original model and is supplemented with new (IT related) variables. The different variables in the model and the ratio of the eclectic use of various concepts from different models and theories will be explained per variable after the model is presented (Figure 2). There have been preliminary interviews with three subsidiary managers and four employees of the company in question of this investigation. Together with these managers and employees, the variables have
been elected which leads to the conceptual model.
Figure 2: Proposed model of system use of IT
+ (a) System usage Willingness to change 1. Perceived job consequences 2. Perceived surplus value for the organization 3. Perceived involvement with change process 4. Perceived participation with change process 8. Perceived necessity to change 9. Perceived monitoring of the change process 5. Perceived ease of use of the system
10. Perceived uncertainty regarding the change process Want to change Must change Ability to change + + 6. Perceived colleagues’ attitude towards system use
7. Perceived management’s attitude towards system use + + + + + - +
The four variables of the Theory of Planned Behavior of Ajzen (1992): attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control and intention are also used by Metselaar and renamed in his diagnosis model of willingness to change to, respectively: want to change, must change, ability to change and willingness to change (Figure 2). Each of the explanatory variables and sub variables will be expounded below, one by one.
Want to change
In Metselaar’s model, attitude, called ‘want to change’, also one of the pillars of behavioral intention and behavior, is regarded as an evaluation of an object. But while the object must be seen in a broad perspective, an attitude can relate to a person, institution, situation or behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Two components are of importance (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, 1980): the beliefs, views and considerations towards the object, and the actor’s rating of the object. What are the expected consequences of the change process according to the actor? Attitude (want to change) consists of several ‘types’ of opinions of an actor toward an object, which can be interpreted as an overall judgment of the object. Both negative and positive aspects are acknowledged and weighted by the actor in creating an attitude. The variable ‘want to change’ consists of – as presented in the conceptual explanatory model (Figure 2) – the following sub-variables: perceived job consequences (1), perceived surplus value for the organization (2), perceived involvement with change process (3), perceived participation with change process (4), and perceived ease of use of the system (5).
leading to a decrease of user resistance and an increase in commitment by users (Markus, 1983). As a result, user participation has been promoted by scholars in IS (Hirschheim, 1983). The question now becomes: how did they perceive their participation? The second sub-variable, which has been added to the conceptual model, is perceived ease of use, referring to, according to Davis (1993), people’s salient beliefs that using the system will involve minimal effort. Davis (1989) developed the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which emphasizes the impact of ‘perceived ease of use’ on an actor’s attitude toward utilizing an application and predicted general usage by employees (Aiken & Hodgson, 1998).
Must change
Ajzen (1991) refers to the subjective norm, ‘must change’, as ‘the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior’. Miller (1994) states that ‘must change’ investigates the influence of one’s social environment on their behavioral intentions, or how the beliefs, ranked by the importance one attributes to each of their opinions, will influence one’s behavioral intention, or willingness to change. The ‘must change’ variable in Metselaar’s model consists of two sub-variables (also found in the conceptual model (Figure 2)): colleagues’ attitude (6) and necessity (8), the former shaped by the actors’ colleagues, as well as the direct and indirect superior, while the latter denotes the individual’s perceived necessity to change. However, the construct perceived colleagues’ attitude is slightly different from the variable ‘attitude of colleagues’ in Metselaar’s model. The sub-variable in our explanatory model only indicates perceived attitudes of colleagues and possible subordinates towards the system use, not the perceived attitude of the management. Therefore, perceived attitude of a direct superior or manager has been detached and made a separate sub-variable in figure 2: perceived managers’ attitude towards system use (7).
towards the functioning of an employee and indicators of performance, such as system use. The (professional) attitude of the manager regarding system use comes into play here. In this sense, for the actor, the subjective norm ‘must change’ relates to the pressures of social context to display or not display a certain behavior. The fact that managers might use appraisal as an instrument to express their attitude towards a certain behavior puts pressure on subordinates to behave in a certain way. In order to offer a more robust view of the perceived attitude of the managers and the influence of this attitude on system use, their appraisal of the subordinate is included as part of ‘must change’ by the variable managers’ attitude towards change (7). Especially the reactions to positive appraisal experiences can contribute to positive attitudes, which can in turn lead to the required behavior (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Another element of ‘must change’ is the perceived necessity to change (8), another sub-variable. According to Metselaar (1997), Muntslag (2001), Kotter (1995) and many other writers, employees and managers must be convinced that proposed changes are an absolute necessity for the organization in order to get commitment. Change must be seen as inevitable.
Ability to change
Employees are more likely to feel involved in the change process when provided with information and organizational changes that have been thoroughly planned.
Willingness to change
The change capacity of an organization depends to a great extent on its employees’ willingness to change (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholdern, 1993). Metselaar & Cozijnsen (1997) ague that “as willingness to change can be interpreted as a behavioral intention, we can use these factors to explain the behavior of employees in change processes. Willingness to change itself offers little insight about why the behavior is displayed. The three determinants of ‘willingness to change’: ‘want to change’, ‘must change’ and ‘ability to change’ do, however, help to explain certain behaviors. Willingness to change is used as a mediating variable in the proposed model (Figure 2). The construct willingness to change indicates which actions a person intends to perform, and attempts to offer an explanation whether, and to what extent, the intention to display the preferred behavior is present. Metselaar’s model can facilitate the prediction of planned behavior. However, as the author describes, it can also be applied to the explanation of behavior. In this investigation, the mediating variable ‘willingness to change’ of the model proposed will be employed for the explanation of behavior (system use).
2. Hypotheses
3. Method
All 26 subsidiaries of XXXXXXXXXXX in the north of the Netherlands are included into this paper. In 2007, a survey was conducted under the complete population of 112 employees: 36 intermediaries and 10 branch managers in the province of Groningen, and 52 intermediaries and 14 branch managers in the province of Friesland. The respondents were asked to fill out a questionnaire via the Internet. From the 112 employees of XXXXXXXXXXX Area North, of who 11 branch managers and 101 intermediaries, 82 (73%) returned the survey. Most respondents were between 25 and 34 years of age, 79% of them are women and 21% men. At the time of the investigation, 66% of the respondents worked less than 5 years at XXXXXXXXXXX and the modal level of education was HBO (bachelor’s degree) with 62%. Data were processed anonymously and strictly confidential. As some subsidiaries are staffed by only three people, we were not able to ask the location in order to grant anonymity.
The questionnaire contains scales which measured the variables presented (Figure 2) to test the hypotheses. The scales existed of a response scale of seven, each Likert rating scale. Most questions could be answered with a range from totally agree until totally disagree. If possible, items of existing scales were used. Most items were derived from the validated DINAMO questionnaire as the tested conceptual model has been largely based on the model of Metselaar (1997). The variables and the accompanying items of ‘perceived job consequences’ (1); ‘perceived surplus value for the organization’ (2); ‘perceived involvement with change process’ (3); ‘colleagues attitude’ (6); ‘necessity’ (8); ‘monitoring change’ (9); ‘uncertainty’ (10); and the mediating variable ‘willingness to change’ were derived from DINAMO questionnaire (Metselaar, 1997). Several items had to be developed especially for this investigation. The items of the sub-variable ‘perceived participation with the change process’ (4) have been developed for the purpose of this paper and are based on several authors, including Hirschheim (1983). ‘Perceived ease of use’ (5) (Figure 2) was derived from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) of Davis (1989) and the accompanying items were derived from the questionnaire. The TAM of Davis is used to measure the ease of use of IT systems. This widely used survey has been found sufficiently reliable and valid and consists of 10 items. All questions have been translated from English into Dutch before use. The items for the scale ‘managements attitude’ (7) have especially been developed for this investigation, tough based on the research of Nordstrom and Murphy & Cleveland (1995). Finally yet importantly, the item of the dependent variable ‘system use’ has also been newly developed.
Table 1 Characteristics and correlations of the measured variables
Note: * p< .05 (2-tailed); ** p< .01 (2-tailed); it = number of items in scale; α = Cronbachs’ alpha; Mean = average; SD = standard deviation; scale values from 1 (low) to 5 (high).
Entire population n=82 it α Mean SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 System use 1 - 2.25 1.01 .34** .72** .67** .40** .05 .25* .64** .46** .69** .33* .09 2 Willingness to change 3 .92 3.93 .80 .33* .26* .11 -.05 .21 .29 .17 .42* -.09 .23 3 Job consequences 8 .81 3.33 .49 .43** .33* .06 .28* .62** .23 .63** .28 .21
4 Surplus value for
In order to avoid problems with multicollinearity all variables were checked for multicollinearity using the variance inflation factor (VIF) as a measure. The linear regression analysis showed almost no sign of collinearity as the VIF value indicated a value lower than 10 for nine out of ten tested variables. This provided the evidence that the variables were not collinear (Pallant, 2001).
Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and the Cronbachs’ alphas per variable. The Cronbachs’ alphas vary from moderate (.60 for perceived necessity (8)) to high (.91 for monitoring change (9) and .92 for willingness to change). Notable are the high scores of the means. These are mostly above scale centre, except three variables, which have means below the scale centre. Especially the low average level of ‘perceived involvement’ (3) and ‘perceived participation’ (4) are remarkable. The table indicates higher standard deviations for the three variables mentioned in relation to the remaining variables. The table also indicates the correlations between the scales. It is remarkable to note that the ‘perceived collegues’ attitude’ has a very high correlation (ρ = .93) with ‘perceived necessity’ (Figure 2). This relationship indicates signs of multicollinearity. By clustering the variables into “new” variables (Table 3), multicollinearity has been cancelled out. Noteworthy is also that the independent variables, ‘perceived participation’ (4) and ‘perceived uncertainty’ (10) have no significant correlation with the dependent variable ‘system use’. In order to test the hypotheses regarding the mediating variable ‘willingness to change’, a regression analysis has been conducted, the results are depicted in Table 2.
Table 2 Regression of system use on its determinants (step 1) with willingness to change as a mediator (step 2)
Note: R 2 = .91 for step 1; ∆R 2 = 0.92 for step 2
Step 1 β Sign. Step 2 β Sign.
Job consequences .45 .32 Job consequences 1.30 .25
Surplus value for the organization
.53 .23 Surplus value for the
organization
1.72 .15
Involvement change process .15 .55 Involvement change process .51 .63
Participation change process
-.31 .43 Participation change
process
-1.21 .28
Ease of use -.14 .44 Ease of use -.65 .55
Colleagues’ attitude 1.79 .21 Colleagues’ attitude 1.80 .13
Management’s attitude .55 .08 Management’s attitude 2.34 .07
necessity to change -1.97 .25 necessity to change -1.72 .15
Monitoring change .48 .25 Monitoring change 1.52 .19
Uncertainty change -.05 .85 Uncertainty change -.62 .56
Table 2 indicates, together with the correlation of table 1, whether there is question of mediation or not, according to the criteria of Baron & Kenny (1986). Firstly, there must be a direct connection between the independent variables and ‘system use’, the dependent variable. The first criterion has partially been met, as there is a direct significant relation between most independent variables and system use (Table 1). The other criteria are in subsequent order: 2) The mediator needs to have a significant relation with the independent variables, 3) have a significant relation with the dependent variable, system use and 4) there should not be a significant relation between the independent variables and the dependent variable when controlled for the mediator ‘willingness to change’. The second criterion has partially been met as there are only significant correlations for three independent variables: perceived job consequences (1), perceived organizational surplus value (2) and perceived necessity (9) (Table 2). These results indicate that mediation is only possible for the three independent variables mentioned. The third criterion has also been met as there is a significant relation between the mediating variable ‘willingness to change’ and ‘system use’. Although the last criterion not has been met (Table 2, step 2) and therefore formally there cannot be spoken of mediation, table 1 does indicate partial mediation for ‘perceived job consequences’, ‘perceived organizational surplus value’ and ‘perceived uncertainty’. Summarized imply these results support for the hypotheses 1a, 2a and 8a. A coherence has been proven between these three independent variables and system use and the coherence is mediated by the willingness to change. No support has been found for hypotheses 3a-7a and 9a-10a.
Furthermore, the results of the regression analysis, depicted in table 2, indicate that none of the independent variables of the proposed conceptual model has a significant relation with system usage. In contrast does the correlation analisys (Table 1) indicate significant correlations for most variables with system usage. The dependent variable ‘system use’ has significant positive correlations with all independent variables except ‘participation change process’ and ‘perceived uncertainty’ as mentioned before. These results imply support for the
hypotheses 1-3 and 5-9. There is a clear coherence between most independent variables and system use.
must change (II) and ability to change (III) are positively related to system use. Three more hypotheses are formulated about the relation between the three new independent variables and the use of the IT system (Figure 1), controlled for the ‘willingness to change’. The medaiting hypotheses: want to change (Ia), must change (IIa) and ability to change (IIIa) contributes to the ‘willingness to change’ which on its turn has a positive effect on system usage. The same analyses described above have been repeated for these new variables.
Table 3 Characteristics and correlations of the measured “new” variables
Entire population
Note: * p< .05 (2-tailed); ** p< .01 (2-tailed); it = number of items in scale; α = Cronbachs’ alpha;
n=82 it it α Mean SD 2 3 4 5 1 System use 1 1 - 2.25 1.01 .34** .66** .72** .36* 2 Willingness to change 1 3 .92 3.93 .80 .26 .47* .11 3 Want to change 5 31 .62 3.10 .39 .67** .35* 4 Must change 3 10 .70 3.45 .47 .26 5 Ability to change 2 6 .95 3.16 .60
Mean = average; SD = standard deviation; scale values from 1 (low) to 5 (high).
Table 3 displays the means, standard deviations, and the Cronbachs’ alphas per “new” variable. Cronbachs’ alphas vary from moderate (.60 for want to change) to high (.95 for ability to change and .92 for willingness to change). Remarkable is the height of average score of the variable ‘must change’. This mean is located more to the right of the scale centre than the other two variables. The table also indicates the correlations between the scales. The results indicate that all three “new” independent variables (‘want to change’, ‘must change’ and ‘ability to change’) correlate directly with system use. There is a clear coherence between most independent variables and system use.
Table 4 Regression of system use on its “new” determinants (step 1) with willingness to change as a mediator (step 2)
Step 1 β Sign. Step 2 β Sig
n.
Want to change .28 .16 Want to change .28 .18
Must change* .59 .01* Must change* .57 .02*
Ability to change .18 .23 Ability to change .17 .26
Note: R 2 = .77 for step 1; ∆R 2 = .77 for step 2; * p< .05
Willingness to change .05 .77
connection between the independent variable ‘must change’ and ‘system use’. For a direct individual connection between ‘want to change’, ‘ability to change’ and ‘system use’, there has not been found any support. However, as can be seen in table 3, there is evidence of significant correlations for all three independent variables with system use. In other words, there has been found support for the hypotheses I, II and III. Criteria 1 of Baron & Kenny (1986) has been met as three all independent variables have a significant correlation with ‘system use’ (Table 3). The second criterion (2) has also been met as there has been found evidence for a significant relation between ‘must change‘ and the mediating variable ‘willingness to change’ (Table 3). The third criterion has also been met as mediator (willingness to change) has a significant relation (.34) with the dependent variable, system use (Table 3). However, formally there cannot be spoken of mediation, as the last criterion has not been met. Table 4, step 2 displays a significant relation between the independent ‘must change’ and the dependent variable when controlled for the mediator ‘willingness to change’. These results imply that there is no support for the hypotheses (Ia-IIIa) regarding the (positive) effect of the mediating variable ‘willingness to change’. However, as the results of the regressions analysis indicate in table 4, the independent variable ‘must change’ is individually positively related to system usage (β = .57, p < .05). Also, as table 3 shows significant correlations for all variables with system usage, there is a clear coherence between the independent variables and system use. Table 3 also indicates signs of partial mediation for must change, as this variable has a significant correlation with willingness to change. All together, this implies the results support hypothesis IIa. No support has been found for hypotheses Ia and IIIa.
4. Discussion
employees felt themselves incorporated into the change process (involvement change process) and the easier they perceived the system to be (ease of use), the higher the system use. Additionally, the more positive they perceived the attitude of their collegues (perceived colleagues’ attitude) and executives (perceived managements’ attitude) and the more the employees experienced control over the change process (monitoring change), the higher their system use was.
Besides these outcomes is there no sign that the ‘perceived participation with the change process’ has a positive effect on the use of the system. Neither there has been found any evidence that the ‘uncertainty regarding the change process’ has a negative effect on system use. This demands a closer consideration why these presumed effects fail to occur and whether it was related to the situation in which this investigation was conducted. Perhaps is the lack of explanatory value of the ‘perceived participation with the change process’ related to the low level (2.07) of participation. The employees of XXXXXXXXXXX clearly did not have the impression they participated with the development of the system. This was confirmed by the remarks in the open question. In all probability, only a few employees actually participated. On suchs a low level it is precarious to draw significant conclusions.
The research results regarding the mediating effect of the ‘willingness to change’ on the relation between the determinants of system use and system use itself, indicate a different picture than was expected. It was expected that all determinants would be (partially) mediated by the ‘willingness to change’. The results of the regression analyses (Table 2 & 4) indicate no sign of mediation. In both cases, the criteria of Baron & Kenny (1986) were not met. The results of the correlation analyses (Table 1 & 3), however come to different results. The tables indicate, at least partially, mediation for ‘perceived job consequences’ (1), ‘perceived organizational surplus value’ (2) and ‘perceived uncertainty’ (3). The common factor between the first two variabels, both part of ‘want to change’, is the perceived future consequence. We can conclude that this factor contributes to the ‘willingness to change’. The perceived need for change plays also a role in forming the ‘willingness to change’.
subjective norms may influence one’s attitude. In other words, the social environment (must change) may influence the one’s attitude towards system use (want to change). The outcomes of this research support the findings of Armenakis et al. (1993). Table 1 indicates significant correlations between ‘perceived job consequences’, ‘perceived organizational surplus value’ and ‘perceived necessity’. More over, this is confirmed by the correlation analysis displayed in table 3, as there is a high correlation between ‘want to change' and ‘must change’ (ρ = .67). These results lead to the conclusion that ‘must change’ in general, and ‘perceived necessity’ (8) specifically, have a positive influence on the attitude of the intermediary or branch manager towards system use. Or even more specifically, ‘perceived necessity’ influences ‘perceived job consequences’ (1) and ‘perceived organizational surplus value’ (2).
The importance of ‘must change’ (subjective norm) has also been stressed by Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) as a predictor and explanation of individual behavior. The significant correlation of ‘must change’ and ‘system use’ may indicate that employees attribute great importance to the perceptions of colleagues and attitudes towards ‘system use’. The importance of this determinant should be emphasized as a positive attitude of colleagues (and managers) towards system use, and could have significant impact on the success of the change effort.
The question remains why the other seven determinants did not have a relation with ‘willingness to change’. An answer may be found in the view of Davis (1993). The construct ‘willingness to change’ is meant to refer to change in the future. In this investigation, ‘willingness to change’ referred to a change process in the past. Several academics, for instance Davis (1989), acknowledge that the construct ‘behavioral intention’ (willingness to change), is not to be included in a behavioral model when trying to explain behavior of past actions. Since ‘willingness to change’ is about future possibilities and the system was introduced in August 2005, according to Davis (1993), the variable ‘willingness to change’ does not seem to fit the model. In line with Davis (1993) are the findings that the variables related to future consequences do show a significant relation with willingness to change and the other determinants not (except perceived necessity). Therefore, the outcomes of this investigation oppose to the claim of Davis that ‘willingness to change’ is not to be included into the model at all as it is about future possibilities. It is the future component that plays an important role in forming the ‘willingness to change’, and therefore justifying the existence of this mediating variable in the model. The mediating variable is therefore to be included into the model in relation to the variables related to perceived future consequences.
to change’ (Table 3). Table 1 indicates that the two variables of ‘ability to change’, ‘monitoring change’ and ‘perceived uncertainty’ hold similar relations. ‘Monitoring change’ has a significant relation with system use, but it holds no significant relation with ‘willingness to change’. ‘Perceived uncertainty’ has no significant relations. Thus, it appears that the use of the system increases as the level of ‘perceived monitoring of the change process’ grows.
The reason for this research was to investigate the factors that influence the level of use of the IT system presented in figure 1. In other words, to reveal the reasons for the, according to the management, low level of system usage. By means of the conceptual model (Figure 2), we have attempted to answer this question. 77% of the variance of system use by intermediaries and branch managers lays in (Table 2) the independent variables plus the mediating variable. What do these results mean for XXXXXXXXXXX? What could the management have done to prevent the alleged low level of system use or could the management still do to reverse this trend? As discussed before, eight out of ten determinants do have a relation with system use. However, not all determinants hold equally strong relations. The overall results indicate that the primary causes are lack of knowledge about the consequences for one’s job, and for the organization as a whole when the IT system was implemented. Since the consequences for intermediaries and branch managers continue to be uncertain, it is unlikely that the level of system use will rise. There is clearly a need for information regarding the consequences for individuals’ employment and the organization as an effect of the organizational changes. However, not only should the management supply the necessary information, but also try to influence the opinion of the intermediaries about the changes.
Although secondary in significance, the perceived attitude of the social environment is an influential factor on the level of system use. ‘Must change’, has a strong influence on the most important predictors of ‘willingness to change’ and ‘system use’: the ‘perceived job consequences’ and ‘perceived organizational surplus value’. Especially the attitude of the collegues needs to be positive towards system use, when the usage level is to rise. This can be realized by taking away the unclearity regarding the consequences of increased system use. These suggestions could still be implemented in order to positively influence the ‘willingness to change’ as well as ‘system use’.
Metselaar & Cozijnsen, too much pressure could lead to a counter reaction - a low willingness to change - and therefore to low system use. However, several authors, such as Kotter (1995), state that commitment from the top is necessary to make a process of change succeed. Our results indicate that the attitude of the management has neither a significant positive nor a negative relation with ‘willingness to change’, but does positively influences system use. Thus, when managers express a positive attitude towards system use, the use of the system is likely to improve. Allthough the results deviate from the expected outcomes with regard to Metselaar, it is partially in line with the perspective of Kotter. A positive attitude of the management towards system use does not seem to be necassary, but does seem to have a positive influence on the increasement of the level of system use. Another point that can be made is that the ‘perceived management’s attitude’ does seems to have an influence on ‘willingness to change’, not directly however, but by influencing the ‘organizational surplus value’. Thus, as part of ‘must change’, a positive attitude of managers towards system use will also have a favorable effect on the attitude of an intermediary towards system use.
questionnaire, and it is therefore impossible to work out the size of the teams of the responding branch managers. Branch managers who did not respond, and did so due to a negative attitude towards system use, could have influenced the presented outcomes positivly.
In summary, the outcomes have practical implications for XXXXXXXXXXX. The management of XXXXXXXXXXX could take the following actions to increase the level of system use. Firstly, in order to foster a positive attitude towards the system in branch managers, they need to be informed thoroughly about the importance of the system. It should also be made clear to the branch managers in what ways they will benefit from increased system use. Secondly, branch managers, in turn, should inform the intermediaries about what an increased level of system use means for the organization and for individual jobs. The managers should encourage system use not only by referring to its benefits, but also by setting a proper example. Thirdly, system use should be considered a criterion of performance appraisal. The level of system use referred to in this investigation is only an estimate given by the intermediaries and branch managers. Hence, in the current situation, it is not possible to measure the exact use – not to mention system use per person. So, in order to apply system use as a criterion of performance appraisal, changes should be made to measure system use and its effectiveness.
Up to this point, only the determintants that still can have an influence on the current situation have been discussed. The ‘perceived involvement with the change process’ (3) and ‘monitoring change’ (9), cannot be influenced anymore. However, the management of XXXXXXXXXXX should take these issues into account for future IT related organizational changes, because although being of secondary importance, they have a significant influence on system use.
References
Ajzen, I. 1989. Attitude structure and behavior. In: Pratkanis A.R., Breckler, S. J., Greenwald, A. G. (Eds.), Attitude, structure and function. 241-274. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 50: 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alblas, G., & Wijsman, E. 1993. Gedrag in organisaties. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Armenakis, A., Harris, S., & Mossholdern, K. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46: 681-703.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. 1989. Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Quarterly. 13 (1): 53-63.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51: 1173-1182.
Barrett, M., Grant, D., Wailes, N. 2006. ICT and Organizational Change. Journal of applied behavioral science. 42 (1): 6-22.
Bhattacherjee, A. 2001. Understanding information system continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25 (3): 351-370.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. 2004. Organisation Development and Change. South-Western College Publishing, Mason. 304-339.
Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 13 (3): 319-40.
Davis, F. D. 1993. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 38, 475-87.
Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. 1999. Challenging “resistance to change”. The journal of applied behavioral science. 35 (1): 25-41.
Dillon, A., & Morris, M. 1996. User acceptance when referencing technology – theories and models. In: M. Williams (ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 31, Medford NJ: Information Today. 3-32.
Fiorelli, J. S., & Margolis, H. (1993). Managing and understanding large systems change ; Guidelines for executives and change agents. Organization Development Journal, 11, 1-13. In: Metselaar, E.E. 1997. Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the DINAMO. Dissertation. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
Ford, M. W., & Greer, B. M. 2005. Implementing Planned Change: An Empirical Comparison of Theoretical Perspectives. MID American Journal of Business. 20 (2): 59-69.
Gibson, H. L. 1977. Determining user involvement. Journal of Systems Management. 28: 20-22.
Goldstein, J. 1988. A far-from-equilibrium system approach to resistance to change. Organizational dynamics. 16-26 In: Metselaar, E. E. 1997. Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the DINAMO. Dissertation. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
Hirschheim, R. A. 1983. Assessing participative systems design: some conclusions from an exploratory study. Information and Management. 6: 317-327.
Hodgson, L., & Aiken, P. 1998. Organizational change enabled by the mandated implementation of new information systems technology: a modified technology acceptance model. Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel research. Boston, Massachusetts, 205-213.
Huizingh, K. R. E. 1999. Inleiding SPSS 9.0. voor Windows en Data Entry. Schoonhoven: Academic Service.
Jansen, K. J. 2000. The emerging dynamics of change: Resistance, readiness, and momentum. Human Resource Planning. 23 (2): 53-55.
Jiang, J. J., Muhanna, W. A., & Klein, G. 2000. User acceptance and strategies for promoting acceptance across system types. Information & Management. 37: 25-36.
Keen, P. G. W. 1981. Information System and Organizational Change. Communications of the ACM, 24 (1): 24-33.
Kotter, J. 1995. Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review. 13 (2): 59-61.
Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Resnick, S. M. 1984. Performance appraisal revisited. Organizational Dynamics. 13 (1): 20-35.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper and Brother.
Madsen, S .R., Miller, D., & John, C. R. 2005. Readiness for organizational change: Do organizational commitment and social relationships in the workplace make a difference? Human Resource Development Quarterly. 16 (2): 213-234.
Maier, N. 1966. The Appraisal Interview: Objectives Methods, and Skills. John Wiley and Son, Inc. New York, NY. In: McDowell, E. E. 1995. Scientific and Technical Communicators’ Perceptions of the Performance Appraisal Interview, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 25 (1): 101-106.
Markus, M. L. 1983. Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM. 26 (6): 430-444.
Metselaar, E. E. & Cozijnsen, A.J. 1997. Van weerstand naar veranderingsbereidheid. Holland Business Publications, Heemstede: Holland Business Publishing.
Merron, K. 1993. Let’s bury the term ‘resistance’. Organization development journal. 11: 77-86. In: Metselaar, E. E. 1997. Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the DINAMO. Dissertation. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
Miller V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. 1994. Antecedents to willingness to participate in planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 22: 59-80. Muntslag, D. R. 2001. De kunst van het implementeren. Oratie UT. Enschede.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. 1995. Understanding performance appraisal: social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Nordstrom, R. R., Lorenzi, P., & Hall, R. V. 1990. A Behavioral Training Program for Managers in City Government. Journal of Organizational Management. 11:189-211.
Pallant, J. 2001. SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (version 10). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Pijpers, A. G. M. 2001. Senior Executives’ Use of Information Technology-An examination of factors influencing managerial beliefs, attitude and use of Information Technology. Dissertation. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Pijpers, A. G. M., Montfort van, K., & Heemstra, F. J. 2002. Acceptatie van ICT: theorie en een veldonderzoek onder topmanagers. Bedrijfskunde. 4.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Schein, E. H. 1980. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Shearman, A .W., Snell, S., & Bohlander, G. W. 1997. Managing Human Resources (11th ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing.
Spears, M. 2000. Service Organizations: A Managerial and Systems Approach. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
