Master Thesis
The underlying organizational mechanisms of different information system
adoption behaviors in mandatory use environments
Jobien de Geus – 160747793/ S2363186
Dual Degree MSc. Advanced International Business Management & Marketing Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisor Newcastle University: dr. S. Reissner Supervisor Rijksuniversiteit Groningen: dr. S.R. Gubbi
3 December 2017
3
Abstract
Due to the growing importance of information systems (IS) in organizations, the
understanding of the end-user response toward the adoption of information systems has become increasingly important. This is especially relevant in mandatory use environments, where the use of the IS is not a voluntary choice of a user, which can lead to underutilization of the IS, decreased job satisfaction and performance. Although, the IS literature stated that there is no universal theory to date that explains IS adoption behavior in truly-mandatory environments. Therefore, this thesis aims to broaden the knowledge about IS adoption behaviors in mandatory use environments. Moreover, this study has investigated how organizational mechanisms influence IS user responses to develop a broaden organizational perspective on user adoption behavior in mandatory use environments. By performing a qualitative comparative case study in the public sector, this research investigated that the taxonomy proposed by Bhattarcherjee et al., (2017) offers a comprehensive taxonomy of four different user responses in mandatory use environments. Furthermore, the findings present that the underlying organizational mechanisms that influence user responses can be classified as social mechanisms, categorized as organizational social mechanisms, individual social mechanisms, and interrelated organizational and individual social mechanisms. In addition, the results implicate that involvement of the end-user during the implementation process and communication influence the end-user responses. The findings contribute to the IS literature by extending the knowledge about IS adoption behavior in mandatory use environments, which provides a better understanding of end-users’ emotional and behavioral response to mandatory IS use and how organizational mechanisms influence the user response. The managerial implications can be used to positively influence the end-user adoption behavior. This contributes to a more successful implementation process and post-adoption phase in organizations, which can lead to a higher return on IS investments.
Acknowledgements
4 Table of contents Chapter 1. Introduction... 6 1.1. Introduction ... 6 1.2. Theoretical background ... 6 1.3. Research questions ... 8
1.4. Structure of this thesis ... 9
Chapter 2. Literature review ... 10
2.1. Introduction ... 10
2.2. The innovation adoption process in organizations ... 10
2.3. Technology acceptance theories: voluntary vs. mandatory ... 11
2.4. Differences in adoption behavior in a mandatory use environment ... 14
2.5. Taxonomy of user responses ... 15
2.6. Conceptual framework ... 18
2.7. Conclusion ... 19
Chapter 3. Methodology ... 20
3.1. Introduction ... 20
3.2. Research philosophy and design ... 20
3.3. Research strategy ... 20
3.4. Case selection and description... 21
3.5. Data collection ... 22
3.6. Data analysis... 24
3.7. Data quality ... 25
3.8. Ethical considerations ... 26
3.9. Conclusion ... 26
Chapter 4. Findings and discussion – Research Question 1. ... 27
4.1. Introduction ... 27
4.2. Different user responses ... 27
4.3. Discussion of the user responses ... 31
4.4. Conclusion ... 32
Chapter 5. Findings and discussion – Research Question 2 ... 33
5.1. Introduction ... 33
5.2. Underlying organizational mechanisms of the user responses ... 33
5.3. Learnings from the analysis... 37
5.4. Research model ... 40
5.5. Conclusion ... 42
5
6.1. Introduction ... 43
6.2. Research questions and theoretical implications ... 43
6.3. Practical implications ... 44
6.4. Limitations and future research possibilities ... 45
Chapter 7. References... 47
Appendix A – Interview protocol ... 54
Appendix B – Codebook interviews ... 57
Appendix C – Interventions ... 61
Table of tables Table 2.1. – IS research in mandatory contexts………..13
Table 2.2. – Four user responses proposed by Bhattacherjee et al., (2017)………...17
Table 3.1. – Overview of the selected case………21
Table 3.2. – Participants interviews………....23
Table 3.3. – Overview of data sources………24
Table 3.4. – The coding process……….25
Table 3.5. – Quality criteria………25
Table 4.1. – Different user responses case 1………...28
Table 4.2. – Different user responses case 2………...30
Table 5.1. – Findings for the deductive themes ……… 33
Table 5.2. – Learning from both cases……..………..37
Table of figures Figure 2.1. – Conceptual framework.……….19
6
Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction
Due to the growing importance of information systems (IS) in organizations, the understanding of end-users’ adoption of information systems has become increasingly important. Prior literature stated that the adoption of a technology by the end-user, like an information system, is known as a major measure of success of the use of the IS in an organization (e.g. Delone and Mclean, 1992; 2003). The adoption of a new technology is claimed to be an interaction among individuals, technology and the organizational environment (Orlikowski and Robey, 1991). This emphasizes the importance of the influence that the organizational environment can have on the attitude of an individual towards the use of an IS (Markus and Benjamin, 1997; Massey, Montoya-Weiss and Brown, 2001).
1.2. Theoretical background
The use of information systems is indispensable in many organizations, with the result that many employees are expected to use the system on a daily basis in their jobs. Prior literature has extensively investigated the individual adoption and acceptance of technologies and support the notion that the major drivers of users’ intention to adopt a new technology are usefulness and ease of use (e.g. David, 1989, 1993; Davis et al., 1989, Taylor & Todd, 1995; Davis & Venkatesh, 1996; Venkatesh et al., 2003). The relations are mainly tested in a voluntary environment, which means that the user perceives the technology adoption or use decision to be a willful choice (Brown et al. 2002), where the users perceive the technology adoption as organizationally compulsory in a mandated environment (Hartwick & Barki, 1994; Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Notable, little research has focused on the adoption process in a mandatory environment (Brown et al. 2002; Hwang, Al-Arabiat, Shin, 2015). Nonetheless, many of the behaviors on the work floor, particularly those related to technology, are not volitional (Ram & Jung, 1991).
7 followed by a changed organizational situation with as result that employees have to adopt a new system in their jobs (Brown et al., 2016). Examples of such a situation can be the introduction of new IS due to objectives like cost reductions, communication between departments or organizational learning projects. An example of a voluntary system can be the introduction of tablets that can be chosen to use during organizational meetings. The adoption of a new IS “is a process, starting with the user becoming aware of the IS, and ending with the user embracing the IS and making full use of it” (Renaud & Biljon, 2008, p. 210).
The IS-literature encompass various definitions for information systems. In this research, Silver, Markus & Beath (1995) definition of IS will be used, that is “systems that consists of hardware, software, data, people, and procedures who are implemented within an organization for the purpose of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of that organization” (p. 363). Capabilities of the information system and characteristics of the organization, its work systems, its people, and its development and implementation methodologies together determine the extent to which that purpose is achieved (Silver et al., 1995). Information systems play a crucial role in organizations, because of the cost reductions, achieving of superior operating efficiencies or to facilitate more efficient decision-making processes (Brown et al. 2002; Vieru, Rivard & Dutot, 2014).
8 Due to these potential negative consequences and the progressively pace of technological developments, it is increasingly important to understand the IS adoption behavior of end-users in a mandatory setting. Although, the IS literature stated that there is no universal theory to date that explains IS adoption behavior in truly-mandatory environments (Mather et al., 2002; Hossain and Quaddus, 2014). A few studies have investigated if technology adoption theories still have their explanatory power when the system use is mandatory (cf. Hartwick & Barki, 1994; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), but without a great success (Koh et al., 2010; Hossain & Quaddus, 2014; Bhattarcherjee et al., 2017). Moreover, the organizational perspective is only included in a few studies. As result, there is a lack of knowledge about mandatory IS adoption behavior from an organizational perspective in literature (Ward et al., 2005).
Therefore, this study aims to broaden the knowledge about IS adoption behaviors in mandatory use environments. In addition, this study investigates how organizational mechanisms influence IS user response to develop a broaden organizational perspective on user adoption behaviour. Hence, this thesis is focused on the underlying organizational mechanisms that influence the user response of an end-user in a mandatory use environment. This is important to understand the end-users’ adoption decision and actual usage behavior towards the use of an IS to minimize the changes of failure (Ward et al., 2005; Hwang et al., 2015) and to maximize the benefits that an organization can experience due to the use of information technologies.
1.3. Research questions
This research aims to identify the underlying organizational mechanisms that influence the different adoption behaviors of employees in a mandatory environment. Therefore, the following research questions are formulated:
RQ 1: What are the different user responses towards the adoption of a new information system in a mandatory use environment?
RQ 2: How have underlying organizational mechanisms influence on different types of information system adoption behavior in a mandatory use environment?
9 and organizational influences. This thesis aims to broaden the literature about mandatory IS adoption behavior from an organizational perspective.
To answer the research questions, a qualitative comparative case study in the public sector is conducted. The public sector is an interesting research setting, because public organizations are changed heavily by using technological systems (Ho, 2002). Information systems changed the policies, organizational practices and especially the daily actions and routines of employees (Cordella & Iannacci, 2010). Eleven employees across two organizations were interviewed who work with a newly introduced IS in a mandatory use environment. The interviews were coded to identify patterns across cases. The results are discussed in chapter 4 and 5.
This study found that engaged, compliant, reluctant and deviant user responses, based on emotional and behavioral responses, can be identified in mandatory use environments. Furthermore, this study investigated that the underlying organizational mechanisms that influence user responses can be classified as social organizational mechanism, social individual mechanisms and social interrelated mechanisms. All three categories influence the end-user response and subsequently adoption behavior of the employees. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of user adoption behavior in mandatory use environments. This knowledge is important to achieve a more effective and more efficient implementation process of a new IS in an organization. This can positively promote job satisfaction and performance. This all contributes to a more successful implementation process and post-adoption phase in organization, which results in a higher return on IS investments.
1.4. Structure of this thesis
10
Chapter 2. Literature review 2.1. Introduction
In organizations, information systems (IS) are frequently used to increase organizational performance (Soh & Sia, 2005). Although, this is only the case when the system is used by the employees in a productive way (David, Bagozzi & Washaw, 1989). According to Orlikoski (2000) "technology per se cannot increase or decrease the productivity of work, only the use of it can'' (p. 425).
To understand the end-user response towards the adoption of IS in a mandatory use environment, this chapter reviews the existing literature in different areas. Firstly, prior literature in the field of IS research in mandatory contexts is reviewed. Secondly, different user responses, such as acceptance and resistance towards mandatory IS use, are reviewed in order to gain deeper understanding about IS adoption behavior. Based on this literature review, a conceptual framework is developed.
2.2. The innovation adoption process in organizations
The introduction and implementation of a new IS system in organization can be seen as an organizational innovation process. Drawing on Rodgers’ (1995) work on diffusion of innovations, two ‘units of adoption’ are involved in an organizational innovation process. This is the organizational adoption and the adoption of the individual. To ensure an efficient implementation of an innovation, both units of adoption have to be ensured (Bouwman et al., 2005). The adoption is influenced by different roles in the communication networks in an organization, which consist of formal roles (managers and project leaders) as well as social roles (opinion leaders) who have both influence on the employee’s attitude and behavior concerning innovation (Rodgers, 1995). It is important to consider the definitions of 'adoption' here in the two different phases. Specifically, the organizational adoption decision takes place during the pre-implementation phase, where the adoption phase of the individual take place in the post-adoption phase. Hence, the focus of this research is on the individual adoption phase, which implicate the phase where the employees starts to work with the IS in the daily practice, the post-adoption phase.
11 IS implemented is an issue of organizational change in a social system (Markus & Tanis, 2000). As a result, little is known about how organizational mechanisms may can influence user responses to a new IS in a mandatory use environment. Therefore, it is important to focus on organizational mechanisms, because mechanisms represent the dynamic interaction of the IS implementation in the social system as described above. Mechanisms are defined as a set of entities and activities that produce change from an initial state to observed outcomes (e.g. Bunge, 2004; Gross, 2009; Hedström, 2005) who present processes that link causes and effects. This is relevant because mechanisms show how actors came to form their specific response in an IS context and why they show particular behavior towards the use of the IS (Avgerou, 2013). It is especially relevant in a mandatory use environment, because of the forced use of the IS. Hence, this research is focused on the underlying mechanism of specific IS adoption behavior from an organizational perspective in a mandatory use environment. Prior literature about IS research in mandatory and voluntary environments is reviewed to review the existing knowledge is this field, as discussed next.
2.3. Technology acceptance theories: voluntary vs. mandatory
The technology acceptance literature knows different theories, like the 'Theory of Reasoned Action' (Davis, 1985), the successive 'Theory of Planned Behavior' (Ajzen, 1991) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989) These theories explain that attitudes toward objects such as systems are weak predictors of behaviors towards those objects (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Within the IS literature, TAM has emerged as the main model for explaining and predicting behavior (Brown et al, 2002; Hwang et al., 2015). TAM explains that the individual attitude towards an IS influence the behavioral intention to use and actual usage of the IS. Specifically, TAM argues that the individual attitude is influence by two belief constructs, namely perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) of the technology. Both constructs are influence by external variables that can facilitate or hinder the PU or PEOU. Hence, the theoretical basis for this research has relied on TAM to understand the adoption decision of an employee, but this research includes the behavioral and emotional response in the measurement of the adoption attitude of the employee.
12 situations, but without a great success (Koh et al., 2010; Hossain & Quaddus, 2014). In example, TAM has become a well-documented and powerful model for predicting user acceptance, but this is mainly researched when the use of a technology was voluntary (Brown et al., 2002; Hossain & Quaddus, 2014; Hwang et al., 2015). Furthermore, according to Koh et al., (2010), TAM has been shown to be less explanatory when the nature of the system use is mandatory. Venkatesh & Davis (2000) investigated the differences between volitional and mandatory situations in their model, TAM2, which include the moderator ‘voluntariness’. Although, their results argue that TAM2 predicts the relationship between the constructs in both situations, but loses its explanatory power when there is a truly-mandated system without an alternative (Brown et al., 2002). Therefore, the explanatory power of TAM2 is not obvious (Hossain & Quaddus, 2014) Moreover, Rawstorne et al., (2000) investigated the different contexts with the Theory of Planned Behavior and TAM theories and found contradicting results in predicting specific behaviors in both situations (Nah et al., 2014). Altogether, prior literature concluded that there is no universal theory to date that explains IS adoption behavior in truly-mandatory environments (Mather et al., 2002; Hossain & Quaddus, 2014).
13
Authors Findings Context Voluntary/
Mandatory
Venkatesh and Davis (2000)
Found that normative factors are more influential in mandatory setting by testing their model, TAM2.
Adoption of proprietary system, windows based system (two cases) and a Disk Operating System (DOS) in the
manufacturing and financial sector
Four longitudinal field studies of mandatory and volitional context
Mather, Caputi and Jayasuriya (2002)
Found that the relations of TAM are domain dependable. Also found that job relevance and subjective norm (peers more than
management) have significant influence on perceived usefulness of IS
Adoption of safety management system in a large manufacturing company
Mandatory system use
Ward, Brown and Massey (2005)
Subjective norms (peers, IS consultants and managers), top management commitment and perceived benefit to organization influences the adoption of an information system in a mandatory context.
Measurement of attitude towards information system use over time in the multi-bank holding corporation (BHC)
Mandatory system use
Hossain & Quaddus (2014)
When the adoption is mandatory, the significant factors are the pressure from the externals, compatibility of the innovation and management-related factors of the adopting organizations. In voluntary adoption, external pressure; management-related organizational factors; trialability and cost of the innovation; and expectations from using the innovation are important.
Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) technology in the
Australian livestock sector
Cross-sectional
comparison of voluntary and mandatory context
Dečman, (2015)
Performance expectancy and social influence influences the adoption of an e-learning system in a mandatory context
Adoption of e-learning system by students from the same age
Mandatory system use
Table 2.1. IS research in mandatory contexts
14 managers in an organization influence the user response. An employee can be influenced through a managers’ role, attitude or the commitment that these managers show towards the use of the IS (Ward et al., 2005). This research uses the mechanisms found in prior literature to test these mechanisms together in a mandatory environment. Hence, this research also incorporates supportive mechanisms (e.g. support and training) because these processes are also expected to positively influence the end-user response because of the social dynamic interaction between the employee and the person(s) who provides the support (Xia & Lee, 2000; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Ward et al., 2005). Lewis et al., (2003) argue that support can happen from multiple level in the organization. Therefore, this research assumes that supportive mechanisms are different then the management-related organizational mechanisms which focus directly on the higher layers of the management.
2.4. Differences in adoption behavior in a mandatory use environment
When an employee experiences an implementation of an IS in his/her workplace, this can engender a wide range of different reactions. These responses can lead to the acceptance of an IS, but also to resistance (Markus, 1983). This can be expressed in emotions like excitement, skepticism, fear of change and behaviors like user engagement, avoidance and workarounds (Bhattacherjee et al., 2017). Different scholars have identified IS acceptance and resistance. The two dimensions of user adoption are mostly divided into facilitating acceptance (e.g. Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003) or avoidance of resistance (e.g. Lapointe & Rivard, 2005; Markus, 1983). Although, more recent research of Van Offenbeek, Boonstra & Seo (2013) argues that resistance and acceptance should not be seen as one dimensional but as two independent and distinct concepts.
15 et al., (2013), more research is needed to broader the view on different forms of acceptance and therefore adoption behaviors.
The resistance literature examines why people do not accept IS (Bhattacherjee et al., 2017). Resistance is defined as a behavioral reaction, which expresses reservation or hesitation in the face of pressure as exerted by change supporters seeking to alter the status quo (Coetsee, 1999; Lapointe & Rivard, 2005; Van Offenbeek et al., 2013). Markus (1983) argued that resistance can be damaging as well as functional for an organization. He stated that when resistance leads to conflicts, consummation of time and malevolence, it can hurt the organization, but it can also contribute to an organization by diminishing negative stress if it is managed in a proper and efficient way (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008). Several scholars have identified the underlying mechanism of resistance. For example, Lapointe & Rivard (2005) have done qualitative research to attempt the inductive factors and processes that engender user resistance for passive and active resistance and found that resistance behavior is shown when the IS is perceived as a threat.
Furthermore, van Offenbeek et al.(2013) has develop an integrative two dimension model of acceptance/non-acceptance and support/resistance towards IS adoption. Moreover, Lapointe & Beaudry (2014) examined that acceptance and resistance could be separated in four types of IS use based on the dimension acceptance/resistance and IS compliance/non-compliance. At last, Stein et al., (2015) found that emotions have influence on the IS adoption of a user. The authors investigated that IS as a stimulus can induce emotions and influence IS use behaviors. On top of that, Stein et al., (2015) found that emotions resulting from forced IS use may be uniform or mixed which can have influence on the adoption behavior. These studies assume that acceptance and resistance coexist within the same organization and should be studies jointly rather than separately (Van Offenbeek et al., 2013; Bhattacherjee et al., 2017). Therefore, this thesis includes both the emotional and behavioral response in the adoption behavior of end-users to investigate acceptance and resistance jointly.
2.5. Taxonomy of user responses
16 and behavioral user responses towards mandatory IS use. User responses are defined as the set of emotional and behavioral reactions manifested among users that co-emerge as IS is introduced into their work environment.
User response type
Emotional response Behavioral response Founded in prior research
Classification of user response adoption behavior
Engaged Passionate and/or enthusiastic about IS use Wanting to discover new features of IS
a sense of ownership of the IS
Use IS beyond required use Experiment with IS
Modifies work procedures to optimize the use of IS and/or modifies IS to optimize work
Emergent use (Saga & Zmud, 1994) Innovative use (Li et al., 2013)
Trying to innovate using IS (Ahuja & Thatcher, 2005)
The engaged user response can be classified when the end-user shows enthusiastic support and shows innovative use of the IS. This has positive effects in a user’s enjoyment using the IS, active participation and influence on others (Kahn, 1990). This user response reflects positive emotions and promoting behavior with the optimal use of IS in mandatory settings. This has positive influence of the benefits of IS to the organization.
Compliant Generally positive about IS, but views IS use as less rewarding
IS seen as a necessity and nothing more
IS-use is purposeful but mechanistic
Little or no innovation No customization of IS
Standardized use (Sage & Zmud, 1994) Routine use (Li et al., 2013)
This response is characterized by a sub-optimal use of IS by the end-user. The end-user is performing repetitive and standardized use behavior. This is paired with emotions such as risk avoidance and the minimization of variance in the outcomes of the use of the IS. A compliant user uses the IS with a generally satisfied feeling, but the use is seen as a requirement but nothing more.
Reluctant Fear of or reservations about IS
IS seen as a distraction from work
Low expectations of IS
Uses IS only to ‘meet quotas’ or comply with mandates
Occasional disengagement from IS use and training
Tendency to fall back to old ways of work
Passive resistance (Lapointe & Beaudry, 2014)
Resigned use
(Lapointe & Beaudry, 2014)
The reluctant user response is defined as adoption behavior that shows generally resistance behavior toward the system. The reluctant users see the IS as an unnecessarily addition to their daily job but use the system because their supervisors are demanding this. Emotions like frustrations and reservations about the IS are expressed in passive resistance. This means that the users do not use the IS to it full potential, which leads to questionable outcomes and has preferences to the prior way of working.
Deviant IS believed to be an affront/challenge to work and autonomy
Desire to disown IT
IS nonuse or use of ‘proxies’ Use of workarounds
Voices opposition to IS Dissuades IS use among peers Employees delaying tactics Undermines or sabotages IS implementation
Active/aggressive resistance (Lapointe & Beaudry, 2014).
A deviant user response is expressed as behavior that violates
2.6. Conceptual framework
This literature review demonstrates the different findings in prior literature (voluntary/mandatory settings and acceptance/resistance theories), which emphasizes the need for further development of knowledge in this research area, because to extend of the author’s knowledge, there is no universal theory of adoption behavior in truly-mandated environments from an organizational perspective to date. This research does not aim to develop a universal theory, but to broaden knowledge in this under-explored research field. As prior literature has investigated the adoption process in a mandatory environment, especially focused on the individual factors of the adoption of an IS based on TAM (e.g. Hartwick and Barki, 1994; Brown et al., 2002), this research investigates the adoption process from an organizational perspective by focusing on different user response types and the underlying mechanisms that influence these user responses to extend knowledge in this research field.
Therefore, this research elaborates on the work of Bhattacherjee et al., (2017). Firstly, this taxonomy is suitable for this research because the four responses identified are particularly focused on IS adoption in mandatory environments. Secondly, the taxonomy of Bhattacherjee et al., (2017) is chosen because of the recent publication, so the article incorporates the technological development of the last years. Thirdly, the taxonomy is established over a longer period of time (8 years) which represent a considered methodology to identify mandatory use responses. At last, this research examines if these user responses can also be found in a comparative case study. This is relevant, because Bhattacherjee et al., (2017) performed a single case study. Therefore, this thesis investigates if the user responses can be identified in multiple organizations. Subsequently, this thesis uses the taxonomies to identify organizational mechanisms that underlie different adoption behaviors. This contributes to the development of a broader perspective on the work of Bhattacherjee et al., (2017).
19 The conceptual framework is presented in Figure 2.1. The conceptual framework is composed as follows: square ‘B’ presents the user responses. These user responses are based on the taxonomy of Bhattarcherjee et al., (2017) as discussed above. The identification of the user responses leads to the identification of the underlying organizational mechanisms of the different user response types. This is presented in square ‘A’.
Figure 2.1. Conceptual framework
2.7. Conclusion
20
Chapter 3. Methodology
3.1. Introduction
This chapter describes how the research is performed. The research design, research strategy, data collection methods, data analysis and data quality are outlined. Furthermore, the ethical considerations are reviewed.
3.2. Research philosophy and design
The research design is build up from the ontology and epistemology approaches chosen for this research, which influence the methodology, methods and sources that are used in this research. This study employed a social constructionist qualitative case study approach. This approach assumes that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being
accomplished by social actors (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). It implies that social phenomena and categories are not only produced through social interaction but that they are in a constant state of revision (Bryman, 2001). This is relevant in this research, because the adoption behavior of employees interacts with influence of social actors, the environment and the individual.
The epistemology of this research is interpretivist. This means that the research is focused on the investigation of the social world of the social actors researched. Interpretivists believe an understanding of the context in which any form of research is conducted is critical to the interpretation of data gathered (Willis, 2007, p.4). To investigate different IS user responses, it is important to understand the social context of the participant to interpret the findings. The research aim is to investigate the underlying organizational mechanisms that influence the different end-user adoption toward an IS. Therefore, a qualitative empirical study is performed. The research design is mixed, which means that a deductive and inductive design is used. The first aim of the study is theory testing by applying the taxonomy of Bhattarcherjee et al., (2017) in multiple mandatory use environment and by testing organizational mechanisms found in prior literature. This is deductive research. The second aim of the study is theory building (Eisenhardt, 1989) by identifying if other organizational mechanisms have influence on user adoption behavior. This is inductive research. The results of the study are presented in a research model, which is presented in Chapter 5.
3.3. Research strategy
21 Lewis & Thornhill, 2009, p. 146). In this research, a comparative case study is used to gain a more extended understanding into the social phenomenon from the employees’ perspective in different settings (Hennink et al., 2010; Swanborn, 2010). The unit of analysis are employees that work with the IS on daily basis in mandatory use environment. The comparative case study is performed within two companies in the public sector, enabling within case and cross-case analysis.
3.4. Case selection and description
The cases are selected based on different criteria to enable an interesting comparative case study. Firstly, the organizations must have experienced an IS implementation in the last years (2014-2017) to ensure that employees remember the implementation well to ensure the reliability of the data. Secondly, the employees have to work with the IS on frequent basis to perform their job. This is relevant to be sure that a mandatory use environment is the setting of the case. Thirdly, the organizations are both public organizations. This enables the
researches to generalize the data in the public sector. This is especially relevant, because that the Internet is the force that transformed the public sector (Ho, 2002). Moreover, Cordella & Iannacci (2010) argued that public organizations are changed heavily through the use of technologies, because it changed the policies, organizational practices and especially the daily actions and routines of employees. As result, the public sector is an interesting sector to research. It is considered that this scope limits the findings to the public sector. In Chapter 6, the limitations are discussed in more detail. Table 3.1. provides an overview of the two cases.
Industry Size Department
researched Implementation period Information system implemented Healthcare Case 1 ±1500 employees
Intensive care and surgical ward.
Start May 2017 for these two departments. In September 2018, the IS will be implemented enterprise wide.
An Plant Design Management System (PDMS) to integrate the communication and patient information of different apartments in the hospital is implemented. Education Case 2 ± 3000 employees Financial administration and ICT department September 2015, but currently a module is implemented that extent the functioning of the IS.
A software system, which is used for planning,
declarations and time registration is implemented.
22 Case 1 - Healthcare
Data is collected at a large hospital in the Netherlands. The department studied in the hospital are the Intensive Care (IC) and the surgical ward. The new implemented IS is used to collect the digital data of a patient. The IS incorporate dossiers, workflow-assistance, administration, logistics, planning and eHealth. The decision to implement the IS is made by the board of the hospital to create uniformity and quality of data and to transfer data between departments and other regional health institutions. Furthermore, the use of the IS is mandatory for all employees in the department, because the employees have to fill in the patient’s data after a visit or surgery in the system to make the patient’s information available for colleagues and other departments. Case 2 – Education
The second organization is a higher educational institute in the Netherlands. Within the organization, the financial administration, responsible for payroll and research grant applications and the ICT department, providing IT support, are researched. The organization has experienced the implementation of an IS in 2015. In 2017, a new module is implemented for the registration of hours of absence. The decision to implement the IS is made by the board to produce digitalized data that can be used to clarify the administration to external companies like the accountant. Another goal of the IS was to reduce workload and obtain more structured data. Employees must use the IS to verify their worked hours and fill in their declarations. There is no other way to do this. As result, the use of the IS is mandatory.
3.5. Data collection
23 answer in all possible directions. With the use of probing questions, data about the participants’ adoption behavior was collected. The interview outline consisted out of three topics; the user response towards the mandatory IS use, the underlying mechanisms of this response and the interventions that could possible help the organization. The participants selected are end-users of the IS. The first two parts of the interview are investigating the deductive findings, where the last part is trying to investigate inductive findings. In both cases, the application administrator is also interviewed. This helps to enrich the data about the implementation process and the overall response on the IS from another viewing point in the organization. The participants are presented in Table 3.2. below.
Participant code Roles User?
Case 1
Part_01_H Team leader User
Part_02_H Intensive care nurse User
Part_03_H Intensive care nurse User
Part_04_H Intensive care nurse User
Part_05_H Application administrator Non-user
Case 2
Part_01_E Program manager User
Part_02_E Program controller User
Part_03_E Program assistant User
Part_04_E Financial manager User
Part_05_E Application administrator Non-user
Part_06_E Project leader User
Table 3.2. Participants interviews
24
Data methods Type Number of items
Documentary Case 1:
Domain report implementation Organization chart
Internal communication documents about process & planning Published article about IS implementation
---
Case 2:
Manuals about how to use IS Technical plan of IS Organization chart 1 1 2 1 --- 3 2 1 Participant observations Case 1: Observations
Discussion - two employees
--- Case 2: Observations 1 day 1 1 day
Online Website of organizations Website of IS implementers
2 2 Table 3.3. Overview of data sources
3.6. Data analysis
The interviews are analyzed using coding. Coding is the process of searching the data for search for common themes and categories (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Taylor & Gibbs, 2010). Through coding, the data becomes organized, which makes it easier to identify possible patterns in the data (Taylor & Gibbs, 2010).
25
Step Description of the process
1. Transcription of the interviews in Atlas. Ti *
2. Labelling quotes in the transcriptions that are relevant for the research question *
3. Using the pre-defined code list and expand this code list with emerging themes to code the quotes
4. Arrange the codes in inductive and deductive categories
5. Development of codebook to systematic analyse the transcript and duplicate step three and four for the axial coding process
6. Preform the final coding with the help of the codebook
7. Analyse the data for both cases based on the identified codes
Table 3.4. The coding process (Based on information from Karlsson (2016)).
* Step one and two can be executed simultaneously to use the founded codes in order to retrieve insights for the transcription of following interviews.
3.7. Data quality
To ensure the quality of qualitative research, this study follow Lincoln and Guba’s evaluative criteria. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), the trustworthiness of a research is important to evaluate its worth. How the trustworthiness is ensured is presented in Table 3.5.
Evaluative criteria How?
Credibility Prolonged engagement is used to ensure that there is sufficient time in the research situation to learn the situation, culture, and habits. Secondly, the triangulation technique is used to ensure that multiple data sources are used to understand the situation (see Table 3.3.), which promotes the information richness and diversity of the data.
Transferability The transferability is ensured by using thick description. Thick description refers to the level of sufficient detail in which the phenomenon is described. Therefore, this is done in sufficient detail which contributes to the extent to which the conclusions drawn are transferable to other situations, times, people and context.
Dependability Dependability is the extent to what the study could be repeated by other researchers. To ensure dependability, the inquiry audit method is used. This means that an outside person reviews the methodology used and data analysis to be sure that the research could be repeated.
Confirmability To ensure confirmability, an audit trail is used which is a transparent description of the steps taken in the research. These steps are formulated from the start of the research till the end of the research project. Furthermore, the researcher has reflected on her attitude during the research process to limit the potential influence effect of the researcher.
26
3.8. Ethical considerations
Ethical considerations were considered. Firstly, a research protocol was used to ensure the informed consent, which was used to formally agree on the permission to do research in both organizations and to agree on the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants. Secondly, the voluntary participation, recording of the interviews, primary aim of the research and further use of the data was agreed on before the interviews started (ESRC, 2017). Afterwards, the participant was asked for feedback and if the person would like to verify the data and receive the final outcomes. Thirdly, the researcher has prevented participants for potential harm by giving the participants the freedom to tell about their experiences and emotions, but ensure the confidentiality of the data and their anonymous. An ethical checklist of the University of Newcastle was used to ensure the consideration of all the ethical guidelines.
3.9. Conclusion
27
Chapter 4. Findings and discussion – Research Question 1. 4.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of the research phase. The findings are presented with quotes derived from the interviews held in the data collection phase. This chapter is focused on the first research question ‘What are the different user responses towards an IS in a mandatory use environment?’. By using the taxonomy of Bhattacherjee et al., (2017), the user responses are categorized. Firstly, the user responses are analyzed for each case, followed with a discussion of the user responses found.
4.2. Different user responses
The findings are analyzed by coding the interviews based on emotional and behavioral responses that participants mentioned during the interviews. These deductive codes are derived from prior literature. Emotional responses were identified when the participants expressed a feeling associated with the use of the IS in their jobs. The behavioral responses were identified to behavioral actions expressed related to the use of IS. In Appendix B, the used codes are presented in a codebook.
Case 1 – Health Care
The employees mentioned different emotional responses. For example, Part02_H stated “Positive, pleasant, good, an improvement for sure”. This is a supportive and enthusiastic response towards the use of the IS. In contrast, Part03_H explained: “My experience is still not good with the system. A lot of things are not correct”, which characterized an overall negative emotional response. The participants also mentioned behavioral responses, like Part01_H who stated: “There can be done more with the system, there is a possibility to gain more profit out of it” which characterized the future orientation and belief in the system. Part04_H stated: “I have experienced it for a long time as unpleasant, but now, I experience that it is getting better”. This characterizes the process of improvements. Based on the
emotional and behavior responses, the participants are classified in the user response proposed by Bhattacherjee et al., (2017) to identify the different user responses. In Table 4.1., an
28
Participant Emotional response Behavioral response Categorization of user response
Part01_H “You can always stay
stubborn, but you have to make it by yourself in the end”
“There can be done more with the system, there is a possibility to gain more profit with it”
Part01_H is characterized as a compliant user response, which recognizes the future possibilities of the IS, but sees it as a necessity and nothing more. This is paired with emotions that avoid risk and minimize variance, but he IS is used in a standardized way.
Part02_H “I’m one of the few that
thinks that the system is pleasant and useful”.
“I promote the system to other colleagues, especially to colleagues who grumble and do not like it”.
Part02_H is characterized as an engaged user response. The participant
recognizes the added value of the IS to his work and sees the problems with the system as opportunities to learn, paired with positive emotions and a strong feeling of comport and control when working with the IS.
Part03_H “Currently, I experience
working with the system as scary, because I lost my overview with my patients which I did not had with my papers”
“When it is a busy day, I just write the information down in my papers. I want to give it a change, but I also think “the IS will come later”.”
Part03_H is characterized as a reluctant user response. The participant
experiences feelings of fear with use of the IS in their daily job. This is because of the problems with the IS and the possible effects of the safety of their patient. The user prefers to use other ways to avoid the IS.
Part04_H “I thought I would learn
to use it, but it is still disappointing”.
“I had an open attitude in the beginning, but you become more skeptical when you experience moments that it just does not work. Then you become more negative, so I just abused it once”
Part04_H is characterized as a reluctant user response. The participant
mentioned that negative experiences have influenced her attitude toward the IS, but the use of the IS is still
mandatory. Therefore, the system is used but only to ‘meet quotas’ and perform the daily tasks as expected by the management.
29 Case 2 – Education
30
Participant Emotional response Behavioral response Categorization of user response
Part06_E “I do not get positive
feeling from the system. It is just a tool what makes the work easier”
“I know what I have to do to fill in the data. I know what I have to do to see the reports, but I do not know all the
functionalities”
Part06_E can be identified as a compliant user response. He is overall positive about the IS, but does not feel the necessity to use the IS as rewarding. He has joined meetings with other users to promote the effectiveness of the IS, but still mentioned that his preference is to use another IS (“I do not use that yet, because I still prefer to use SAP BI for this”), which can be linked to a reluctant user response, because he prefers to fall back in another way of working.
Part07_E “If it is up to me, we
will use the system more”
“My experience is that it is an easy system is to use, so I do not experience it as a big challenge to work with it”
Part07_E can be characterized as an engaged user response. She is enthusiastic about using the IS to complete daily tasks. This is also linked to the involvement with the introduction of the IS (“In the first year, I worked together with my colleague to let it land within the organization, educate people and let people get used to it”).
Part08_E “I can describe it as a
7.5, so pretty good”
“I just try things and look if it brings me to the preferred result”
Part08_E shows a compliant user response. The user is satisfied and does not see problems by using the IS, but will not take the lead in promoting the IS
Part09_E “I am not scared to
go my way in the system to see what happens”
“I think it is a system that work pretty good and does what it should do.”
Part09_E mentioned the drive to undertake experiments with the system and to expand his knowledge about the IS. This can be classified as an engaged user response.
Part11_E “Somewhere I think
it is just bullshitting to use it, but yes”.
“I think it is useless to spend so much time to write down my time, when there is no added value. Or indeed, I do not see it”.
Part11_E is showing passive resistance. The person is using the IS to comply with the rules, but this is the only reason. (“For me, it is just not a worth full spending of my time”). In contrast, he also mentioned to take his own initiative to discover the system. Therefore, this user response can be classified between reluctant and deviant.
31
4.3. Discussion of the user responses
By analyzing the findings, different key-patterns can be identified across cases. The engaged user response, compliant user response and reluctant user response are recognized in the different user responses shown by the participants in both organizations. The deviant user response is only partly recognized in the emotional and behavioral response of one participant, who also mentioned characteristics of a reluctant user response. This is in line with the findings of Bhattacherjee et al., (2017) who also found that this is a relatively rare user response type. This could be the result of the mandatory use environment. In both cases, the IS has to be used to complete the employees’ job. When a participant actively resists against a IS in a mandatory setting, this could eventually result in the retiring or redundancy of the employee. Bhattacherjee et al., (2017) confirmed this in their study, where they learned that deviant users moved to other organizations or resigned.
As a result, the deviant user response could be measured in first period after the implementation phase but could be difficult to measure over a longer period, due to the mandatory setting. According to the rules and policies in an organization, it is practical impossible to be a deviant user over a longer period, because the participant will not successfully fulfill his or her job. In addition, this highlights the snapshot nature of taxonomies, because the categorization is dependable of the moment of measurement. Moreover, the second case shows two participants that have an overlapping behavioral and emotional response. This could be the result of a transition of the user response. This could be the effect of the period of the implementation, because this started already two years ago.
32 Although, after a period of time the introduction is become part of the daily routine and the system is becoming a part of the business. The IS is in this situation no longer seen as a disruptive event. As a result, it is expected that user responses do not shift per se positively or negatively, but users get acclimatized to the IS.
Furthermore, this study confirms that end-users show behavior of acceptance and resistance simultaneously. These results are in line with the study of Van Offenbeek et al., (2013). They propose a two factor view on user reactions, where two dimensions (support vs. resistance) (acceptance vs. non-acceptance) characterize the different user reactions based on these two dimensions. Van Offenbeek et al., (2013) show that users can accept the IS by using it, but also can expresses feelings of resistance what limits the extend of use. Although, the emotional response is not included within the model of Van Offenbeek et al.(2013), but it is only focused on the behavioral response of end-users. Therefore, this research broadens the view on adoption responses by including an emotional and behavioral point of view.
4.4. Conclusion
33
Chapter 5. Findings and discussion – Research Question 2 5.1. Introduction
To answer the second research question ‘How have underlying organizational mechanisms influence on different types of IS adoption behavior in a mandatory use environment?’, the findings are analyzed and discussed. The interviews were analyzed with deductive codes from prior literature. The deductive codes (management related mechanisms, subjective mechanisms, and supportive mechanisms) were used, as discussed next. In Appendix B, the codebook is presented. This chapter ends with a conclusion of the findings.
5.2. Underlying organizational mechanisms of the user responses
The data have provided insights in the different underlying mechanisms that influence user responses. The main findings are summarized in Table 5.1. below. The main findings are discussed in detail in the following part of this chapter.
Findings of case 1 (Healthcare) Management-related mechanisms
• The organization was not ready for the implementation of the IS and the subsequently organizational change which translated in a lack of organizational commitment • The attitude and commitment of the management was perceived as very limited which
resulted in a lack of motivation and understanding of the IS implementation Subjective mechanisms
• Sharing knowledge (especially issues) with colleagues has a strong influence on user responses
• External influence of partner hospitals (e.g. sharing problems) influenced the user response • External influence of IS supplier resulted in limited time and support
Supportive mechanisms
• Lack of training resulted in lack of understanding and motivation
• Limited resources in time resulted in feeling of pressure, distrust, and dissatisfaction. Findings of case 2 (Education)
Management-related mechanisms
• Differences in organizational commitment across department resulted in difference in organizational commitment per department
• Due to limited involvement of the board the lower management was in charge to lead the change which influenced the user responses.
Subjective mechanisms
• Influence of colleagues by sharing problems and knowledge about the IS positive and negative affected the user responses
• Users receive an external influence or so-called pressure of the organization’s accountant • Other partner institutions influenced the user response
Supportive mechanisms
34 Management-related mechanisms
Firstly, the management-related mechanisms are related to the perceptions of the employees regarding organizational actions. This is related to what the user sees in the organization from the management, how the person experiences this and how this effects the user response. In case 1, participants mentioned different management-related mechanisms such as organizational commitment and the attitude of the management regarding the implementation. Part01_H (compliant user) stated: “We have a shortage in staff, there is a merger with another hospital and we have new buildings and then the implementation of [new IS] is put in between. In case 2, the organizational commitment is different per department. This results in a lack of a shared goal or direction, which results in the lack of motivation to change. The importance of organizational commitment is in line with findings of Lines (2007), who found that the success of the implementation of change initiatives is influenced by the amount of organizational commitment. Also, Abrell-Vogel & Rowold (2014) agreed with this by concluding that the individual support given by the management is important for the commitment to change of the individual.
The attitude of the management is also recognized as influencing mechanisms in both cases. In case 2, Part06_E (compliant/reluctant user response) stated: “In my opinion, this was like the appointments that are made internally. This is often going this way. You receive several emails and if we are lucky, we received some information about it and does it not come as a surprise”. In case 1, Part03_H explicit stated: “In my opinion, we are through in at the deep end’. This is related to the attitude and role of the management, which is influencing the feelings and behavior of the employee. Prior research has already stressed the importance of (top) management commitment in IS implementation (i.e. Fui-Hoon Nah et al., 2001; Scott and Vessey, 2002), because it is found that the managerial words and actions lead employees to believe that use of the IS is supported and accepted in the organization, as opposed to required. These findings are in line with this by arguing that this is important in a truly-mandatory environment, where the use of the IS is strictly required and imposed by the management.
Subjective mechanisms
35 system works which gave a lot of positive reactions like “Oh, it is just one-minute work”. This is an example of the social influence of colleagues in the organization. In case 2, this is also an important factor. Part03_H (reluctant user) explained “We can continue muddling and staying focused on the negative aspects of the program, but yes. So, we have to motive each other a little bit to find the solution”. This emphasizes the influencing effect of colleagues. This is confirmed in literature by Bouckenooghe (2010), who found that interactions with colleagues are sensemaking mechanisms for employees to develop a certain attitude towards a new IS. Although, prior literature found also mixed results of the role of social influence. Matheison (1991) did not find significant relations, but Venkatesh & Davis (2000) agreed with the strong influence of social actors on user responses. According to Hartwick & Barki (1995), subjective norms were found significant when the situation was mandatory and not voluntary. This is in line with the results of this study. Furthermore, Lapointe & Rivard (2005) suggest that while individual behaviors are independent during the implementation phase, they later converge into group behaviors. This could explain that the social influence of colleagues is found as an important influencing mechanism because of the group pressure. According to Leonardi & Barley (2010), this implies that social influence processes are seen as the primary cause of convergence (p.6). In this study, the interaction between colleagues in often on daily basis, which could strengthen the influence of groups behavior on an employee attitude. This could indicate that in mandatory situations groups behavior has a stronger influence on a person’s attitude.
36 Part06_E mentioned another source of social influence, namely the influence of other partner companies. “It was used elsewhere with satisfaction. We received those signs from the other organization. But that cannot be defined as pressure. It is more sort of trust that other companies already use it, that you think ‘ah, than it will be just fine, it will be okay”. These findings are in line with Coffey et al., (2013) and Hossain & Quaddus (2014) who both found that external pressure is a significant factor in adoption of innovations. Although, this study found that it is a social influencing mechanism on the response of the end-user, because peers of other companies influence the end-user. Therefore, this provides more insights in the social mechanisms by extending this to the external environment.
Supportive mechanisms
Thirdly, both cases identified the influence of activities or actions that offer support to the end-users. These mechanisms are related to facilitation resources (e.g. training and support). The participants in both cases argued that the training and support offered within the organization influenced their user-response. Especially, when there was a lack of training. Notable, the engaged users (Part2_H, Part07_E, Part09_E) stated that the organization offered enough support and training and that they preferred to discover the IS themselves: “In my opinion, the system is user-friendly, so I just searched and learned it by myself” (Part07_E).
37 which indicates that individual support influences the emotional and behavioral responses of user. This could be the result of more understanding of the IS and feeling of trust with the IS but also with the supporter. This can be linked to the effect of mutual trust between managers or supportive staff and employees which is described as a fundamental factor for successful organizational change because of the effect on the employees’ attitude towards change (e.g. Gomez and Rosen, 2001; Stanley, Meyer & Topolnytski, 2005; Ward et al., 2005).
5.3. Learnings from the analysis
In both cases, several important patterns emerged. These patterns were found inductive and are identified as learnings. These learnings included the involvement of participants during the implementation phase, the communication within the organizations, the strategy of the implementation and the organizational culture. These findings are summarized in Table 5.2. below. The learnings are explained in detail below.
Learnings case 1 Involvement
• End-users recognize their (lack of) individual involvement in the implementation phase as influencing force on their end-user adoption response.
Communication
• The lack of communication about technical personal problems, but also about the process of implementation is mentioned as influencing mechanisms on the end-user adoption.
Strategy of the implementation
• The strategy of the implementation is stated as unpleasant and ineffective which influence resistance and negative feelings.
Learnings case 2 Involvement
• The engaged user recognized the influence of their involvement during the implementation process as an important influencing force on their response. Other users stated the lack of involvement during the implementation process as influencing force on their user response. Communication
• The lack of communication about the need for change is mentioned as an unsatisfied question which influences the understanding and motivation of participants to change. Organizational Culture
• The organizational culture influenced the attitude of participants towards change initiatives. Table 5.2. Learning from both cases
Involvement strategies
38 implementation process. For example, Part09_E and Part06_E are identified as engaged user responses but are also involved in the implementation phase in the organization. This could also be found in the first case, where Part02_H also was involved in the implementation of the IS. Part01_H explained about the involvement during the implementation of a prior IS, which resulted in a more positive feeling with the IS. The participant noted that this is a missing part during this implementation which results in less motivation and understanding of the implementation steps: ‘The main user group misses the first steps in the implementation process and therefore, my attitude is also different in this beginning phase than in comparison to the prior implementation. These findings show that the involvement of the user in the implementation process has influence on the user response.
Notable, the involvement strategies were found as a key-pattern for the engaged user response. This is in line with the findings of Jiang, Muhanna & Klein (2000) who found that participative strategies increase user acceptance by improving communication, realistic expectations of the system and creating a sense of ownership. User participations also contributes to the support and commitment of the user towards the change (Ives and Olson, 1984). Furthermore, Jiang et al., (2000) found that the involvement of users in the implementation phase effects the user response in the post-adoption phase. In contrast, the compliant and reluctant users communicated that they prefer to be more involved during the implementation phase. This emphasize the importance of the ‘perceived’ involvement of participants in the implementation strategy, but also that involvement strategies can be used to influence the end-user response and subsequently the end-user adoption behavior.
Communication
39 management” Part11_E). This is still recognized as an unsatisfied question which affects the understand and motivation of the end-user change attitude.
In prior literature, Woodward & Hendry (2004) stated that inadequate communication by the leaders of the change is one of the main obstacles for employees’ absorbing and coping with change. Therefore, it is important to communicate correctly, at the right moment and accurate about the implementation or developments related to the IS. Furthermore, communication strategies are one of the most often used strategies to reduce employee uncertainty during organizational change (Lewis, 1999; Schweiger and De Nisi, 1991). In this research, the findings suggest that an adequate communication could reduce the resistance and influence the end-user attitude of employees. This is especially relevant in mandatory use environments, because this communication is often provided by managers who require the IS use. Therefore, this is also partly related to the management-related mechanisms and does it emphasize the need for clear and adequate communication from who is leading the change, which are in this case the managers.
Strategy of the implementation
Thirdly, the strategy of the implementation is found as a pattern in the interviews in the healthcare case. The strategy of the implementation refers to how the implementation process is started and has progressed. In this case, the new IS is implemented in only two departments of the hospital. This has led to different problems in the compatibility of the system with other systems and the information exchange with other departments. Part05_H stated, “We should have said, the project is no upgrade, the project is a project in his own”, where the participant refers to the underestimated workload and impact of the implementation. This indicates that the strategy of the implementation influences the user response. Although, this is found specific in the healthcare case and therefore, future investigation is needed to investigate how implementation strategies influence user adoption behavior.
