UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An examination of the implementation of information technology for end users : a diffusion of innovations… Moore, Gary C. 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A1 M66.pdf [ 15.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098179.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098179-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098179-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098179-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098179-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098179-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098179-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098179-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098179.ris

Full Text

A N E X A M I N A T I O N O F T H E I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F I N F O R M A T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y F O R E N D U S E R S : A D I F F U S I O N O F I N N O V A T I O N S P E R S P E C T I V E By GARY C. MOORE B.A. (Honours), The Royal M i l i t a r y College of Canada, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Commerce and Business Administration We accept t h i s thesis as conforming the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1989 © Gary C. Moore, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Commerce and Business Administration The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6T 1Y3 Date: 24 July 1988 c ABSTRACT I n r e c e n t y e a r s , t h e d i f f u s i o n o f e n d - u s e r o r i e n t e d I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l -ogy ( I T ) w i t h i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s has met w i t h m i x e d s u c c e s s . The r e a c t i o n s t o t h i s t e c h n o l o g y , w h i c h c a n be c o n s i d e r e d t o be an i n n o v a t i o n i n . t h e w o r k p l a c e , r a n g e f r o m e n t h u s i a s t i c a d o p t i o n t o h o s t i l e r e j e c t i o n , and a r e t y p i c a l o f t h e r e a c t i o n s t o i n n o v a t i o n s i n g e n e r a l . N e v e r t h e l e s s , b e c a u s e t h i s IT i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f many o r g a n i s a t i o n s ' p l a n s , o r g a n i s a t i o n s must h a v e a good u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h may i n f l u e n c e i t s u s e . The p u r p o s e o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i s t o d e v e l o p and t e s t a m o d e l o u t l i n i n g p o t e n t i a l f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s . B e c a u s e p e r s o n a l l y u s i n g IT c a n be v i e w e d as an i n n o v a t i v e b e h a v i o u r , two a r e a s o f p r i o r r e s e a r c h were u s e d t o d e v e l o p t h e r e s e a r c h m o d e l . F i r s t , t h e D i f f u s i o n o f I n n o v a t i o n s m o d e l ( R o g e r s , 1 9 8 3 ) , p o s t u l a t e s t h a t a d o p t i o n o f an i n n o v a t i o n i s d e p e n d e n t u p o n s e v e r a l p e r c e p t i o n s one has o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . S e c o n d , t h e T h e o r y o f R e a s o n e d A c t i o n ( F i s h b e i n and A j z e n , 1 9 7 5 ) , p o s i t s t h a t b e h a v i o u r i n g e n e r a l i s m o t i v a t e d by an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s c a r r y i n g o u t t h e b e h a v i o u r , and h i s s u b j e c t i v e n o r m s . T h e s e norms a r e b a s e d o n what one t h i n k s t h a t o t h e r s e x p e c t one t o d o . These two t h e o r i e s w e r e m e l d e d i n t o a g e n e r a l r e s e a r c h m o d e l t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e c e n t r a l r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s : 1. What a r e t h e u s e r s ' , and n o n - u s e r s ' , u n d e r l y i n g p e r c e p t i o n s o f p e r s o n a l l y u s i n g IT? 2 . Do any o f t h e above p e r c e p t i o n s d o m i n a t e ? I f s o , w h i c h a r e t h e y , how a r e t h e y l i n k e d , and how do t h e y a f f e c t t h e d e c i s i o n t o p e r s o n -a l l y u s e IT? 3 . What a r e t h e e f f e c t s o f o t h e r s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t o n e ' s u s i n g IT on o n e ' s d e c i s i o n t o u s e , o r n o t u s e , IT? I tems t o measure t h e p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i n n o v a t i n g , t h e s u b j e c t i v e n o r m s , and i n n o v a t i v e b e h a v i o u r was d e v e l o p e d and a d m i n i s t e r e d i n a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l s u r v e y t o 540 i n d i v i d u a l s i n s e v e n o r g a n i s a t i o n s . T h r e e d a t a a n a l y s i s a p p r o a c h e s were u s e d , i n c l u d i n g a c o m p a r i s o n o f a d o p t e r s and n o n -a d o p t e r s o f I T , r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , and s t r u c t u r a l e q u a t i o n m o d e l l i n g ( L I S R E L ) . The a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s p r o v i d e s u p p o r t f o r t h e g e n e r a l m o d e l , and s i x o f t h e s e v e n s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s e s . Usage o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y was f o u n d t o be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h o n e ' s a t t i t u d e s and s u b j e c t i v e n o r m s , and t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f a t t i t u d e w e r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h d i f f u s i o n t h e o r y . - i v -T A B L E OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i L I S T OF TABLES x i L I S T OF FIGURES x i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x i i i CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 .1 The P r o b l e m 1 1 .2 R e s e a r c h G o a l s and Q u e s t i o n s . 6 1 .3 The P e r s o n a l Work S t a t i o n 8 1 .4 R e s e a r c h and D i s s e r t a t i o n O v e r v i e w 9 CHAPTER TWO: THE USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BY LAY USERS 2 . 1 G e n e r a l 11 2 . 2 I s s u e s 11 2 . 2 . 1 G e n e r a l 11 2 . 2 . 2 B e n e f i t s and P r o b l e m s 12 2 . 2 . 3 Summary 17 2 . 3 I n f o r m a t i o n Systems I m p l e m e n t a t i o n 17 2 . 4 A t t i t u d e R e s e a r c h 23 2 . 5 The Use o f t h e PWS as a Work I n n o v a t i o n 27 2 . 6 Summary 30 CHAPTER THREE: THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK S e c t i o n A : The T h e o r e t i c a l M o d e l 3 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 32 3 . 2 I n n o v a t i o n 32 3 . 3 D i f f u s i o n 33 3 . 4 I n n o v a t i v e n e s s 34 3 . 5 The M a r k e t P e r s p e c t i v e 41 - v -3 . 6 V o l u n t a r i n e s s o f PWS Usage 44 3 . 7 The S t a t e o f D i f f u s i o n T h e o r y ; 46 3 . 8 The I n n o v a t i o n D e c i s i o n M o d e l 49 3 . 8 . 1 S t a g e s i n t h e I n n o v a t i o n D e c i s i o n r . . 49 3 . 8 . 2 V a r i a b l e s A f f e c t i n g t h e I n n o v a t i o n D e c i s i o n 51 3 . 9 The P e r c e i v e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f I n n o v a t i o n s 51 3 . 9 . 1 G e n e r a l 51 3 . 9 . 2 R e l a t i v e A d v a n t a g e 53 3 . 9 . 3 Image 55 3 . 9 . 4 C o m p a t i b i l i t y 56 3 . 9 . 5 Ease o f Use 57 3 . 9 . 6 O b s e r v a b i l i t y 58 3 . 9 . 7 T r i a l a b i l i t y 58 3 . 1 0 T h e o r y o f Reasoned A c t i o n 59 , 3 . 1 0 . 1 . G e n e r a l 59 3 . 1 0 . 2 A t t i t u d e Towards t h e B e h a v i o u r . . . . . . . . . . . 60 3 . 1 0 . 3 S u b j e c t i v e Norm 62 3 . 1 0 . 4 B e h a v i o u r a l I n t e n t i o n and B e h a v i o u r 63 3 . 1 0 . 5 L i n k i n g I n n o v a t i o n - D i f f u s i o n and R e a s o n e d -A c t i o n T h e o r y 64 3 . 1 0 . 6 The I n n o v a t i o n D e c i s i o n M o d e l 64 3 . 1 0 . 7 Use o f R - A T h e o r y i n MIS R e s e a r c h 66 Section B: The Research Model 3 . 1 1 G e n e r a l 69 3 . 1 2 The A t t i t u d e Towards A d o p t i n g 71 3 . 1 2 . 1 G e n e r a l 71 3 . 1 2 . 2 P e r c e i v e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f A d o p t i n g an I n n o v a t i o n 72 3 . 1 2 . 3 E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e P e r c e i v e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 73 3 . 1 2 . 4 R e l a t i v e E f f e c t s - P e r c e i v e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f A d o p t i n g PWS 73 3 . 1 3 S u b j e c t Norms 74 3 . 1 4 V o l u n t a r i n e s s o f PWS Usage 76 3 . 1 5 Summary - The R e s e a r c h M o d e l 77 Section C: Research Design 3 . 1 6 G e n e r a l 78 - v i -CHAPTER FOUR: INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT Section A - Introduction 4 . 1 G e n e r a l 84 Section B: The Perceived Characteristics of Using the PWS 4 . 2 P e r c e i v e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f I n n o v a t i n g 87 4 . 3 I n s t r u m e n t D e v e l o p m e n t P r o c e s s 91 4 . 4 I n s t r u m e n t D e v e l o p m e n t - S t a g e I : S t e p 1 and S t e p 2 93 4 . 5 I n s t r u m e n t D e v e l o p m e n t - S t a g e I I : S t e p s 3 and 4 96 4 . 5 . 1 G e n e r a l 96 4 . 5 . 2 I n t e r - R a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y 101 4 . 5 . 3 S o r t i n g P r o c e d u r e s 105 4 . 6 S t e p T h r e e - Round One 106 4 . 6 . 1 J u d g e s 106 4 . 6 . 2 . R e s u l t s 107 4 . 7 S t e p F o u r - Round One 110 4 . 7 . 1 J u d g e s 110 4 . 7 . 2 R e s u l t s 110 4 . 7 . 3 S c a l e R e f i n e m e n t I l l 4 . 8 S t e p 3 - Round Two 113 4 . 8 . 1 J u d g e s 113 4 . 8 . 2 R e s u l t s 113 4 . 8 . 3 S c a l e R e f i n e m e n t 115 4 . 9 S t e p 4 - Round Two •• 115 4 . 9 . 1 J u d g e s . 115 4 . 9 . 2 R e s u l t s 116 4 . 9 . 3 S c a l e R e f i n e m e n t 117 4 . 10 P r e - P i l o t T e s t 120 4 . 1 0 . 1 G e n e r a l 120 4 . 1 0 . 2 Sample 121 4 . 1 0 . 3 R e s u l t s 121 4 . 1 1 P i l o t T e s t 126 4 . 1 1 . 1 G e n e r a l 126 4 . 1 1 . 2 Sample 126 4 . 1 1 . 3 R e s u l t s 126 4 . 1 2 Summary o f D e v e l o p m e n t o f PCI S c a l e s 129 - v i i -Section C: Subjective Norm, Attitude, and Innovativeness Measures 4 . 1 3 S u b j e c t v e Norm 130 4 . 1 3 . 1 G e n e r a l 130 4 . 1 3 . 2 S c a l e D e v e l o p m e n t 130 4 . 1 3 . 3 R e l i a b i l i t y 134 4 . 1 4 A t t i t u d e 134 4 . 1 4 . 1 G e n e r a l 134 4 . 1 4 . 2 D e v e l o p m e n t o f A t t i t u d e S c a l e 135 4 . 1 5 I n n o v a t i v e n e s s 135 4 . 1 5 . 1 G e n e r a l 135 4 . 1 5 . 2 A d o p t i v e I n n o v a t i v e n e s s 137 4 . 1 5 . 3 I m p l e m e n t a t i o n I n n o v a t i v e n e s s 138 4 . 1 5 . 4 Use I n n o v a t i v e n e s s 140 Section D: Questionnaire Design 4 . 16 G e n e r a l 141 4 . 1 7 F o r m a t 142 4 . 1 7 . 1 B o o k l e t 142 4 . 1 7 . 2 Q u e s t i o n L a y o u t 143 4 . 1 7 . 3 C o v e r i n g L e t t e r 144 4 . 1 8 T e s t i n g . 144 Section E: Final Survey - Scale Reliabilities 4 . 19 G e n e r a l 145 4 . 2 0 R e s u l t s 145 CHAPTER FIVE: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Section A: Data Collection and Conditioning 5 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 150 5 . 2 S u r v e y Sample 151 5 . 2 . 1 S u r v e y S i t e s 151 5 . 2 . 2 R e s p o n s e R a t e s 153 5 . 2 . 3 D e m o g r a p h i c S t a t i s t i c s o f S u r v e y Sample 153 5 . 3 C o n d i t i o n i n g t h e D a t a 154 5 . 3 . 1 G e n e r a l 154 5 . 3 . 2 A c c u r a c y o f I n p u t D a t a 154 5 . 3 . 3 M i s s i n g D a t a 155 5 . 3 . 4 O u t l i e r s and Skewness 156 5 . 3 . 5 N o n - L i n e a r i t y and H e t e r o s c e d a s t i c i t y 160 5 . 3 . 6 Summary ; 160 - v i i i -Section B: Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s 5 . 4 G e n e r a l 161 5 . 5 A t t i t u d e Towards I n n o v a t i n g 162 5 . 6 P e r c e i v e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f I n n o v a t i n g 162 5 . 7 S u b j e c t i v e Norms 164 5 . 8 I n n o v a t i v e n e s s M e a s u r e s 165 Section C: Regression Analysis 5 . 9 G e n e r a l 169 5 . 1 0 R e g r e s s i o n o f P e r c e i v e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o n A t t i t u d e 170 5 . 1 1 R e g r e s s i o n s on I n n o v a t i v e n e s s 174 5 . 1 1 . 1 G e n e r a l 174 5 . 1 1 . 2 A t t i t u d e , SN and V o l u n t a r i n e s s o n I n n o v a t i v e n e s s 175 5 . 1 1 . 3 P C I , S N , and V o l u n t a r i n e s s o n I n n o v a t i v e n e s s 177 Section D: S t r u c t u r a l Equation Modelling 5 . 1 2 G e n e r a l 179 5 . 13 L i s r e l 180 5 . 1 4 The S t r u c t u r a l E q u a t i o n M o d e l ; 185 5 . 1 5 Goodness o f F i t 188 5 . 1 6 A t t i t u d e - Causes and E f f e c t s 190 5 . 1 7 S u b j e c t i v e Norm - Causes and E f f e c t s 191 5 . 1 8 V o l u n t a r i n e s s - Causes and E f f e c t s 193 5 . 1 9 I n n o v a t i v e n e s s 193 5 . 2 0 Summary o f R e s u l t s : S t r u c t u r a l E q u a t i o n M o d e l l i n g 194 Section E: Summary of Data Analysis 5 . 2 1 G e n e r a l 195 5 . 2 2 Summary o f D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s 195 - i x -5 . 2 3 Summary o f H y p o t h e s i s T e s t i n g 196 5 . 2 3 . 1 H y p o t h e s i s One 196 5 . 2 3 . 2 H y p o t h e s i s Two 197 5 . 2 3 . 3 H y p o t h e s i s T h r e e 198 5 . 2 3 . 4 H y p o t h e s i s F o u r 198 5 . 2 3 . 5 H y p o t h e s i s F i v e 199 5 . 2 3 . 6 H y p o t h e s i s S i x . . . 199 5 . 2 3 . 7 H y p o t h e s i s Seven 200 5 . 2 4 G e n e r a l Summary o f R e s u l t s 200 CHAPTER S I X : CONTRIBUTIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS 6 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 216 6 . 2 Summary o f t h e R e s e a r c h P r o c e s s 217 6 . 3 The R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s A n s w e r e d 220 6 . 3 . 1 Q u e s t i o n One 220 6 . 3 . 2 Q u e s t i o n Two 220 6 . 3 . 3 Q u e s t i o n T h r e e 225 6 . 4 C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o T h e o r y 226 6 . 4 . 1 G e n e r a l 226 6 . 4 . 2 T h e o r y o f Reasoned A c t i o n 227 6 . 4 . 3 D i f f u s i o n o f I n n o v a t i o n s T h e o r y 229 6 . 4 . 4 I n s t r u m e n t D e v e l o p m e n t 231 6 . 4 . 5 MIS I m p l e m e n t a t i o n R e s e a r c h 233 6 . 5 L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y 236 6 . 5 . 1 G e n e r a l 236 6 . 5 . 2 D a t a C o l l e c t i o n 236 6 . 5 . 3 S u r v e y S c a l e s 237 6 . 5 . 4 Sample 238 6 . 5 . 5 G e n e r a l i s a b i l i t y , 239 6 . 5 . 6 C a u s a l i t y 239 6 . 5 . 7 I m p l e m e n t a t i o n S u c c e s s 240 6 . 6 M a n a g e r i a l I m p l i c a t i o n s 241 6 . 6 . 1 G e n e r a l 241 6 . 6 . 2 A t t i t u d e 241 6 . 6 . 3 S u b j e c t i v e Norm . 243 6 . 6 . 4 V o l u n t a r i n e s s 244 6 . 7 S u g g e s t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h 244 6 . 8 C o n c l u s i o n s 246 BIBLIOGRAPHY 248 - x -APPENDICES A p p e n d i x One: I n i t i a l I tem P o o l 263 A p p e n d i x Two: I t em P o o l f o r S o r t i n g Rounds 270 A p p e n d i x T h r e e : C a r d S o r t i n g I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r I n i t i a l S o r t 276 A p p e n d i x F o u r : I t em Deve lopment H i s t o r y 277 A p p e n d i x F i v e : R e s u l t s o f I tem S o r t i n g 280 A p p e n d i x S i x : J u d g e s ' L a b e l s f o r C a t e g o r i e s 291 A p p e n d i x S e v e n : I n t e r - J u d g e A g r e e m e n t s 293 A p p e n d i x E i g h t : I t em P l a c e m e n t R a t i o s 294 A p p e n d i x N i n e : Q u e s t i o n n a i r e C o v e r L e t t e r 297 A p p e n d i x T e n : F i n a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e F o r m a t 298 A p p e n d i x E l e v e n : I n v e n t o r y o f H y p o t h e s e s 321 A p p e n d i x T w e l v e : G l o s s a r y o f A b b r e v i a t i o n s 322 - x i -LIST OF TABLES TABLE 4 - 1 : R E L I A B I L I T Y C O E F F I C I E N T S : P R E - P I L O T T E S T 147 TABLE 4 - 2 : . R E L I A B I L I T Y C O E F F I C I E N T S : PILOT T E S T 148 TABLE 4 - 3 : R E L I A B I L I T Y C O E F F I C I E N T S : F I N A L SURVEY . . 149 TABLE 5 - 1 : DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS 201 TABLE 5 - 2 : CORRECTIONS FOR SKEWNESS: RESULTS OF DATA TRANSFORMATION 202 TABLE 5 - 3 : SURVEY VARIABLES - DESCRIPTIVE S T A T I S T I C S 203 TABLE 5 - 4 : USERS VERSUS NON-USERS 204 TABLE 5 - 5 : USE OF PWS FUNCTIONS 205 TABLE 5 - 6 : REGRESSION RESULTS: PERCEIVED CHARACTERISTICS ON ATTITUDE 206 TABLE 5 - 7 : REGRESSION RESULTS: P C l ' S AND SN ON ATTITUDE 207 TABLE 5 - 8 : REGRESSION RESULTS: A T T I T U D E , SN, AND VOLUNTARINESS ON INNOVATIVENESS 208 TABLE 5 - 9 : REGRESSION RESULTS: PCI AND SUBJECTIVE NORMS ON INNOVATIVENESS 209 TABLE 5 -10 : GENERAL STATISTICS FOR TESTED MODELS 210 TABLE 5 - 1 1 : STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING: FACTOR LOADINGS AND STRUCTURAL COEFFICIENTS . . . . 211 TABLE 5 -12 : RESULTS OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING 212 - x i i -LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 3-1: DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS 80 FIGURE 3-2: STAGES OF THE INNOVATION DECISION PROCESS 81 FIGURE 3-3: INNOVATION DECISION MODEL 82 FIGURE 3-4: RESEARCH MODEL 83 FIGURE 5-1: DIFFUSION RATE OF PWS TO DATE 213 FIGURE 5-2: STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL 214 FIGURE 5-3: LISREL STANDARDISED SOLUTION 215 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n r e q u i r e d t h e h e l p , s u p p o r t , and o c c a s i o n a l " s i g n i f i c a n t p r o d d i n g " f rom many p e o p l e , t o whom I owe a g r e a t d e a l o f g r a t i t u d e . C h i e f among t h e s e i s P r o f e s s o r I z a k B e n b a s a t , my t h e s i s s u p e r -v i s o r , who o f f e r r e d n o t o n l y g u i d a n c e and a d v i c e , b u t p a t i e n c e , t o l e r a n c e , and p e r s o n a l s u p p o r t . I w o u l d a l s o l i k e t o t h a n k t h e o t h e r members o f my commit-t e e , P r o f e s s o r s A l D e x t e r and C r a i g P i n d e r f o r t h e i r i n s i g h t f u l c r i t i c i s m and encouragement . I a l s o am v e r y g r a t e f u l t o P r o f e s s o r M a l c o l m Munro , my " n e i g h b o u r " a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l g a r y , who i n i t i a l l y m o t i v a t e d me t o p u r s u e a P h . D . , and who was c r u c i a l i n k e e p i n g me f o c u s s e d on t h e t a s k at h a n d . W i t h o u t h i s b a c k i n g , t h i s p r o j e c t may n o t have even been s t a r t e d . In a d d i t i o n , my f e l l o w s t u d e n t s a t UBC, and t h e f a c u l t y members i n t h e Management I n f o r m a t i o n Systems A r e a b o t h at UBC and t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l g a r y p r o v i d e d c o n s t a n t encouragement and s u p p o r t . F i n a l l y , I w o u l d l i k e t o thank t h o s e c l o s e s t t o me: L i s a , who h e l p e d i n o v e r c o m i n g some v e r y t r y i n g t i m e s ; my p a r e n t s , J a c k and Audrey M o o r e , who s u p p o r t e d my e f f o r t s t h r o u g h o u t my e d u c a t i o n ; and e s p e c i a l l y my c h i l d r e n , K e n t and Shannon, who had t o do w i t h o u t t h e i r Dad f o r t o o l o n g w h i l e t h i s t h e s i s was b e i n g c o m p l e t e d . - 1 -CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION In technology, anything is possible if you don't know it isn't available yet. Anon. Any problem can be solved given enough time and money, but you will never be given enough time and money. Anon. 1.1 THE PROBLEM I n r e c e n t y e a r s a p a r t i c u l a r p r o b l e m w i t h i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s has b e e n h a v i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e and money d e v o t e d t o i t . T h i s p r o b l e m i s b a s e d on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e w o r k f o r c e w h i c h p r o c e s s e s i n f o r m a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n p r o d u c e s m a t e r i a l goods has b e e n r i s i n g d r a m a t i c a l l y . I n t h e U . S . , e s t i m a t e s a r e t h a t i t i s now o v e r 50%, and w i l l r i s e t o 72% by t h e end o f t h e c e n t u r y ( B a r c o m b , 1 9 8 1 ) , w h i l e i n Canada i t i s e x p e c t e d t o r e a c h 60% by t h e end o f t h e d e c a d e ( J . B r o w n , 1 9 8 4 ) . A t t h e same t i m e , h o w e v e r , w h i l e i n d u s t r i a l p r o d u c t -i v i t y r o s e 85% i n t h e U . S . d u r i n g t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s , i t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t w h i t e c o l l a r p r o d u c t i v i t y r o s e o n l y 4% ( C o n n e l l , 1 9 7 9 ) , o r may even have r e m a i n e d a t a 1 9 6 0 ' s l e v e l ( B o w e n , 1 9 8 6 ) . S e r i o u s a t t e m p t s , t h e r e f o r e , a r e now b e i n g made t o r a i s e t h e o u t p u t o f " i n f o r m a t i o n w o r k e r s " t h r o u g h l a r g e i n v e s t m e n t s i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o m p u t e r - b a s e d i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y ( C u r l e y & P y b u r n , 1982; Greenwood & G r e e n w o o d , 1984; Q u i b l e & Hammer, 1 9 8 4 ) . T h i s has c a u s e d a r a p i d g r o w t h i n t h e u s e o f c o m p u t e r s o u t s i d e t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l c o m p u t i n g c i r c l e s and has c r e a t e d a number o f i s s u e s and c o n c e r n s . These c o n c e r n s s t a r t e d t o d e v e l o p e a r l y i n t h e e v o l u t i o n o f t h e u s e o f i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y ( I T ) by l a y u s e r s ( n o n - s y s t e m s p r o f e s s i o n a l s ) . F o r e x a m p l e , some f i v e y e a r s a g o , one s u r v e y o f s e n i o r I n f o r m a t i o n Systems ( I S ) p r a c t i t i o n e r s and a c a d e m i c s had a l r e a d y i d e n t i f i e d among t h e i r t h r e e t o p c o n c e r n s t h e improvement o f IS - 2 -planning, the fa c i l i t a t i o n and management of end user computing (EUC), and the integration of data processing, telecommunications and office automation (Dickson et a l . , 1984). The use of IT by lay users is part of a l l three concerns, which demonstrated the impact that the diffusion of IT was having in organisations. This has spawned a number of studies into the diffusion of end user IT, a l l of which have attempted to understand some of the basic forces which underlie this diffusion (see, for example, Brancheau, 1987; Christensen, 1987; Pavri, 1988). The issues arising out of these concerns are being widely examined, but two different perspectives seem to exist. One- is a Management Information Systems (MIS) viewpoint, which concentrates mainly on problems created by the influx into computing of individuals who personally assume many traditional IS functions by acquiring and using their own IT. The other is an office automa-tion (OA) perspective, whose focus deals primarily with attempting to have IT win acceptance by users in organisations. While much has been written about the management of end user IT in both areas, very l i t t l e has been grounded in theory, which has been a chronic problem in IS research (see Weber, 1985, for some of the recent discussion). Researchers in OA and MIS have chronicled two significantly different reactions by potential users to IT. At one extreme is unbridled enthusiasm, wherein the user recognises the benefits of using the technology, and adopts i t wholeheartedly. The other extreme is overt hostility and resistance wherein users are often forced to adopt the technology against their w i l l . Between these extreme cases lies the complete range of reactions. Indeed, these reactions seem also to be typical of those who are responsible for setting policies with respect to the use of IT within organisations. The - 3 -p r e s i d e n t o f one company was q u o t e d as s a y i n g t h a t u s e r IT was " a s n a r e and a d e l u s i o n " w h i c h a t e up r e s o u r c e s b u t p r o d u c e d l i t t l e i n t h e way o f r e s u l t s ( P y b u r n , 1986, p . 4 9 ) . A t t h e same t i m e , h o w e v e r , a s e n i o r MIS e x e c u t i v e f r o m a F o r t u n e 500 f i r m was q u o t e d as s a y i n g t h a t u s e r IT i s " b e c o m i n g i n c r e a s i n g l y l i k e t h e t e l e p h o n e - e v e r y o n e s h o u l d have [ i f ] w i t h o u t b e i n g f o r c e d t o j u s t i f y i t on t h e b a s i s o f m e a s u r a b l e c o s t s a v i n g s " ( P y b u r n , 1986, p . 5 0 ) . These r e a c t i o n s seem t o t y p i f y t h e r e s p o n s e s t o u s e r IT a c r o s s o r g a n i s a t i o n s . The p u r p o s e , t h e r e f o r e , o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i s t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h u n d e r l i e t h e s e r e a c t i o n s , w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o u s e r s , and p o t e n t i a l u s e r s , o f I T . As S t r a s s m a n (1985) p u t i t : " o n c e an e c o n o m i c a l l y f e a s i b l e and t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y e f f i c i e n t e l e c t r o n i c s y s t e m i s i n s t a l l e d i n t h e work p l a c e , t h e r e s t i l l r e m a i n s t h e q u e s t i o n : w i l l p e o p l e u s e i t ? " . I n t o o many i n s t a n -c e s , t h e u n f o r t u n a t e answer has been " N o ! " . Many p e o p l e a r e s t i l l r e s i s t i n g t h e t e c h n o l o g y , o r a r e a c c e p t i n g i t o n l y g r u d g i n g l y . A l t h o u g h t h e r e a p p e a r t o be no h a r d q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a d e s c r i b i n g how r e s i s t a n c e t o IT i s a f f e c t i n g i t s d i f f u s i o n , some i n d i c a t i o n s do e x i s t . F o r e x a m p l e , a s p e c i a l i s t i n t h e US O f f i c e o f P e r s o n n e l Management was q u o t e d as s a y i n g t h a t " a s many as 40 p e r c e n t o f a l l f u n c t i o n a l l y sound o f f i c e a u t o m a t i o n p r o j e c t s f a i l t o p r o v i d e t h e e x p e c t e d b e n e f i t s b e c a u s e o f a l a c k o f c o o p e r -a t i o n f r o m u s e r s " ( F r e e d m a n , 1983 , p . 8 2 ) . More r e c e n t l y , one s u r v e y c o n c l u d e d t h a t i n t e g r a t e d o f f i c e sy s te m s have n o t been w i d e l y a c c e p t e d ( C a n n i n g , 1 9 8 5 a ) , w h i l e a s e c o n d s u r v e y o f some 6400 m i n i / m i c r o - c o m p u t e r s i t e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t o n l y 18% h a d some f o r m o f i n t e g r a t e d OA ( V e r i t y , 1 9 8 5 ) . I t i s u n c l e a r how many a d d i t i o n a l m a i n f r a m e OA s y s t e m s e x i s t , b u t i t i s c l e a r t h a t u s e o f IT i s n o t g r o w i n g as e x p e c t e d i n some q u a r t e r s , b u t i s m e e t i n g r e s i s t a n c e . I t seems t h a t t h e " o f f i c e o f t h e f u t u r e " i s s t i l l i n t h e f u t u r e i n many o r g a n i s a t i o n s . - 4 -W h i l e some r e s e a r c h e r s have c h r o n i c l e d t h e r e s i s t a n c e t o IT by l a y u s e r s , o t h e r s have d e s c r i b e d t h e r a p i d growth o f end user computing (EUC) and t h e p r o b l e m s t h a t c a n o c c u r when u s e r s e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y t a k e t o t h e t e c h n o l o g y . EUC was d e s c r i b e d as " b o o m i n g " some f i v e y e a r s ago ( R o c k a r t & F l a n n e r y , 1983) , w i t h " g r o w t h r a t e s o f 50 t o 100 p e r c e n t p e r y e a r " ( G e r r i t y & R o c k a r t , 1982, p . l ) . I t a p p e a r s as i f t h i s growth i n EUC c o n t i n u e s t o d a y . A r e c e n t s u r v e y o f 295 f i r m s f o u n d t h a t 54 p e r c e n t had e s t a b l i s h e d o r g a n i s a t i o n a l s u b - u n i t s ( I n f o r m a t i o n C e n t r e s ) whose r o l e s a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y t o s u p p o r t end u s e r s , w h i l e a n o t h e r 22 p e r c e n t o f t h e f i r m s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y i n t e n d e d t o do t h e same w i t h i n t h e n e x t two y e a r s . The c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d by t h e a u t h o r was t h a t " e n d u s e r c o m p u t i n g w i l l c o n t i n u e t o grow" ( H o f f m a n , 1988) . To MIS p r o f e s s i o n a l s , t h i s growth c r e a t e s a number o f p r o b l e m s . One o f t h e c o n c e r n s f a c e d by MIS p r a c t i t i o n e r s i s how t o c o n t r o l m i c r o -computers ( m i c r o s ) . T h i s c o n c e r n i s e v i d e n c e d i n t h e t i t l e s o f many a r t i c l e s , i n c l u d i n g " M a n a g i n g t h e M i c r o I n v a s i o n " ( C h r y s l e r , 1985) , "What To Do W i t h A l l T h o s e M i c r o s (Keen & Woodman, 1985) , and " C o n t r o l l i n g t h e M i c r o c o m p u t e r E n v i r o n m e n t " (Kahn & G a r c e a u , 1984) . I t appears t h a t , t o many o b s e r v e r s , EUC i s e q u a t e d t o t h e u s e o f m i c r o s , and t h e a t t e n t i o n o f many o r g a n i s a t i o n s and r e s e a r c h e r s , t h e r e f o r e , w i t h r e s p e c t t o EUC i s d i r e c t e d at t h i s t e c h n o l o g y ( f o r example , P a v r i , 1988, f o c u s s e d s o l e l y on t h e u s e o f m i c r o s by m a n a g e r i a l l e v e l e m p l o y e e s ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , o f t h e I n f o r m a t i o n C e n t r e s i n t h e s u r v e y o f 295 f i r m s c i t e d a b o v e , 90 p e r c e n t e v a l u a t e m i c r o c o m p u t e r s o f t w a r e f o r end u s e r s , w h i l e l e s s t h a n h a l f o f t h a t number e v a l u a t e m a i n f r a m e / m i n i s o f t w a r e f o r end u s e r s ( B o h l , 1988, p . 4 8 ) . In any e v e n t , i t seems as i f m i c r o c o m p u t e r s a r e s e e n i n many f i r m s as a p r o b l e m , but i t i s a p r o b l e m o f c o n t r o l and i n t e g r a t i o n b e c a u s e o f t h e i r p r o l i f e r a t i o n , not a p r o b l e m o f g e t t i n g i n d i v i d -u a l s t o u s e t h e m a c h i n e s . - 5 -Another major concern among the IS community i s that many end users are under-educated with respect to computing. This lack of education could have a s i g n i f i c a n t , negative impact on decisions made by these users, and on the o v e r a l l i n t e g r i t y of t h e i r computing. Examples ex i s t of enthusiastic yet i l l t r a ined end users making mistakes costing firms tens of thousands of d o l l a r s , because they d i d not test properly t h e i r self-developed programmes (G.B. Davis, 1981). End users are also characterised as having "a frequently careless ... at t i t u d e toward system operational e f f i c i e n c y " (Guimaraes, 1984), The more users who do t h e i r own computing, the more i t i s f e l t that the o v e r a l l information system's e f f i c i e n c y w i l l be degraded. F i n a l l y , many writers see end users as creating a threat to the role and future of IS professionals (Laberis, 1983; Guimaraes, 1984; Zink, 1984). One argument i s that "personal computers have already made users largely independent of mainframes [and that] future developments i n software w i l l enable [them] to be independent of IS departments for software support, as well" (Dearden, 1987). A l l of these issues and concerns are raised by the large i n f l u x of end users into computing. None i s based on users' resistance to IT. On the other hand, to properly manage the use of IT by these users, organisations need to under-stand the underlying forces which motivate the users to take to the technology so e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y . U n t i l these forces are understood, addressed, and managed appropriately, many of the attempts to control the d i f f u s i o n and use of end user IT may be seen as " t u r f protecting" by the users. Thus, these forces need to be i d e n t i f i e d . The question which must be addressed, therefore, i s why there e x i s t s , on the one hand, a tremendous p u l l by some users towards using IT, and on the other hand, a resistance to using the technology by many other p o t e n t i a l users. If the forces which are at work i n either case can be understood, i t - 6 -w i l l p r o v i d e a t r e m e n d o u s a d v a n t a g e t o o r g a n i s a t i o n s w h i c h a r e t r y i n g t o manage t h e d i f f u s i o n o f I T . 1 . 2 RESEARCH GOALS AND QUESTIONS The m o t i v a t i o n f o r t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h i s t w o f o l d . The f i r s t i s t o i n v e s t i g a t e and v a l i d a t e a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r t h e s t u d y and management o f t h e u s e o f IT by l a y p e r s o n s . I t does t h i s t h r o u g h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t and t e s t i n g o f a p a r t i c u l a r m o d e l o f t h e p r o c e s s by w h i c h p o t e n t i a l u s e r s d e c i d e t o a d o p t o r r e j e c t p e r s o n a l , h a n d s - o n u s e o f i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y . As w i l l be d i s c u s s e d more f u l l y i n s u b s e q u e n t c h a p t e r s , t h e r e s e a r c h i s b a s e d on two d i s t i n c t y e t t h e o r e t i c a l l y l i n k e d b o d i e s o f r e s e a r c h . These a r e t h e diffusion  of innovations p a r a d i g m , and t h e attitudes p a r a d i g m . D i f f u s i o n t h e o r y has d e v e l o p e d o v e r t h e y e a r s as a b a s i s f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g and e x a m i n i n g t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s . I n t h a t t h e u s e o f i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y b y l a y u s e r s i s an i n n o v a t i o n w i t h i n t h e w o r k p l a c e , t h e r e s h o u l d be b e n e f i t i n u s i n g d i f f u s i o n t h e o r y t o examine t h e t e c h n o l o g y ' s a d o p t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n by p o t e n -t i a l u s e r s . A t t i t u d e s t h e o r y has had s i g n i f i c a n t s u c c e s s i n p r e d i c t i n g b e h a v i o u r i n g e n e r a l , w i t h one o f t h e most s u c c e s s f u l models b e i n g t h e Theory of Reasoned Action, as d e v e l o p e d by F i s h b e i n and A j z e n ( F i s h b e i n and A j z e n 1975; A j z e n and F i s h b e i n , 1 9 8 0 ) . T h i s t h e o r y s h o u l d h e l p t o g a i n i n s i g h t i n t o t h e f o r c e s w h i c h u n d e r l i e t h e p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o u r o f a d o p t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f I T . B o t h b o d i e s o f t h e o r y p o s i t t h a t b e h a v i o u r , i n t h i s c a s e p e r s o n a l u s e o f I T , i s v e r y much a f u n c t i o n o f b o t h p e r s o n a l and s o c i a l f a c t o r s . I n t e r m s u s e d by t h e Theory of Reasoned Action, t h e p e r s o n a l f a c t o r i s b a s e d on o n e ' s perceptions a b o u t t h e outcomes o f p e r f o r m i n g t h e b e h a v i o u r , w h i c h a r e s y n t h e -s i s e d i n t o an Attitude about t h e b e h a v i o u r . The s o c i a l f a c t o r i s a f u n c t i o n - 7 -o f w h e t h e r one p e r c e i v e s t h a t o t h e r s e x p e c t one t o c a r r y o u t t h e b e h a v i o u r , i n t h i s c a s e t o a c t u a l l y u s e t h e t e c h n o l o g y . T h i s i s t e r m e d t h e S u b j e c t i v e Norm. D i f f u s i o n t h e o r y p r o v i d e s c o n s i d e r a b l e i n s i g h t i n t o t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e s e two f a c t o r s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e a d o p t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f an i n n o v a t i o n . T h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l draw on b o t h b o d i e s o f w o r k t o examine t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f i n f o r -m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y b y l a y u s e r s . I t w i l l p a y p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e s e u s e r s a b o u t t h e outcomes o f u s i n g , o r p o t e n t i a l l y u s i n g , t h e t e c h n o l o g y , and t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f w h e t h e r o t h e r s e x p e c t them t o a d o p t o r t o r e j e c t i t s u s e . The s e c o n d g o a l o f t h e r e s e a r c h , once t h e t h e o r y i s t e s t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e d i f f u s i o n o f I T , i s t o p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f p r e s c r i p -t i o n s and g u i d e l i n e s f o r a d d r e s s i n g , and s u b s e q u e n t l y m a n a g i n g , t h e c o n c e r n s o f MIS p r o f e s s i o n a l s and managers w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e d i f f u s i o n o f u s e r I T . T h e s e c o n c e r n s r e l a t e b o t h t o t h e r e s i s t a n c e t o IT by some p o t e n t i a l u s e r s , and t o i t s p e r h a p s o v e r l y e n t h u s i a s t i c a d o p t i o n by o t h e r s . I f p r e s c r i p t i o n s and g u i d e l i n e s c a n be d e v e l o p e d , h o p e f u l l y b o t h t h e t i m e and money d e v o t e d t o t h i s p r o b l e m s h o u l d be more w i s e l y s p e n t . T h u s , t h e m a j o r q u e s t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h e r e s e a r c h i n c l u d e : 1. W h a t a r e t h e ( p o t e n t i a l ) u s e r s ' u n d e r l y i n g perceptions o f p e r s o n a l l y u s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y ? 2. Do a n y o f t h e p e r c e p t i o n s of p e r s o n a l l y u s i n g IT p r e d o m i n a t e ? If s o , w h i c h a r e t h e y , how a r e t h e y l i n k e d , a n d how do t h e y a f f e c t t h e d e c i s i o n to p e r s o n a l l y u s e I T ? 3. W h a t a r e t h e e f f e c t s o f o t h e r s ' expectations a b o u t o n e ' s u s i n g IT on one's decision to use, or not use, IT? - 8 -1.3 THE PERSONAL WORK STATION B e c a u s e t h e r e a c t i o n t o i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y seems t o be q u i t e g e n e r a l , n o t d e p e n d e n t on s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y , t h i s s t u d y w i l l f o c u s on t h e a d o p t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f u s e o f " g e n e r i c I T " , t e r m e d t h e Personal Work Station (PWS) . The PWS i s d e f i n e d as a s e t o f c o m p u t e r i s e d t o o l s d e s i g n e d f o r p e r s o n a l u s e b y an individual, w h i c h u s u a l l y c o n s i s t s o f a personal computer (microcomputer) w i t h one o r more s o f t w a r e p a c k a g e s , s u c h as a s p r e a d s h e e t o r w o r d p r o c e s s i n g programme. A PWS c o u l d a l s o be a computer terminal t h a t i s h o o k e d up t o a m a i n f r a m e c o m p u t e r , a g a i n w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s o f t w a r e . The k e y a s p e c t o f a PWS i s t h a t i t i s c o m p u t e r t e c h n o l o g y u s e d d i r e c t l y b y t h e u s e r , as o p p o s e d t o t h r o u g h a t h i r d p a r t y . S e c o n d l y , t h e use o f t h e PWS i s g e n e r a l l y i n t e r a c t i v e . T h i s v i e w o f a PWS c o u l d i n c l u d e a s i n g l e , o n - l i n e s y s t e m u s e d f r o m a t e r m i n a l . I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , i t s use w o u l d l i k e l y be d e t e r m i n e d by o n e ' s j o b , and t h u s t h i s a s p e c t o f PWS usage w i l l a l s o be i n v e s t i g a t e d . Some r e s e a r c h e r s have c o n c e n t r a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y on t h e m i c r o c o m p u t e r as t h e b a s i s f o r s t u d y i n g t h e u s e o f IT ( s e e , f o r e x a m p l e , P a v r i , 1 9 8 8 ) . T h i s seems t o be o v e r l y l i m i t i n g i n t h a t u s e o f e i t h e r a mainframe t e r m i n a l , o r a m i c r o c o m p u t e r , a r e v e r y s i m i l a r a t t h e l e v e l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l u s e r . From a f u n c t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , b o t h k i n d s o f I T a r e e m p l o y e d i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s by l a y u s e r s t o c a r r y o u t many s i m i l a r t a s k s . M o r e o v e r , i t seems t h a t t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t e r m i n a l s o r m i c r o s f o r n o n - c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a p p l i c a t i o n s , w h i l e s t i l l e v i d e n t , a r e b e c o m i n g i n c r e a s i n g l y t r a n s p a r e n t t o u s e r s . Many " u s e r f r i e n d l y " applications o r i g i n a l l y d e v e l o p e d f o r m i c r o s ( e . g . w o r d p r o c e s s i n g , s p r e a d s h e e t s , e t c . ) a r e now o f f e r e d on m a i n f r a m e s , w h i l e some a p p l i c a t i o n s o r i g i n a l l y d e v e l o p e d f o r m a i n f r a m e s ( e . g . s t a t i s t i c a l p a c k a g e s s u c h as SPSS) a r e now a v a i l a b l e f o r m i c r o s . The l a t t e r d e v e l o p m e n t has been - 9 -made p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f m i c r o s , i n c l u d i n g f i l e s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y , p r o c e s s i n g power and s p e e d , i s i m p r o v i n g d r a m a t i c a l l y t o c l o s e t h e gap w i t h m a i n f r a m e s . T h i s a g a i n t e n d s t o r e d u c e t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n m a i n f r a m e and m i c r o u s e . I n f a c t , i t has been a r g u e d t h a t dumb t e r m i n a l s w i l l become o b s o l e t e , and t h e p e r s o n a l computer and i n t e l l i g e n t t e r m i n a l w i l l e v e n t u a l l y merge i n " a s i n g l e b o x " ( H e a l y , 1 9 8 7 ) . F i n a l l y , t h e d i s c u s s i o n i n t h e v a r i o u s b o d i e s o f l i t e r a t u r e t e n d s t o d e a l n o t w i t h t h e r e a c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s t o s p e c i f i c forms o f I T , b u t t o I T i n g e n e r a l . T h e r e f o r e , t o examine t h e s e r e a c t i o n s a t an i n i t i a l macro l e v e l , t h i s f o c u s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i s o n t h e g e n e r i c P e r s o n a l Work S t a t i o n , as d e f i n e d a b o v e . 1 . 4 RESEARCH AND DISSERTATION OVERVIEW T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s o r g a n i s e d as f o l l o w s . The n e x t c h a p t e r p r o v i d e s a b r i e f r e v i e w o f some o f t h e w o r k c o n d u c t e d t o d a t e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e u s e o f IT by l a y p e r s o n s . I n t h a t m a n a g i n g t h e d i f f u s i o n o f end u s e r IT c a n be v i e w e d as a s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e o f t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f an i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m , t h e c h a p t e r a l s o d i s c u s s e s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n r e s e a r c h w i t h i n M I S . C h a p t e r T h r e e t h e n f o c u s e s on t h e t h e o r e t i c a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h . As was d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h i s s t u d y i s b a s e d p r i m a r i l y on t h e T h e o r y o f R e a s o n e d A c t i o n ( F i s h b e i n and A j z e n , 1975 ) , w h i c h i s a g e n e r a l i s e d t h e o r y o f b e h a v i o u r . D i f f u s i o n t h e o r y i s u s e d t o c o u c h t h i s g e n e r a l t h e o r y i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t o f a d o p t i n g o r r e j e c t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y . I t h e l p s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s p e c i f i c p e r c e p t i o n s o f p e r f o r m i n g t h e b e h a v i o u r w h i c h s h o u l d be s a l i e n t i n f o r m i n g an o v e r a l l A t t i t u d e about , a d o p t i n g PWS u s a g e . The c h a p t e r d e v e l o p s and p r e s e n t s t h e r e s e a r c h model w h i c h g u i d e d t h e d a t a c o l l e c -t i o n and a n a l y s i s . - 10 -G i v e n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and t h e v a r i a b l e s t o be s t u d i e d , i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t a f i e l d s u r v e y w o u l d be t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e r e s e a r c h a p p r o a c h . T h i s r e q u i r e d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d / o r d e v e l o p m e n t o f a s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t w i t h w h i c h t h e d a t a w o u l d be g a t h e r e d . C h a p t e r F o u r d e -s c r i b e s t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s , and p r e s e n t s i n d e t a i l t h e i n s t r u m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t p r o c e s s t h a t was c a r r i e d o u t . C h a p t e r F i v e p r e s e n t s t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s a c t i v i t i e s . I t shows t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h model i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e d a t a , a s , t o some d e g r e e , a r e v i r t u a l l y a l l o f t h e r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s e s . A n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a shows t h a t a d o p t i o n o f IT i s p r e d i c a t e d by t h r e e m a j o r f a c t o r s : o n e ' s A t t i t u d e about u s i n g t h e t e c h n o l o g y , t h e p e r c e p t i o n t h a t o t h e r s e x p e c t one t o u s e t h e t e c h -n o l o g y ( t h e S u b j e c t i v e N o r m ) , and t h e p e r c e p t i o n t h a t one i s r e q u i r e d t o use t h e t e c h n o l o g y i n o n e ' s j o b . The l a s t f a c t o r i s i n v e s t i g a t e d by d e t e r m i n i n g t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h one f e e l s u s e o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y i s v o l u n t a r y . F u r t h e r -m o r e , a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a shows t h a t d i f f u s i o n t h e o r y i s most b e n e f i c i a l i n d e f i n i n g t h e v a r i a b l e s w i t h w h i c h t o s e t t h e T h e o r y o f R e a s o n e d A c t i o n i n t o c o n t e x t . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i n n o v a t i o n s , as d e f i n e d i n d i f f u s i o n t h e o r y , a r e s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e r m i n a n t s o f o n e ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s u s i n g t h e i n n o v a t i o n , and h e l p e x p l a i n t h e d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l s t o u s i n g I T . F i n a l l y , C h a p t e r S i x d i s c u s s e s t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s and l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e s t u d y . P a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e i s p a i d t o t h e - r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s as o u t l i n e d e a r l i e r , and t o t h e m a n a g e r i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e outcomes o f t h e d a t a a n a l y -s i s . The C h a p t e r c o n c l u d e s w i t h some s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . - 11 -CHAPTER TWO THE USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BY LAY USERS The easiest computer to use is the one you don't have to. An anonymous survey respondent. 2.1 GENERAL The p u r p o s e o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o b r i e f l y o u t l i n e t h e k e y i s s u e s t h a t h a v e been i d e n t i f i e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o m a n a g i n g t h e u s e o f i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l -ogy ( I T ) by l a y u s e r s , and t o h i g h l i g h t some o f t h e r e s e a r c h t h a t has b e e n c o n d u c t e d t o d a t e t h a t r e l a t e s t o t h i s phenomenon. I n g e n e r a l , t h i s i n c l u d e s r e s e a r c h on e n d u s e r c o m p u t i n g ( E U C ) , O f f i c e A u t o m a t i o n ( O A ) , i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , and a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s use o f i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s . The c h a p t e r c o n c l u d e s b y p r e s e n t i n g arguments f o r v i e w i n g use o f t h e PWS as an i n n o v a t i o n , and d i s c u s s e s t h e b e n e f i t s o f u s i n g d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s t h e o r y t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f PWS i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s . 2.2 ISSUES 2 .2 .1 G e n e r a l As was d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r One, t h e g e n e s i s o f t h e m o t i v a t i o n f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h was i n t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by r e s e a r c h i n t o end u s e r c o m p u t i n g and o f f i c e a u t o m a t i o n . These h a v e been t h e p r i m a r y a r e a s where d i r e c t i n v e s t i g a -t i o n o f t h e u s e o f IT by l a y u s e r s has been c a r r i e d o u t . The l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e seems t o be a w i d e range o f d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t r e a c -t i o n s t o use o f PWS, f r o m e n t h u s i a s t i c a d o p t i o n t h r o u g h a p a t h y t o h o s t i l e r e j e c t i o n . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l v e r y b r i e f l y r e v i e w some o f t h e work t o d a t e i n t h i s a r e a . - 12 -OA and EUC a r e d i s c u s s e d t o g e t h e r b e c a u s e , a l t h o u g h t h e y may have d i f f e r e n t f o c i , a t t h e l e v e l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l a d o p t e r t h e y p r e s e n t s i m i l a r o p p o r t u n i -t i e s and h a z a r d s . F o r e x a m p l e , w h i l e s e v e r a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f b o t h EUC and OA e x i s t , few h e l p t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n t h e two phenomena. A t y p i c a l d e f i -n i t i o n o f OA i s " t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e t e c h n o l o g y t o h e l p p e o p l e manage i n f o r m a t i o n " ( B a r c o m b , 1981 , p . l ; s e e a l s o Greenwood & G r e e n w o o d , 1984; M e y e r , 1983; and V o g e l & W e t h e r b e , 1 9 8 5 ) . EUC i s g e n e r a l l y seen t o be t h e d i r e c t h a n d s - o n u s e o f a computer by a n o n - s y s t e m s i n d i v i d u a l ( s e e H e n d e r s o n & T r e a c y , 1984; R o c k a r t & F l a n n e r y , 1983; S p r a g u e & M c N u r l i n , 1 9 8 6 ) . The s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s i s more s t r i k i n g t h a n any d i f f e r e n c e , w h i c h i s a l s o t r u e f o r t h e s p e c i f i c u s e s o f t h e PWS t h a t a r e d i s c u s s e d by w r i t e r s i n e a c h a r e a . F o r e x a m p l e , w i t h i n OA some i n c l u d e s u c h f u n c t i o n s as d a t a p r o c e s s i n g , d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t s y s t e m s , and d a t a b a s e management s y s t e m s ( s e e Greenwood & G r e e n w o o d , 1 9 8 4 ) , w h i l e u n d e r EUC o t h e r s d i s c u s s w o r d p r o -c e s s i n g , e l e c t r o n i c c a l e n d a r s and e l e c t r o n i c m a i l ( s e e B e n s o n , 1983; C a n n i n g , 1 9 8 5 c ) . T h u s , t h e r e a p p e a r s t o be no c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between EUC and OA b a s e d on e i t h e r t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s o r t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n s . They b o t h c a n be v i e w e d as t h e u s e o f IT by n o n - s y s t e m s p r o f e s s i o n a l s , o f f e r i n g s i m i l a r b e n e -f i t s and c r e a t i n g s i m i l a r p r o b l e m s . T h e r e f o r e , a t t h e l e v e l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l a d o p t e r , m a n a g i n g t h e u s e o f t h e PWS s h o u l d r e q u i r e s i m i l a r a p p r o a c h e s . 2 . 2 . 2 B e n e f i t s a n d P r o b l e m s As has b e e n d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r One and i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , t h e i s s u e s w i t h i n OA and EUC t e n d t o r e v o l v e a r o u n d t h e u s a g e o f t h e PWS. W i t h i n E U C , t h e m a i n i s s u e i s t h e r a p i d g r o w t h o f PWS u s a g e , and t h e p r o b l e m s t h i s c r e a t e s , w h i l e i n OA t h e m a i n f o c u s i s p r i m a r i l y on t h e p o t e n t i a l u s e r s ' r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e t e c h n o l o g y . When t h e b e n e f i t s o f u s i n g t h e t e c h n o l o g y a r e - 13 -i n d i c a t e d , t h e y g e n e r a l l y r e l a t e t o e f f e c t i v e n e s s and e f f i c i e n c y c o n c e r n s . F o r e x a m p l e , p e r s o n a l l y u s i n g t h e t e c h n o l o g y i s p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g q u i c k e r t h a n h a v i n g t o go t h r o u g h an i n t e r m e d i a r y , and more e f f e c t i v e t h a n t h e u s e r t r y i n g t o i n d i c a t e t o a t h i r d p a r t y what h i s needs a r e . The u s e r "knows what he w a n t s " and s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o g e t i t f o r h i m s e l f . . From t h e I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e s D e p a r t m e n t ' s ( I S D ' s ) p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e b e n e f i t o f h a v i n g u s e r s r e -s p o n s i b l e f o r d e v e l o p i n g t h e i r own a p p l i c a t i o n s i s t h a t i t i s s e e n as one way o f " b r e a k i n g t h e s y s t e m s d e v e l o p m e n t b o t t l e n e c k " ( A l l o w a y & Q u i l l a r d , 1983 ; G r e m i l l i o n & P y b u r n , 1983) . From t h e u s e r s ' p e r s p e c t i v e , one b e n e f i t o f PWS u s a g e i s t h a t i t f r e e s them f r o m d e p e n d e n c y on t h e I S D . These a r e o n l y a few o f t h e ways i n w h i c h l a y u s e o f IT c a n be o f a s s i s t a n c e i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s . I n s h o r t , a l t h o u g h e f f e c t i v e n e s s and e f f i c i e n c y c a n be a c h i e v e d i n many w a y s , h a n d s - o n u s e o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y i s t h e v e h i c l e f o r d o i n g s o . Use o f i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y , h o w e v e r , i s n o t a l w a y s s e e n as b e n e f i -c i a l . I n f a c t , r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e u s e o f IS i n g e n e r a l has been a f a c t o f l i f e f o r y e a r s . O v e r t w e n t y y e a r s a g o , A c k o f f (1967) a r g u e d t h a t " o f t h o s e [ compu-t e r i z e d management i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s h e ' d ] s e e n i m p l e m e n t e d , most h a v e n o t m a t c h e d e x p e c t a t i o n s and some have b e e n o u t r i g h t f a i l u r e s " . T h i s l e a d s t o a r e s i s t a n c e t o be i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e s y s t e m . R e s i s t a n c e c a n a l s o e x i s t , howev-e r , t o f u n c t i o n a l l y sound s y s t e m s . F o r e x a m p l e , A r g y r i s (1970) p r e s e n t e d s e v e r a l a rguments why managers w o u l d r e s i s t " r a t i o n a l " management i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s . Among them was t h e argument t h a t usage o f an MIS w o u l d p u t i n f o r m a -t i o n i n c r e a s i n g l y u n d e r c o n t r o l o f s e n i o r management, and r e v e a l t o i t t h i n g s i t h a d n e v e r s e e n b e f o r e , t h u s hemming i n m i d d l e managers . F u r t h e r m o r e , he a r g u e d t h a t u s a g e o f an MIS makes a m i d d l e manager more a c c o u n t a b l e f o r w i d e r r a n g e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . By n o t u s i n g t h e M I S , t h e r e f o r e , t h e m i d d l e manager - 14 -m i g h t be a b l e t o c o n t i n u e t o a v o i d t h e s e d e v e l o p m e n t s . As c a n be s e e n , A r g y r i s ' a r g u m e n t s were n o t i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a c t u a l h a n d s - o n u s e o f t h e s y s t e m , b u t s i m p l y i n t h e m a n a g e r ' s u s e o f i t s o u t p u t s . H i s i d e a s were e c h o e d some f o u r t e e n y e a r s l a t e r : Unfortunately, information management systems are not panaceas. They are only tools. The technology can make good employees better; it cannot make a poor manager into a good one. Following the implementation of an information management system, informa-tion is much more visible and much more widely shared than was true when information systems were limited to a hard copy medi-um. Consequently, mistakes are much more visible too (Foster & Flynn, 1984). The p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t t h i s i s h a v i n g on a c t u a l u s e r s i s b e s t i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g comment f r o m a p r a c t i s i n g C h a r t e r e d A c c o u n t a n t : In carrying out a Section 8100 review, I used to do a few ratios and some other work and sign it off. Now, by using a computer to do the analysis, you have to explain 35 ratios instead of 10. The end product is probably of higher quality, but it takes longer and is more expensive. In today's marketplace, this creates a difficult fit (quoted in Hibberd, 1988). T h u s , i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s has o f t e n s e r v e d t o r a i s e e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t i n d i v i d u a l s ' p e r f o r m a n c e , a f a c t o r w h i c h c o u l d l e a d t o r e s i s t a n c e t o i t s u s a g e . T h i s c e r t a i n l y a l s o h o l d s f o r u s e o f t h e PWS, o f w h i c h t h e above a c c o u n t a n t ' s comments a r e l i k e l y an e x a m p l e . The r e s i s t a n c e o t o PWS, h o w e v e r , goes b e y o n d t h e s e c o n c e r n s . R e s i s t a n c e t o PWS a l s o r e l a t e s t o t h e s i g n i f i c a n t changes w i t h i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s t h a t PWS usage may w r e a k , and i s e v i d e n c e d i n s u c h t i t l e s as "The R o c k y Road t o O f f i c e A u t o m a t i o n " ( C h a p t e r 15 i n S p r a g u e & M c N u r l i n , 1 9 8 6 ) . T h e r e a r e many h y p o t h e s i s e d r e a s o n s f o r t h i s r e s i s t a n c e , i n c l u d i n g t h e f e a r by many w o r k e r s t h a t t h e i n f l u x o f t h e t e c h -n o l o g y w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e l o s s o f t h e i r j o b s ( C a n n i n g , 1985b; Q u i b l e & Hammer, 1984; T h i e l , 1 9 8 4 ) . T h i s i s f u e l e d by t h e f a c t t h a t one o f t h e t o u t e d a d v a n -t a g e s o f o f f i c e a u t o m a t i o n i s a r e d u c t i o n i n l a b o u r c o s t s . F o r o t h e r s , t h e r e - 15 -i s the simple d i f f i c u l t y of "human adjustment to technology" (Matherly & Matherly, 1985; U t t a l , 1982). This phenomenon i s not peculiar to computers, but has existed for decades, dating back at least to the i n d u s t r i a l revolu-t i o n . In fact, the word "sabotage" has been traced back to the reaction of weavers to the introduction of mechanical looms i n Europe. These workers attempted to wreck the looms by throwing t h e i r wooden shoes, c a l l e d "sabots", into the machinery. Overall, these factors can create a s i g n i f i c a n t negative reaction to IT, termed "technostress", which i s the " i n a b i l i t y of an i n d i v i d -ual or organization to adapt to the introduction and operation of new technol-ogy" (Brod, 1982, p.754). The new IT also c a r r i e s the threat of both d e s k i l l i n g and a l i e n a t i n g workers (Blackwell, 1988; Wynne & Otway, 1983; Zuboff, 1982). " D e s k i l l i n g " includes removing human judgement from decision making, and instead s u b s t i -t u t i n g reliance on "computer" d i r e c t i o n for actions. "Alienation" i s a r e s u l t of the changing i n t e r a c t i o n patterns among workers, where the computer becomes the primary focus of i n t e r a c t i o n , not other people. Both d e s k i l l i n g and a l i e n a t i o n are s i g n i f i c a n t l y discouraging to the affected employees. Certain systems can also increase the organisation's a b i l i t y to monitor and control i n d i v i d u a l s ' work (Keen, 1981, Zuboff, 1982). Typists' keystrokes can be analysed, so that typing accuracy and speed can be accurately computed, and degradation i n performance quickly i d e n t i f i e d . For employees dealing with the p u b l i c , the length of their, i n t e r a c t i o n with c l i e n t s can be monitored and then compared to the results of the i n t e r a c t i o n . The author i s aware of a major a i r l i n e which i s using such information as the basis for salary adjustments of t h e i r t i c k e t i n g and check-in personnel. Even the time away from terminals can be reported. F i n a l l y , indications exist that prolonged exposure to video - 16 -d i s p l a y t e r m i n a l s ( V D T ' s ) may h a v e n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s on o n e ' s h e a l t h , w h i c h i s b e c o m i n g a m a j o r c o n c e r n t o many e m p l o y e e s , e s p e c i a l l y women (Debow, 1988; K i r k p a t r i c k , 1988; S u s s e r , 1 9 8 7 ) . Among t h e p o t e n t i a l p r o b l e m s a r e s e v e r e b a c k p a i n , eye s t r a i n , i n c r e a s e d s t r e s s , and p r e g n a n c y d i f f i c u l t i e s b e c a u s e o f VDT e l e c t r o m a g n e t i c r a d i a t i o n . These n e g a t i v e a s p e c t s o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l change a r e a l l b e c o m i n g w e l l p u b l i c i s e d ( T h i e l , 1 9 8 4 ) . A p p a r e n t l y , h o w e v e r , many i n d i v i d u a l s a l s o r e s i s t u s i n g t h e PWS s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e y f a i l t o see any o f i t s b e n e f i t s ( S a l e r n o , 1 9 8 5 ) . T h i s i s t r u e among s e n i o r l e v e l s o f t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n as w e l l . Some e x e c u t i v e s see PWS u s a g e s i m p l y as " e x e c u t i v e s t y p i n g " ( F e a r o n , 1984; B e n s o n , 1 9 8 3 ) , o r as a means o f r e d u c i n g t h e i r "human" s u p p o r t . T h u s , t h e i r p e r s o n a l u s e o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y o f f e r s no p e r c e i v e d a d v a n t a g e o v e r t h e t h e i r c u r r e n t way o f o p e r a t i n g , and t h e y r e j e c t u s i n g t h e m a c h i n e . More i m p o r t a n t l y , h o w e v e r , t h i s l a c k o f p e r c e i v e d b e n e f i t s may be l e a d i n g some s e n i o r e x e c u t i v e s t o i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y p r e v e n t o t h e r s i n t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n f rom u s i n g t h e t e c h n o l o g y : D u r i n g a r e c e n t s y s t e m s r e v i e w f o r a m a j o r h o s p i t a l , r e v i e w e r s w e r e a s t o u n d e d t o f i n d v i r t u a l l y n o p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r s i n u s e . A p p a r e n t l y , t h e e x e c u t i v e h a d i s s u e d a n e d i c t t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t a l l o w e d . I n s t e a d , a l l p r o c e s s i n g w a s d o n e o n a n a n t i q u a t e d , c e n t r a l i z e d - s i t e m a i n f r a m e . N e e d l e s s t o s a y , m a n y u s e r s w e r e n o t h a p p y S o m e e x e c u t i v e s i n t e r v i e w e d [ i n a v a r i e t y o f f i r m s ] i n d i c a t e d a l a c k o f a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r c o m p u t e r t e c h n o l o g y . M a n y q u e s t i o n e d h o w p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r s f i t w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g m a i n f r a m e t e c h n o l o g y . T h e y a l s o q u e s t i o n e d t h e m u c h - v a u n t e d p r o d u c t i v i t y g a i n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m i c r o - c o m p u t e r s ( G i l m o r e , 1 9 8 8 ) . F i n a l l y , t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e o f a g e n e r a l i s e d r e s i s t a n c e t o computer t e c h n o l o g y b e c a u s e o f t h e p o t e n t i a l l y n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s i t may have o n s o c i e t y . L e e (1970) f o u n d t h a t c o m p u t e r s c o u l d be r e g a r d e d as e i t h e r " b e n e f i c i a l t o o l s o f m a n k i n d " , o r "awesome t h i n k i n g m a c h i n e s " . The l a t t e r f a c t o r l e a d s t o an a v e r s i o n t o computer i n t e r a c t i o n . M o r r i s o n ( 1 9 8 3 ) , when a t t e m p t i n g t o - 17 -r e p l i c a t e L e e ' s w o r k , f o u n d t h a t h i s s u b j e c t s h a d s i g n i f i c a n t c o n c e r n s o v e r t h e p o s s i b l e " d i s e m p l o y i n g and d e h u m a n i z i n g e f f e c t s - as w e l l as d i s q u i e t o v e r t h e c o n t r o l c o m p u t e r s c o u l d e x e r c i s e o v e r t h e i r l i v e s " . I n t h a t t h e s e were a t t i t u d e s o f i n d i v i d u a l s who were n o t d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d a t t h e t i m e by com-p u t e r s , t h e y t h e r e f o r e r e f l e c t a more g e n e r a l i s e d a v e r s i o n t o c o m p u t e r s . T h i s i n t u r n c o u l d l e a d t o r e s i s t a n c e t o p e r s o n a l l y u s i n g PWS. 2.2.3 Summary I n g e n e r a l , t h e r e a c t i o n t o p e r s o n a l u s e o f IT c o v e r s a w i d e r a n g e o f b e h a v i o u r s . T h e s e r e a c t i o n s r a i s e a number o f i s s u e s . One m a j o r o n e , how-e v e r , i s how t o c o n t r o l t h e r a t e o f d i f f u s i o n o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y , so t h a t t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n a l g o a l s f o r i t s u s e c a n be a t t a i n e d . I n some c a s e s , t h e g o a l may be t o s l o w t h e r a t e o f d i f f u s i o n , w h i l e i n many o t h e r s i t w i l l be t o i n c r e a s e t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e PWS by p o t e n t i a l u s e r s so as t o i n c r e a s e d i f f u s i o n . H i s t o r i c a l l y , m a n a g i n g t h e a c c e p t a n c e and u s e o f I T , and i t s o u t p u t s , have l o n g been c o n c e r n s among MIS p r o f e s s i o n a l s . The n e x t two s e c t i o n s d e s c r i b e some o f t h e w o r k t h a t has been c o n d u c t e d i n t h i s a r e a so as t o p u t t h e u s e o f PWS i n t o t h e g r e a t e r c o n t e x t o f use o f i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s i n g e n e r a l . 2.3 INFORMATION SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION To some, t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f PWS i n t o t h e work p l a c e can be c o n s i d e r e d a s p e c i a l c a s e o f i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ( f o r e x a m p l e , see C h r i s t e n s e n , 1 9 8 7 ) . D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e PWS i s s e e n as a s t e p i n t h e c o n t i n u -i n g e v o l u t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s , w h i c h has b e e n c h a r a c t e r i s e d by c o n t i n -uous r e d u c t i o n s i n t h e p h y s i c a l s i z e and c o s t o f computer h a r d w a r e , commensu-r a t e w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l g a i n s i n i t s p e r f o r m a n c e . The PWS i s a r e s u l t o f t h i s e v o l u t i o n , w h i c h , s i m p l y , has made i t p o s s i b l e t o p u t IT i n t o t h e hands o f - 18 -" e n d u s e r s " . Now, t h e y may d i r e c t l y " s u p p o r t " t h e m s e l v e s , where p r e v i o u s l y t h e y had t o d e a l t h r o u g h i n t e r m e d i a r i e s t o a c q u i r e c o m p u t e r s u p p o r t . I t i s a b a s i c a x i o m t h a t t h e r o l e o f i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s , i n g e n e r a l , i s t o enhance t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e d e c i s i o n makers i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s . How t h i s b a s i c g o a l i s o p e r a t i o n a l i s e d , h o w e v e r , has b e e n open t o d e b a t e f o r d e c a d e s . O v e r t w e n t y y e a r s a g o , A c k o f f (1967) i d e n t i f i e d , what he c a l l e d f i v e m i s t a k e n a s s u m p t i o n s t h a t s y s t e m s d e s i g n e r s made. F o r e x a m p l e , he a r g u e d t h a t : " m o s t M I S ' s a r e d e s i g n e d o n t h e c r i t i c a l a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e c r i t i c a l d e f i c i e n c y u n d e r w h i c h m o s t m a n a g e r s o p e r a t e i s t h e lack o f relevant information. I d o n o t d e n y t h a t m o s t m a n a g e r s l a c k a g o o d d e a l o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e y s h o u l d h a v e , b u t I d o d e n y t h a t t h i s i s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n a l d e f i c i e n c y f r o m w h i c h t h e y s u f f e r . I t s e e m s t o m e t h a t t h e y s u f f e r m o r e f r o m a n over abundance of irrelevant information. I n s p i t e o f s u c h comments, A c k o f f d i d s u p p o r t t h e n o t i o n t h a t an MIS was i n t e n d e d t o , and c o u l d , i m p r o v e t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f managers i f d e v e l o p e d p r o p e r l y . H i s c r i t i c i s m was w i t h r e s p e c t t o how i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s were i m p l e m e n t e d . Systems p r o f e s s i o n a l s , t h e r e f o r e , have l o n g b e e n c o n c e r n e d w i t h how t o s u c c e s s f u l l y i m p l e m e n t i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s so as t o a c h i e v e t h e a i m o f i m -p r o v i n g t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e i r c l i e n t s . B e c a u s e " i m p r o v e d p e r f o r m a n c e " i s s u c h a d i f f i c u l t c o n s t r u c t t o m e a s u r e , s e v e r a l s u r r o g a t e s f o r s u c c e s s have b e e n u s e d . One o f t h e most p o p u l a r has been u s a g e o f t h e s y s t e m . The i d e a h e r e i s t h a t a s y s t e m c a n n o t be a s u c c e s s i f i t i s n o t u s e d . B e c a u s e r a t i o n a l i n d i v i d u a l s w o u l d n o t u s e an i n e f f e c t i v e s y s t e m , u s a g e must mean e f f e c t i v e -n e s s . As s t a t e d b y E i n - D o r , Segev and S t e i n f e l d ( 1 9 8 1 ) : G i v e n t h e c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n u s e a n d s u c c e s s , i t i s c l e a r t h a t a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e r e a s o n s f o r u s e a n d d i s u s e w o u l d c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n s t r u c t s u c c e s s f u l s y s t e m s , h e n c e - 19 -t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f r e s e a r c h i n t h i s a r e a [ e . g . ] ( E i n - D o r & S e g e v , 1 9 8 1 ; G a r r i t y , 1 9 6 3 ; S w a n s o n , 1 9 7 4 ) . L a t e r , E i n - D o r and Segev (1982) were t o be e v e n more e m p h a t i c a b o u t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f s y s t e m u s e : t h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f c r i t e r i a f o r s u c c e s s - p r o f i t a b i l i t y , a p p l i c a -t i o n t o m a j o r p r o b l e m s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , q u a l i t y o f d e c i s i o n s o r p e r f o r m a n c e , u s e r s a t i s f a c t i o n , a n d w i d e s p r e a d u s e . T h e s e c r i t e r i a a r e c l e a r l y m u t u a l l y d e p e n d e n t ; p r o f i t a b i l i t y i s c o r r e l a t e d w i t h p e r f o r m a n c e , a p p l i c a t i o n t o m a j o r p r o b l e m s , a n d a c t u a l u s e . W e c l a i m t h a t a m a n a g e r w i l l u s e s o m e o f t h e c r i t e r i a , a n d t h a t u s e i s h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e m . T h u s w e c h o o s e u s e a s a p r i m e c r i t e r i o n o f M I S s u c c e s s . A n o t h e r a p p r o a c h t o a s s e s s i n g i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s u c c e s s has been t h a t o f t h e perceived effectiveness o f t h e s y s t e m . B r i e f l y , t h i s a p p r o a c h measures e f f e c t i v e n e s s as p e r c e i v e d by t h e u s e r s , i n c l u d i n g u s e r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e s y s t e m and i t s o u t p u t s , p e r c e i v e d s y s t e m q u a l i t y , and so f o r t h . G i n z b e r g ( 1 9 7 8 , 1 9 8 1 b ) , one o f t h e a d v o c a t e s o f t h i s a p p r o a c h , a r g u e d t h a t t h e l i n k b e t w e e n u s a g e o f t h e s y s t e m and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s u c c e s s was t e n u o u s . I f t h e s y s t e m i s v i e w e d as a s e r v i c e d e s i g n e d t o enhance t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f m a n a g e r s , u s a g e measures may be q u i t e m i s l e a d i n g as i n d i c a t o r s o f s u c c e s s . I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t u s e may n o t n e c e s s a r i l y enhance p e r f o r m a n c e . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i t was a r g u e d t h a t u s e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f how e f f e c t i v e t h e s y s t e m was i n e n h a n c i n g p e r f o r m a n c e c o u l d p r o v i d e a more a c c u r a t e i n d i c a t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e s y s t e m was m e e t i n g i t s o b j e c t i v e s . T h u s , perceived effectiveness c o u l d p r o v i d e a b e t t e r measure o f t h e s u c c e s s o f t h e s y s t e m ' s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n t h a n system usage. F i n a l l y , some have a r g u e d t h a t b o t h a p p r o a c h e s may be a p p r o p r i a t e ( e . g . I v e s , O l s o n & B a r o u d i , 1 9 8 3 ) . S r i n i v a s a n ( 1 9 8 5 ) , i n an e m p i r i c a l s t u d y o f t h e two a p p r o a c h e s , c o n c l u d e d : - 20 -Researchers have to be extremely cautious about using surrogate measures of system effectiveness. While in certain classes of systems strong positive associations may exist between the two types of measures [system usage, perceived effectiveness], in other classes of systems this relationship may be non-existent. Researchers will have to clearly specify what the exact nature of the dependent variables are. System use and system effectiveness may be indicating two entirely different phenomena. S r i n i v a s a n ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e two measures m i g h t n o t be t a p p i n g t h e same phenomenon h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d i n a s t u d y by B a r k i and H u f f ( 1 9 8 4 ) . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e y were s t u d y i n g " d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t s y s t e m s u c c e s s " , and s p e c i f i c a l l y e x a m i n e d d i f f e r e n t m e a s u r e s o f s u c c e s s . One o f t h e i r p e r c e i v e d e f f e c t i v e n e s s measures was user information s a t i s f a c t i o n , w h i l e use was m e a s u r e d b y a s k i n g r e s p o n d e n t s t o r e p o r t t h e f r e q u e n c y t h a t t h e y u s e d t h e D e c i s i o n S u p p o r t S y s t e m ( D S S ) . One c o n c l u s i o n w h i c h B a r k i and H u f f r e a c h e d was t h a t : the relatively small correlation between user information satisfaction and system use (.394), [confirmed] that the two measures, while related, are not measuring the same thing. G i v e n t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e q u e s t i o n i s r a i s e d as t o what a c t u a l l y c o n s t i -t u t e s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s u c c e s s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e answer w h i c h must be a c -c e p t e d a t t h i s p o i n t i s t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e measure o f s u c c e s s i s c o n t i n g e n t u p o n t h e p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n one i s r e s e a r c h i n g . T h u s , t h e t h r u s t o f i m p l e -m e n t a t i o n r e s e a r c h has been t o a t t e m p t t o i d e n t i f y t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i c a t o r o f s u c c e s s i n a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n , and t h e n t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e f o r c e s w h i c h u n d e r l i e s u c c e s s f o r t h a t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . I n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d r e s e a r c h i n t o i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , h o w e v e r , one s h o u l d f i r s t u n d e r s t a n d what i m p l e m e n t a t i o n i s . I m p l e m e n t a t i o n i s d e f i n e d b y N u t t ( 1986) as " a s e r i e s o f s t e p s t a k e n b y r e s p o n s i b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a g e n t s i n - 21 -planned change processes to e l i c i t compliance needed to . i n s t a l l changes" (p.230). Within information systems, implementation was defined as: a n o n - g o i n g p r o c e s s w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e e n t i r e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e s y s t e m f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l s u g g e s t i o n t h r o u g h t h e f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y , s y s t e m s a n a l y s i s a n d d e s i g n , p r o g r a m m i n g , t r a i n i n g , c o n v e r s i o n , a n d i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e s y s t e m ( L u c a s , 1 9 8 1 , p . 1 4 ) . The common thread i n both d e f i n i t i o n s i s the idea of "responsible agents" planning change, or "conversion", from one way of doing things to another. It i s seen as a r a t i o n a l process. In fact, Lucas 1 d e f i n i t i o n of implementation i s a paragon of r a t i o n a l i t y . Given these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , therefore, i t might be argued that the introduction of PWS into organisations i s sometimes not necessar i l y one of planned systems implementation. This i s pri m a r i l y true i n the area of EUC, which seems to be a user driven phenomenon. There i s not necessar i l y any p lanned change, because the users react, on t h e i r own, to the vagaries of the moment and adopt PWS usage, often by acquiring a microcomputer. S i m i l a r l y , many IS professionals would argue that often there i s no "responsible agent" involved i n the a c q u i s i t i o n and use of a PWS. Instead, i n many cases, there are quite irresponsible agents who do not follow the t r i e d and true rules of system development and implementation. Thus, i n th i s s i t u a t i o n , use of the PWS i s seen by IS professionals as a " f a i l u r e " , not a success. The foregoing argument with respect to the a c q u i s i t i o n and use of a PWS does not intend to imply, however, that a l l instances of users taking over some systems functions for themselves are negative. Many organisations have recognised the benefits of end users doing t h e i r own computing and appl i c a t i o n development (Davis & Olson, 1985; Gremillion & Pyburn, 1983). Having users take over systems development tasks can help to r e l i e v e the shortage of - 22 -s y s t e m s d e v e l o p m e n t p e r s o n n e l , e l i m i n a t e s t h e d i f f i c u l t t a s k o f t h e u s e r s t r y i n g t o c o m m u n i c a t e t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n needs t o an a n a l y s t , and t r a n s f e r s t h e s y s t e m i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p r o c e s s t o t h e u s e r s . I t i s t h o u g h t t h a t u s e r s a r e more l i k e l y t o u s e s y s t e m s t h a t t h e y have d e v e l o p e d t h a n t h o s e d e v e l o p e d f o r them by " e x p e r t s " . When u s e r s t a k e o v e r t h e s e t a s k s , h o w e v e r , i t must be r e c o g n -i s e d t h a t c e r t a i n r i s k s e x i s t f r o m p o t e n t i a l l y p o o r l y d e v e l o p e d s y s t e m s . P o l i c i e s need t o be i n p l a c e , t h e r e f o r e , w i t h r e s p e c t t o u s e r t r a i n i n g , q u a l i t y c o n t r o l and a s s u r a n c e . I n t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e u s e o f PWS i s e n c o u r a g e d , and h e n c e t h e s i t u a t i o n does become one o f p l a n n e d i m p l e -m e n t a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , w h i l e p e r c e i v e d e f f e c t i v e n e s s and o t h e r measures may be i n d i c a t o r s o f s u c c e s s , u s e i s s e e n as a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n f o r s u c c e s s . T h u s , t h e f o c u s o f most o f t h e s e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n e f f o r t s i s t o e n c o u r a g e c l i e n t s t o a c t u a l l y a d o p t PWS u s a g e . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , w h i l e t h e g r o w t h o f EUC i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s may o r may n o t be t h e r e s u l t o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p r o j e c t s , O f f i c e A u t o m a t i o n g e n e r a l l y i s . T h i s i s due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s e p r o j e c t s a r e t y p i c a l l y i n t r o d u c e d when an o r g a n i s a t i o n , as o p p o s e d t o an i n d i v i d u a l , c o n c l u d e s t h a t g a i n s i n p r o d u c t i v -i t y c a n be made f r o m i t s e m p l o y e e s ' d i r e c t computer u s a g e . F u r t h e r m o r e , OA t e n d s t o be i n t r o d u c e d as an i n t e g r a t e d s y s t e m o n an o r g a n i s a t i o n w i d e b a s i s , r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e n e c e s s a r y i n t r a - o r g a n i s a t i o n a l l i n k a g e s be i d e n t i f i e d and d e v e l o p e d . More r e c e n t l y , i n t e r - o r g a n i s a t i o n a l s y s t e m s have a l s o been d e v e l -o p e d . A l l o f t h i s r e q u i r e s " p l a n n e d change by r e s p o n s i b l e a g e n t s " . W i t h many o f t h e s e p r o j e c t s , i t g e n e r a l l y must be assumed t h a t g a i n s i n p r o d u c t i v i t y w i l l o c c u r , b e c a u s e many o f t h e g a i n s a r e h a r d t o measure . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , s y s t e m u s a g e becomes t h e measure o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s u c c e s s . - 23 -G i v e n t h e above a r g u m e n t s , i t becomes c l e a r t h a t i n t h e c a s e o f PWS i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , use o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y i s a p r i m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , w h e t h e r i t bo t o d i s c o u r a g e i t s u s e i n some s i t u a t i o n s , o r t o promote i t s use i n o t h e r s . T h u s , an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e f o r c e s w h i c h m o t i v a t e use o r n o n - u s e o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y becomes a k e y f a c t o r i n managing i t s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . T h i s l e a d s t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f o n e ' s Attitude t o w a r d s u s i n g the t e c h n o l o g y , w h i c h has been f o u n d t o be a p r i m a r y f a c t o r i n s y s t e m s u s a g e . Some o f t h e r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e r o l e o f Attitude i s d e s c r i b e d b e l o w . 2.4 ATTITUDE RESEARCH W i t h i n MIS r e s e a r c h t h e r e h a v e been s e v e r a l s t u d i e s o f t h e e f f e c t s o f Attitude on s y s t e m u s e . One o f t h e e a r l i e r s t u d i e s was t h a t o f Schewe ( 1 9 7 6 ) , who f o u n d no r e l a t i o n s h i p between w h e t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s u s e d a s y s t e m and t h e i r p r o f e s s e d a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e s y s t e m . Schewe f o u n d t h a t w h i l e usage c o v a r i e d w i t h b e l i e f s about MIS c a p a b i l i t i e s , i t d i d n o t c o v a r y w i t h a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s u s e . Many o t h e r s t u d i e s , h o w e v e r , have found t h a t a t t i t u d e s do i n f l u e n c e s y s t e m u s a g e . S c h u l t z and S l e v i n (1975) found t h a t f o u r o f s e v e n a t t i t u d i n a l f a c t o r s c o r r e s p o n d e d h i g h l y w i t h t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t w o u l d use t h e s y s t e m . Robey (1979) u s e d t h e S c h u l t z - S l e v i n i n s t r u m e n t and f o u n d t h a t an i n d i c a t o r o f perceived worth o f t h e s y s t e m c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y w i t h two s e p a r a t e measures o f s y s t e m u s e . Based on h i s f i n d i n g s , he p r o p o s e d an a t t i t u d e r e s e a r c h model t o i n v e s t i g a t e usage q u e s t i o n s - . Based on a s e r i e s o f s t u d i e s , L u c a s (1978) had e a r l i e r d e v e l o p e d a d e s c r i p t i v e model o f systems u s e . T h i s m o d e l p r e s e n t e d s e v e r a l h y p o t h e s i s e d d e t e r m i n a n t s o f systems u s e , i n c l u d i n g u s e r s ' a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s , t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y o f the s y s t e m , s i t u a t i o n a l - 24 -f a c t o r s , p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s , d e c i s i o n s t y l e , and t o p management s u p p o r t f o r t h e s y s t e m . Of t h e s e , L u c a s f o u n d c o n s i s t e n t s u p p o r t f o r h i s h y p o t h e s i s t h a t a t t i t u d e i n f l u e n c e d u s e . More i m p o r t a n t l y , h o w e v e r , he f o u n d t h a t a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s p l a y t h e r o l e o f intervening v a r i a b l e s between u s e and t h e o t h e r d e t e r m i n a n t s . More r e c e n t s t u d i e s h a v e a l s o f o u n d A t t i t u d e t o be a p r i m a r y f a c t o r i n s y s t e m s u s a g e , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e PWS. C h r i s t e n s e n (1987) f o u n d t h a t A t t i t u d e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e r m i n a n t b o t h o f t h e intentions o f managers t o u s e , and o f t h e i r s u b s e q u e n t u s e o f , a D e c i s i o n S u p p o r t S y s t e m ( D S S ) . P a v r i ( 1988) f o u n d A t t i t u d e t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e u s e o f m i c r o -c o m p u t e r s b y m a n a g e r s . F i n a l l y , Howard (1986) s i m p l y r e c o g n i s e d , a p r i o r i , t h e e f f e c t o f a t t i t u d e s on m a n a g e r s ' u s e o f m i c r o c o m p u t e r s . S t a r t i n g w i t h t h i s r e c o g n i t i o n , he t h e n i n v e s t i g a t e d v a r i o u s h y p o t h e s i s e d d e t e r m i n a n t s o f A t t i t u d e . W h i l e t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s o n l y a c u r s o r y r e v i e w o f t h e r e s e a r c h , i t n e v e r t h e l e s s i n d i c a t e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f A t t i t u d e w i t h r e s p e c t t o s y s t e m u s a g e . G i v e n A t t i t u d e ' s i m p o r t a n c e , h o w e v e r , i t w o u l d seem t h a t some c o n s e n -sus s h o u l d h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d a b o u t t h e c o n s t r u c t ' s d e f i n i t i o n . T h i s i s n o t t h e c a s e . F o r e x a m p l e , as n o t e d i n a r e v i e w o f t h e r e s e a r c h by I v e s , O l s o n and B a r o u d i ( 1 9 8 3 ) , MIS r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e f a i l e d t o d i s t i n g u i s h be tween s u c h b a s i c c o n c e p t s as Attitude and User S a t i s f a c t i o n . W h i l e t h e s e a r e no d o u b t c o r r e l a t e d , and l i k e l y c a u s a l l y l i n k e d , t h e y s h o u l d be t r e a t e d as c o n c e p t u a l l y d i f f e r e n t . However, again as n o t e d by Ives e t a l . , a wide range o f c o n s t r u c t s h a v e b e e n t r e a t e d as e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r . These i n c l u d e f e l t need ( G u t h r i e , 1 9 7 4 ) , system acceptance ( I g e r s h e i m , 1 9 7 6 ) , perceived usefulness ( L a r k e r & - 25 -L e s s i g , 1 9 8 0 ) , f e e l i n g s about the information system ( M a i s h , 1 9 7 9 ) , and MIS appreciation ( S w a n s o n , 1 9 7 4 ) . As w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l i n t h e n e x t c h a p t e r , a rguments have b e e n made t h a t A t t i t u d e Change and P e r s u a s i o n t h e o r y s h o u l d be t a p p e d i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a more t h e o r e t i c a l u n d e r p i n n i n g f o r r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e r o l e o f A t t i t u d e w i t h r e s p e c t t o PWS u s a g e ( M o o r e , 1 9 8 7 ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e Theory of Reasoned Action ( F i s h b e i n & A j z e n , 1975) was p r o p o s e d as a f o u n d a t i o n f r o m w h i c h t o p r o c e e d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , e v e n once t h e n e e d f o r c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g A t t i t u d e b a s e d o n t h e o r y was r e c o g n i s e d by r e s e a r c h e r s , t h e r e s t i l l have been i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n i t s o p e r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n , and i n i d e n t i f y i n g i t s k e y d e t e r -m i n a n t s . T h r e e r e c e n t s t u d i e s h a v e u s e d t h e T h e o r y o f Reasoned A c t i o n , as s u g g e s t e d , t o s t u d y t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f u s e r I T . D a v i s (1985) e x a m i n e d t h e u s e o f e l e c t r o n i c m a i l and g r a p h i c s p a c k a g e s . C h r i s t e n s e n (1987) s t u d i e d a c c e p -t a n c e o f a DSS, and P a v r i (1988) r e s e a r c h e d t h e g e n e r a l use o f m i c r o c o m p u t e r s by managers . E v e n t h o u g h t h e s e s t u d i e s a l l e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i s e d t h e need f o r a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r s t u d y i n g t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f PWS, and i n f a c t u s e d t h e T h e o r y o f R e a s o n e d A c t i o n , t h e y showed no c o n s i s t e n c y i n how A t t i t u d e was o p e r a f i o n a l i s e d o r i n how A t t i t u d e ' s d e t e r m i n a n t s were i d e n t i f i e d . T h e i r a p p r o a c h e s a r e d e s c r i b e d b e l o w . B a s e d on a r e v i e w o f t h e r e l e v a n t MIS l i t e r a t u r e , D a v i s (1985) i d e n t i -f i e d two g e n e r a l c o n s t r u c t s , perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness o f t h e s y s t e m , as t h e h y p o t h e s i s e d b e l i e f s w h i c h d e t e r m i n e d A t t i t u d e . M u l t i p l e i t e m s c a l e s t o measure ease of use and usefulness were t h e n d e v e l o p e d . These i n c l u d e d s u c h i t e m s as " u s i n g e l e c t r o n i c m a i l g i v e s me more c o n t r o l o v e r my w o r k " f o r perceived usefulness, and " l e a r n i n g t o o p e r a t e t h e e l e c t r o n i c m a i l - 26 -system i s easy for me", for perceived ease of use. Attitude was then opera-t i o n a l i s e d using f i v e semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l items (e.g. "good-bad"), based on a seven-point scale. While Davis i d e n t i f i e d general b e l i e f s based on . a l i t e r a t u r e review, Christensen (1987) followed more c l o s e l y the method suggested by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) to i d e n t i f y the relevant b e l i e f s . Before conducting his f u l l study, he c i r c u l a t e d an i n i t i a l questionnaire to a convenient sample i n order to e l i c i t p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f s that his respondents had about the outcomes of using the DSS. As a r e s u l t he i d e n t i f i e d fourteen very s p e c i f i c b e l i e f s about using the p a r t i c u l a r DSS i n his study, the Interactive F i n a n c i a l Planning System (IFPS). These included such b e l i e f s as "using the IFPS model implies less c a l c u l a t i o n and summation work", or "using the IFPS model makes i t easy to change the structure of the f i n a n c i a l model". These e l i c i t e d b e l i e f s were then included* i n the f i n a l survey questionnaire, where respondents indicated t h e i r degree of agreement with the b e l i e f s (on a seven-point "agree-disagree" sc a l e ) . These b e l i e f s were next evaluated by the respondent as to whether they were " p o s i t i v e " or "negative" (again on a seven point scale). Each "agreement" statement was m u l t i p l i e d by i t s evaluation to derive an o v e r a l l score for the b e l i e f . F i n a l l y , to operationalise Attitude, Christensen used a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale containing seven items si m i l a r to those of Davis'. Using both l i t e r a t u r e reviews and interviews with managers, Pavri (1988) also i d e n t i f i e d some very s p e c i f i c b e l i e f s about using microcomputers as the determinants of Attitude. His f i n a l instrument included eight b e l i e f s , such as using micros "allows one to be more independent of subordinates and secre-t a r i e s " , or using micros "provides access to higher quality information for - 27 -better decisions". He, however, did not attempt a more di r e c t measure of Attitude as did the other two researchers. Rather, using a method s i m i l a r to Christensen, he f i r s t m u l t i p l i e d the respondent's agreement with the b e l i e f statement (on a 1-7 scale) by the professed d e s i r a b i l i t y with the outcome (again on a 1-7 s c a l e ) . Attitude was then synthesised from these scales by summing the scores for each b e l i e f . These three studies are marked steps forward within MIS i n the study of Attitude, i t s formulation, and i t s effects on system usage. However, as can be seen, much s t i l l needs to be done to bring some consistency into how Attitude i s formulated, and s p e c i f i c a l l y into how the p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f s that contribute to i t s formulation are i d e n t i f i e d and explicated. In that s i g n i f -icant gains have been made by defining Attitude based on theory, rather than being dependent on the contingencies of the p a r t i c u l a r study, i t i s recom-mended that the b e l i e f s , which are the basis of the Attitude, also be defined based on theory. In t h i s way Attitude w i l l not simply be a function of b e l i e f s i n a p a r t i c u l a r study. The next section suggests a method for doing t h i s . 2.5 THE USE OF THE PWS AS A WORK INNOVATION As was defined e a r l i e r , implementation i s b a s i c a l l y a process of planned changes. As indicated by Nutt (1986), these changes can involve: 1. t e c h n i c a l innovations r e s u l t i n g from the application and use of technology; 2. administrative innovations dealing with relationships and promulgating new rules, roles, procedures, or structures within organisations; and 3. adaptation of technology or managerial practices used by competing or cooperating organisations. - 28 -As c a n be s e e n , implementation i s v e r y much c o n c e r n e d w i t h i n n o v a t i o n i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s . F o r a number o f r e a s o n s , t h e r e f o r e , a diffusion of innovations (DOI) framework s h o u l d p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r s t u d y i n g t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , o r d i f f u s i o n , o f PWS. F i r s t , t h e PWS i s a t e c h n i c a l i n n o v a t i o n , b o t h i n terms o f i t s f u n c t i o n s and i t s h a r d w a r e . S e c o n d , i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n has r e q u i r e d a d m i n -i s t r a t i v e i n n o v a t i o n s t o d e a l w i t h t h e changed r e l a t i o n s h i p s between u s e r s and IS p r o f e s s i o n a l s t h a t i t s use has c r e a t e d . I n d e e d , implementation o f i n f o r -m a t i o n systems i n g e n e r a l can be s e e n as a p r o c e s s o f i n n o v a t i o n . N e v e r t h e -l e s s , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f a v e r y r e c e n t i n c r e a s e i n i n t e r e s t i n d i f f u s i o n t h e o r y , d e s c r i b e d b e l o w , t h e DOI framework a p p a r e n t l y has n o t been a p p l i e d t o any g r e a t e x t e n t w i t h i n p u b l i s h e d MIS work , e i t h e r t o s t u d y t h e d i f f u s i o n o f PWS, o r systems implementation i n g e n e r a l . In a r e v i e w by Rogers (1983) o f some 3085 p u b l i c a t i o n s , no m e n t i o n i s made o f MIS n o r MS/OR among t h e s e v e r a l d i s c i p l i n e s l i s t e d . One n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e l a c k o f u s e o f DOI w i t h i n MIS i s P e r r y & Kraemer (1979) , who u s e d a DOI framework e x t e n s i v e l y t o examine the e f f e c t s o f p o l i c y i n t e r v e n t i o n s on t h e d i f f u s i o n o f c o m p u t i n g t e c h n o l o g y among A m e r i c a n l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s . H u f f & Munro (1986) a l s o d e v e l o p e d an i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l -ogy assessment and a d o p t i o n m o d e l , and r e l a t e d i t s p e c i f i c a l l y t o an e a r l i e r DOI model d e v e l o p e d by Rogers (1961) . Zmud (1982, 1983, 1984) examined t h e e f f e c t s o f s e v e r a l o r g a n i s a t i o n a l - l e v e l v a r i a b l e s on t h e d i f f u s i o n o f modern s o f t w a r e p r a c t i c e s . One r e c e n t s t u d y by Raho, B e l o h l a v and F i e d l e r (1987) examined and f o u n d some e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e d e s c r i p t i v e n a t u r e o f M c F a r -l a n ' s and M c K e n n e y ' s model o f " T e c h n o l o g y A s s i m i l a t i o n " (McKenney & M c F a r l a n , 1982; M c F a r l a n , McKenney and P y b u r n , 1983) . T h i s model d e s c r i b e d t h e v a r i o u s s t a g e s o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y a s s i m i l a t i o n p r o c e s s b a s e d e s s e n t i a l l y on the d e g r e e - 29 -of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s a t i o n of the technology i n the organisation. Neither the model, not the study, however, e x p l i c i t l y addressed the underlying forces which motivate an organisation to innovate, nor the process by which an ultimate adoption/rejection decision i s reached. Furthermore, a l l these p a r t i c u l a r works p r i m a r i l y addressed d i f f u s i o n at the organisational l e v e l , not at the l e v e l of i n d i v i d u a l adopters. F i n a l l y , the use of a DOI model was also proposed to study implementation methods, by Ginzberg (1981) with respect to the implementation of MIS, and by Schultz & Slevin (1975) with respect to MS/OR techniques. The l a t t e r saw implementation as "a special case of organ-i z a t i o n a l innovation" and a c a l l was made for some rigour i n the study of implementation from t h i s perspective. In spite of these views and suggestions, the vast majority of approaches to the study of MIS implementation, i n general, and the d i f f u s i o n of PWS i n p a r t i c u l a r , remain a t h e o r e t i c a l . There have been, however, some suggestions that the use of PWS can be viewed as a DOI phenomenon (see for example Hen-derson & Treacy, 1986). Nevertheless, when work on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r research commenced i n 1986, the author was not aware of any others who were e x p l i c i t l y applying the DOI model to the study of PWS. As the r e s u l t , however, of a presentation to a consortium of MIS doctoral students (Moore, 1986), contact was made with two other doctoral students who were also using the theory to investigate IS implementation. These students, whose dissertations are now completed (Brancheau, 1987; Alexander, 1989), had also not i d e n t i f i e d any other e x p l i c i t use of DOI theory with MIS. Brancheau primarily investigated the p o t e n t i a l adopters' environment (communication channels, organisational ac t i o n s ) , while Alexander studied the adoption of an organisational l e v e l innovation, data base machines. Nevertheless, while these dissertations were - 30 -concerned with the d i f f u s i o n of IT, and used d i f f u s i o n of innovations theory, they are only p e r i p h e r a l l y r e l a t e d to the current study. In any event, given the success that the DOI perspective has had i n other d i s c i p l i n e s , and the new found i n t e r e s t i n i t among MIS researchers, i t seems appropriate to apply DOI theory to the d i f f u s i o n of PWS, without being accused of adopting a "framework of the month approach" (Keen, 1980). Among other benefits, i t allows the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of generic b e l i e f s which a f f e c t Attitude, an objective highlighted i n the previous section. The next chapter outlines how t h i s was done with respect to this research. 2.6 SUMMARY The personal use of information technology by individuals outside the Information Systems Department i s a phenomenon which has received considerable attention i n the l a s t few years. To both organisations and i n d i v i d u a l s , PWS usage has offered many po t e n t i a l advantages, whether i t be with respect to end user a p p l i c a t i o n development, or to the automation of many o f f i c e functions. Nevertheless, there are many indications that the acceptance of PWS usage i s far from universal, which i s creating s i g n i f i c a n t management problems. Resis-tance to information technology, however, i s not a new phenomenon. There has been a reluctance among many to the use of information systems since t h e i r inception, with respect not only to hands-on use of the systems, but to use of t h e i r outputs as well. This i s the basis of the implementation problem. With respect to the d i f f u s i o n of PWS in organisations, i t can be seen that the i n i t i a l measure of success of i t s implementation i s the appropriate use of the machine. In that actual use i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y predicated by one's - 31 -A t t i t u d e towards use, t h i s chapter reviewed some of the work that has been done with respect to Attitude towards use of information systems i n general, and use of PWS i n p a r t i c u l a r . It has chronicled some of the attempts, and advances, that have been made to provide a more t h e o r e t i c a l basis for the study of the e f f e c t of Attitude on systems use. Nevertheless, as was d i s -cussed, there s t i l l i s much work to be done i n couching t h i s l i n e of research i n t h e o r e t i c a l terms. One of the suggested ways of doing t h i s i s to view the use of PWS i n organisations as an innovation, and thus to draw upon the body of theory developed i n the d i f f u s i o n of innovations research. It can be seen that there i s an object, the PWS, which i s central to t h i s study. Thus i t may seem to some that this research i s technology driven, which opens i t up to the p o t e n t i a l c r i t i c i s m s of some observers: Even to the casual observer, it quickly becomes apparent that the IS literature is technology driven. As each wave of new technol-ogy occurs, the focus of the literature shifts to the predictable descriptions of the technology, examination of implications, case studies of use, exhortations to adopt, etc. This phenomenon is present in both the professional literature and the research literature; indeed, PhD dissertation topics appear to be a fairly reliable indicator of what technology is " i n " each year .... (Weber, 1985). Although,, as mentioned above, the PWS is the central object of t h i s study, i t i s not the central focus. This is use of the technology. Thus, the intent of t h i s chapter has been to show that the current research can be viewed as a continuation of a long standing l i n e of research, information systems implementation. The intent of the research i s to provide a more t h e o r e t i c a l basis for t h i s l i n e of study. This basis w i l l be developed in the next chapter. - 32 -CHAPTER THREE THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK T h i n g s d o no t c h a n g e ; we c h a n g e . T h o r e a u , W A L D E N SECTION A: THE THEORETICAL MODEL 3.1 INTRODUCTION Throughout their l i f e cycles, individuals and organisations tend to prefer courses of action that continue their current ways of operating over those that represent change (March & Simon, 1958, p. 173). Alternatives which require a change are not normally adopted unless the present course of action is considered to be in some way unsatisfactory. This may result from discov-ering that the present programme of activities is inadequate, which leads to undertaking a search for a better alternative. It may also result from learning that a superior course of action exists, which makes the present course in comparison seem unsatisfactory. This has been termed discovery of the "performance gap" (Zaltman, Duncan & Holbek, 1973, p.2). Whatever the impetus, according to March and Simon, once consideration of "change" over "persistence" occurs, the process of innovation is started. I n i t i a t i o n a n d i n n o v a t i o n a r e p r e s e n t w h e n c h a n g e r e q u i r e s t h e d e v i s i n g a n d e v a l u a t i o n of new p e r f o r -mance p r o g r a m s t h a t h a v e no t p r e v i o u s l y b e e n p a r t of an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s r e p e r t o r y a n d c a n n o t be i n t r o -d u c e d b y a s i m p l e a p p l i c a t i o n of p r o g r a m m e d s w i t c h -i n g r u l e s ( M a r c h & S i m o n , 1958 , p . 1 7 5 ) . 3.2 INNOVATION The term innovation has been used in a variety of contexts, with a corresponding variety of different meanings. In a review of these contexts by - 33 -Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek (1973), the following definitions of innovation were discussed: 1 . a creative process whereby two or more existing concepts or entities are combined in some novel way (P.7); 2. the process whereby an existing innovation becomes part of an adopter's cognitive state and behavioural repertoire (p.8); and 3. the idea, practice or material artifact that has been invented or that is regarded as novel independent of its adoption or non-adoption (p.8). As a result of th e i r review, Zaltman et a l . concluded that the last d e f i n i t i o n of innovation i s the most appropriate. It focuses on why something can be considered an innovation, whereas the f i r s t two definitions focus on the processes of invention and adoption respectively. This last d e f i n i t i o n i s close to that offered by Rogers (1983), one of the pioneers i n the study of innovations, i n the t h i r d and latest edition of his now classic book on the d i f f u s i o n of innovations: An innovation is an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. It matters little, so far as human behaviour is concerned, whether or not an idea is "objectively" new as measured by the lapse of time since its first use or discovery. The perceived newness of the idea for the individual determines his or her reaction to it. If the idea is new to the individual, it is an innovation (Rogers, 1983, p.11). 3.3 DIFFUSION An innovation moves through a population by d i f f u s i o n , which i s defined as the "process by which an innovation i s communicated through certain chan-nels over time among the members of a s o c i a l system" (Rogers, 1983, p.5). In many early studies the diffusion of an innovation was compared to the spread of a disease, which from the theory of epidemics follows.the classic S-shaped - 34 -curve (Figure 3-1). Individuals were then categorised depending how early or la t e they adopted the innovation. Those who adopted early were the innova-tors, or "early adopters", and individuals who adopted l a t e r were laggards. Davies (1979), however, chronicled many of the weaknesses of t h i s model. For example, not a l l i n d i v i d u a l s are equally susceptible to a p a r t i c u l a r disease, as the a v a i l a b i l i t y of inoculations could make some i n i t i a l l y immune. The inoculation could wear o f f , however, and thus one's immunity might change. It i s d i f f i c u l t , therefore, to forecast the shape the i n f e c t i o n curve w i l l take over time. In d i f f u s i o n , the analogy to immunity would be some predisposition to r e s i s t an innovation. In any event, because of the somewhat s i m p l i s t i c approach of the "disease" model, other models of d i f f u s i o n have been developed with the thrust being to recognise innovation as a change process which i s influenced by a v a r i e t y of factors. 3.4 INNOVATIVENESS At the conceptual l e v e l , innovativeness is the dependent variable central to many studies of the d i f f u s i o n of innovations (DOI). . As defined by Rogers, innovativeness i s the "degree to which an in d i v i d u a l or other unit of adoption i s r e l a t i v e l y e a r l i e r i n adopting new ideas than other members of a system" (1983, p.22). This d e f i n i t i o n i s quite popular among many d i f f u s i o n re-searchers, but appears to capture only part of the actual construct. Midgley and Dowling have argued that t h i s p a r t i c u l a r d e f i n i t i o n i s , in fact, an o p e r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n of the construct, as i t is couched d i r e c t l y i n terms of the construct's measurement (time of adoption),- not in abstract or conceptual terms. Such a d e f i n i t i o n i s t a u t o l o g i c a l , for "innovativeness i s what we measure, and what we measure i s innovativeness" (Midgley & Dowling, 1978, pp. 230-232). The r e s u l t of t h i s tautology i s that any study of - 35 -innovativeness using t h i s d e f i n i t i o n must be innovation s p e c i f i c , which l i m i t s the study's g e n e r a l i s a b i l i t y , and makes theory generation suspect at best. Midgley and Dowling define innovativeness as "the degree to which an i n d i v i d u a l makes innovation decisions independently of the communicated experience of others" (1978, p.235). This d e f i n i t i o n r e f l e c t s t h e i r view that innovativeness i s e s s e n t i a l l y a generalised personality t r a i t "that a l l members of society possess to a greater or lesser degree" (p.235). This b e l i e f i s also held by others. For example, Hurt, Joseph and Cook ( 1977) argue that innovativeness i s a "normally di s t r i b u t e d , underlying personality construct, which may be interpreted as a willingness to change" (p.59). There are, however, problems i n viewing innovativeness as a general personality t r a i t . As w i l l be discussed below, considerable research ex i t s , as well as anecdotal evidence, that innovativeness i s not a general t r a i t , but rather i s r e l a t i v e to a p a r t i c u l a r innovation. Examples are legion of those who are very innovative with respect to c e r t a i n behaviours, such as using high tech-nology products, but are unwilling to change in other areas, such as eating habits. A second problem with Midgley and Dowling's d e f i n i t i o n i s that although i t does include the v i t a l communications aspect of the d i f f u s i o n of innova-tions, the authors define communicated experience as "information passed v e r b a l l y between i n d i v i d u a l consumers [which] i s generally based on actual experience with the new product in everyday usage" (p.235). Linking the communicated information to actual usage of the innovation seems to be overly l i m i t i n g . For example, s o c i a l norms, which are developed through the commu-nications process, can heavily influence behaviour, including the use of - 36 -i n n o v a t i o n s . Such norms c a n a r i s e w i t h o u t t h e c o m m u n i c a t o r s o f t h e norm e v e r h a v i n g e x p e r i e n c e d t h e b e h a v i o u r . One s u c h example i s a b o r t i o n , w h i c h i n many ways c a n be v i e w e d as an i n n o v a t i v e b i r t h c o n t r o l method. I t i s p r o b a b l y s a f e t o assume t h a t t h e b e h a v i o u r o f many a n t i - a b o r t i o n i s t s i s h e a v i l y i n f l u e n c e d by t h e a t t i t u d e s o f o t h e r s , most o f whom w i l l n o t have e x p e r i e n c e d an a b o r -t i o n . W h i l e t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f i n n o v a t i o n s do n o t have t h e e m o t i o n a l i m p a c t o f a b o r t i o n , t h e p o i n t r e m a i n s t h a t u s a g e i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r f o r a p e r s o n t o f o r m an o p i n i o n a b o u t t h e i n n o v a t i o n , n o r f o r t h e o p i n i o n h o l d e r t o be a b l e t o i n f l u e n c e o t h e r s . A l t h o u g h i t has been g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d t h a t interpersonal c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s l i k e l y more e f f e c t i v e t h a n o t h e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n s m e d i a , down p l a y i n g t h e i n f l u e n c e o f o t h e r m e d i a c a n c r e a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s . An example i s p r o v i d e d b y a s t u d y c o n d u c t e d by M i d g l e y h i m s e l f ( 1 9 7 6 ) . I n r e s e a r c h i n g d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f i n f l u e n c e on f i r s t t i m e p u r c h a s e r s o f s i x v a r i o u s consumer p r o d u c t s , he f o u n d t h a t " i n two c a s e s i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n was more e f f e c t i v e t h a n t h e m e d i a ; i n one c a s e t h e e f f e c t s were e q u a l ; and i n t h e r e m a i n i n g t h r e e c a s e s m a r k e t i n g i n f l u e n c e s were more i n f l u e n t i a l " ( p . 3 9 ) . A l t h o u g h M i d g l e y a d m i t t e d t o some p r o b l e m s w i t h t h e m o d e l he was a t t e m p t i n g t o d e v e l o p , he c o n c l u d e d , w h a t e v e r t h e r e s u l t s d i d o r d i d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e , t h a t : i t i s n o l o n g e r p o s s i b l e t o e m p h a s i z e o n e t y p e o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n a t t h e e x p e n s e o f a n o t h e r . A n y t h e o r y o f i n n o v a t i v e b e h a v i o r m u s t i n c o r p o r a t e a n d r e l a t e a l l c h a n n e l s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d i n f l u e n c e ( p . 3 9 ) . What seems t o be i m p o r t a n t , t h e r e f o r e , i n d e f i n i n g i n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s ' t h e amount and t y p e o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d by an i n d i v i d u a l , r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r s , i n o r d e r t o d e c i d e t o a d o p t an i n n o v a t i o n . - 37 -A f u r t h e r d i f f i c u l t y w i t h M i d g l e y ' s and D o w l i n g ' s d e f i n i t i o n i s t h a t i n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s r e l a t e d e s s e n t i a l l y t o t h e independence of decision making, and n o t t o a c t u a l use of i n n o v a t i o n s . I t a p p a r e n t l y does n o t m a t t e r w h e t h e r an i n d i v i d u a l e v e r a d o p t s an i n n o v a t i o n , b u t r a t h e r t h a t any d e c i s i o n i s a r r i v e d a t i n d e p e n d e n t l y . The i n d e p e n d e n t d e c i s i o n s may a l w a y s be t o r e j e c t t h e i n n o v a t i o n . The a u t h o r s a d d r e s s t h i s a p p a r e n t l y f u n d a m e n t a l f l a w o n l y i n p a s s i n g . They a r g u e t h a t p e r h a p s a d d i n g t h e " d e g r e e t o w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l i s r e c e p t i v e t o new i d e a s " m i g h t s t r e n g t h e n t h e d e f i n i t i o n , b u t t h a t t h e r e was no " p r e s s i n g p o i n t t o make t h i s added c o m p l i c a t i o n " ( p . 2 3 7 ) . E v e n i f t h e a u t h o r s a r e g i v e n t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e d o u b t and t h e i r m e a n i n g o f " i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n " i s t a k e n t o mean a d e c i s i o n t o a d o p t , t h e e x c l u s i o n o f r e c e p t i v i t y t o new i d e a s seems t o be q u i t e s i m p l y i l l o g i c a l . As a f i r s t l e v e l d e f i n i t i o n , i t w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t t h i s r e c e p t i v i t y i s t h e e s s e n t i a l component o f i n n o v a t i v e -n e s s . I n s p i t e o f some o f t h e p r o b l e m s w i t h t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s o f f e r e d by M i d g l e y and D o w l i n g , t h e i r p o i n t i s v e r y w e l l t a k e n t h a t t h e g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d d e f i n i t i o n g i v e n by R o g e r s i s c o n c e p t u a l l y weak. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , one o f t h e s t r e n g t h s o f R o g e r s ' d e f i n i t i o n i s t h a t i t shows i n n o v a t i v e n e s s t o be a r e l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t , an a s p e c t w h i c h , f o r r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , s h o u l d be m a i n t a i n e d i n any d e f i n i t i o n . T h u s , i n o r d e r t o c a p t u r e t h e p o i n t s made by M i d g l e y and D o w l i n g , as w e l l as t h e s t r e n g t h o f R o g e r s ' d e f i n i t i o n , innovativeness i s d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s i n t h i s s t u d y : I n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h a n a d o p t i n g u n i t m a k e s n o v e l u s e o f p r o d u c t ( s ) o r p r o c e s s ( e s ) , a s c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r m e m b e r s o f t h e r e f e r e n t s o c i a l s y s t e m ( M o o r e , 1 9 8 7 ) . - 38 -T h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s c o n c e p t u a l l y b r o a d i n t h a t i t t a p s s e v e r a l d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e i n n o v a t i v e n e s s c o n s t r u c t . The f i r s t d i m e n s i o n i s adoptive innovative-ness, o r t i m e o f a d o p t i o n o f an i n n o v a t i o n , w h i c h i s t h e . c r u x o f R o g e r s ' d e f i n i t i o n . The e a r l i e r one a d o p t s an i n n o v a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r s , t h e more n o v e l must be t h e u s e o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n i n t h e r e f e r e n t s o c i a l s y s t e m . T h u s , an e a r l i e r a d o p t e r i s more i n n o v a t i v e t h a n a l a t e r a d o p t e r . A s e c o n d d i m e n s i o n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t c a p t u r e d i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n i s u s e innovativeness ( H i r s c h m a n , 1980, p . 2 8 8 ) . T h i s i s t h e use o f a p r e v i o u s l y a d o p t e d i n n o v a t i o n i n a n o v e l u s e d o m a i n o r t o s o l v e a n o v e l p r o b l e m . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e p r o d u c t o r p r o c e s s i t s e l f m i g h t no l o n g e r be an i n n o v a t i o n as i t may a l r e a d y be w e l l e n t r e n c h e d i n t h e s o c i a l s y s t e m . I t i s t h e n o v e l type o f u s e w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e s u s e i n n o v a t i v e n e s s . The g r e a t e r t h e d e g r e e o f b e h a v i o u r change r e q u i r e d f o r t h e new t y p e o f u s e , t h e g r e a t e r w o u l d be t h e i n n o v a t i v e n e s s . F i n a l l y , t h e t h i r d d i m e n s i o n o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e d e f i n i -t i o n i s t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e i n n o v a t i o n i s p u t t o u s e , o r implementation innovativeness. The r e l a t i v e l y more an a d o p t e r u s e s an i n n o v a t i o n w i t h i n a g i v e n u s e d o m a i n , t h e more i n n o v a t i v e w o u l d he b e . A l t h o u g h no s t u d i e s were i d e n t i f i e d w h i c h e x a m i n e d t h i s d i m e n s i o n , i t i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be an i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t h e c o n s t r u c t . I t w o u l d f a c i l i t a t e , f o r e x a m p l e , i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f c h a n g i n g u s a g e p a t t e r n s o v e r t i m e , o r o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between e a r l y a d o p t -e r s whose u s e r e m a i n s c o n s t a n t and l a t e r a d o p t e r s whose use m i g h t grow r a p i d -ly. - 39 -The c a p t u r i n g o f p o s t - a d o p t i o n b e h a v i o u r i s b e l i e v e d t o be a s t r e n g t h o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , T o r n a t z k y and K l e i n (1982) c a l l e d f o r a measure o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s w h i c h w o u l d i n c l u d e s u c h b e h a v i o u r , and s u g g e s t e d d e v e l o p i n g s c a l e s t o measure t h e d e g r e e o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . The d e f i -n i t i o n above c a l l s f o r s u c h m e a s u r e s . The d e f i n i t i o n a l s o has o t h e r s t r e n g t h s . F i r s t , i t shows t h a t i n n o v a t i v e n e s s c a n be a p r o p e r t y o f a d o p t e r s o t h e r t h a n i n d i v i d u a l s , s u c h as d e p a r t m e n t s o r w h o l e o r g a n i s a t i o n s . S e c o n d l y , i t shows t h a t u s e o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r f o r one t o be i n n o -v a t i v e , and i m p l i e s t h a t t h e more i n n o v a t i o n s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l u s e s , t h e more i n n o v a t i v e w o u l d he b e . T h i r d l y , by r e l a t i n g i n n o v a t i v e n e s s t o t h e " r e f e r e n t s o c i a l s y s t e m " , t h e r o l e t h a t e n v i r o n m e n t a l f a c t o r s c a n p l a y i s a c k n o w l e d g e d . F i n a l l y , t h e d e f i n i t i o n i n c l u d e s t h e i d e a o f m a k i n g d e c i s i o n s i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e c o m m u n i c a t e d e x p e r i e n c e o f o t h e r s ( M i d g l e y * s and D o w l -i n g ' s p o i n t ) , s i m p l y b e c a u s e n o v e l u s e w o u l d i m p l y t h a t few o t h e r s w o u l d have e x p e r i e n c e t o c o m m u n i c a t e . As an example o f t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n o f t h e t h r e e d i m e n s i o n s o f i n n o v a -t i v e n e s s , c o n s i d e r t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e P e r s o n a l Work S t a t i o n (PWS). A u s e r may see t h e b e n e f i t s o f u s i n g e l e c t r o n i c s p r e a d s h e e t s t o c a l c u l a t e m o n t h - e n d b a l a n c e s , and t h e r e f o r e be among t h e f i r s t t o a c q u i r e a PWS f o r t h a t p u r p o s e . T h i s i s a d o p t i v e i n n o v a t i v e n e s s . I f t h e u s e r were t h e n t o a c q u i r e a d i f f e r e n t a p p l i c a t i o n , s u c h as w o r d p r o c e s s i n g , use i n n o v a t i v e n e s s w o u l d o c c u r . F i n a l -l y , as t h e a d o p t e r u s e d t h e s p r e a d s h e e t r e l a t i v e l y more f o r t h e same p u r p o s e s , c a l c u l a t i n g m o n t h - e n d b a l a n c e s , i m p l e m e n t a t i o n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s o c c u r s . A l l t h r e e i n n o v a t i v e n e s s d i m e n s i o n s a r e i m p o r t a n t when s t u d y i n g t h e a d o p t i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s i n g e n e r a l and PWS i n p a r t i c u l a r , as d i f f e r e n t m o t i v a t i o n s may u n d e r l i e t h e v a r i o u s b e h a v i o u r s . - 40 -As was m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , i n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s a " r e l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t " ( B i g o n -e s s & P e r r e a u l t , 1981 , p . 7 0 ) . F i r s t , o n e ' s i n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r members o f o n e ' s s o c i a l s y s t e m . T h u s , p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o u r s may v a r y i n r e l a t i v e i n n o v a t i v e n e s s a c r o s s s o c i a l s y s t e m s , o r , i n o t h e r w o r d s , a c r o s s t h e reference domain of the innovator ( B i g o n e s s & P e r r e a u l t , 1981, p . 7 2 ) . What m i g h t be i n n o v a t i v e i n one s o c i a l s e t t i n g , s u c h as b a n k e r s ' w e a r i n g s h o r t p a n t s d u r i n g a h e a t wave i n L o n d o n , i s an e n t r e n c h e d b e h a v i o u r among t h e b a n k i n g community i n Bermuda. The s e c o n d d o m a i n where i n n o v a t i v e n e s s may v a r y i n r e l a t i v e t e r m s i s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n n o v a t i o n s t h e m s e l v e s , w h i c h i s c a l l e d t h e content domain of the innovation ( B i g o n e s s & P e r r e a u l t , 1981 , p . 7 1 ) . I n d i v i d u a l i n n o v a t i v e n e s s may v a r y a l o n g a c o n t i n u u m f r o m h i g h p r o d u c t o r c o n c e p t s p e c i f i c i t y , t o b e i n g more u n i v e r s a l . T h i s means t h a t some a d o p t -i n g u n i t s may be q u i t e i n n o v a t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o c e r t a i n i n n o v a t i o n s , and v e r y u n i n n o v a t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o o t h e r s . A g a i n , t h i s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e e x a m p l e c i t e d e a r l i e r o f i n d i v i d u a l s b e i n g v e r y i n n o v a t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i g h t e c h n o l o g y p r o d u c t s , b u t u n i n n o v a t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o e a t i n g h a b i t s . The r e l a t i v i t y o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s may i n t r o d u c e c o n f o u n d i n g v a r i a b l e s i n t o a t t e m p t s t o compare r e s u l t s a c r o s s v a r i o u s s t u d i e s , o r even w i t h i n s t u d i e s . T h i s , h o w e v e r , s h o u l d n o t be a p r o b l e m i n t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y . F i r s t , t h e c o n t e n t domain was v e r y n a r r o w l y b o u n d e d t o i n c l u d e t h e PWS i t s e l f and i t s v a r i o u s a p p l i c a t i o n s . S e c o n d l y , t h e r e f e r e n c e domain ( p o p u l a t i o n o f i n t e r e s t ) was d e f i n e d as knowledge workers i n o f f i c e s e t t i n g s . - 41 -3.5 THE MARKET PERSPECTIVE To d a t e , r e s e a r c h on t h e d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s has t e n d e d t o c o n c e n -t r a t e on e i t h e r t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a d o p t e r s o r t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i n n o v a t i o n s . The a im has been t o a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e what makes some p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s more i n n o v a t i v e t h a n o t h e r s , o r what makes some i n n o v a t i o n s more a d o p t a b l e . T h e s e a p p r o a c h e s h a v e been t e r m e d t h e adoption perspective, i n t h a t t h e y c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e demand a s p e c t s o f t h e p r o c e s s ( B r o w n , 1981 , p . 5 ) . Brown has a r g u e d t h a t t h e supply s i d e s h o u l d a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d , w h i c h he terms t h e market perspective, i n t h a t i t e x p l i c i t l y a d d r e s s e s t h e p r o c e s s e s by w h i c h an i n n o v a t i o n i s made a v a i l a b l e t o p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s . T h i s p e r -s p e c t i v e t a k e s t h e v i e w t h a t p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s do n o t a c t so much o u t o f f r e e w i l l , b u t r a t h e r make c h o i c e s w i t h i n a g i v e n s e t o f c o n s t r a i n t s and o p p o r t u n -i t i e s . These i n c l u d e t h e p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s ' l e v e l o f awareness o f , and t h e i r access t o , t h e i n n o v a t i o n . Brown has a r g u e d t h a t a " d i f f u s i o n a g e n c y " can a f f e c t t h e r a t e o f d i f f u s i o n o f an i n n o v a t i o n by m a n i p u l a t i n g b o t h o f t h e s e c o n s t r a i n t s . F o r e x a m p l e , a c c e s s t o an i n n o v a t i o n i s a f u n c t i o n o f a number o f f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g p r o d u c t a f f o r d a b i l i t y and a v a i l a b i l i t y , and t h e a d o p t -e r s ' a c c e s s i b i l i t y t o t h e m a r k e t i t s e l f . By m a n i p u l a t i n g f a c t o r s s u c h as t h e s e , t h e agency c a n a t t e m p t t o a f f e c t b o t h t h e r a t e and d i r e c t i o n t h a t an i n n o v a t i o n t a k e s . The m a r k e t p e r s p e c t i v e shows t h a t d i f f e r e n t r a t e s o f d i f f u s i o n may be f o u n d a c r o s s o r g a n i s a t i o n s d e p e n d i n g on t h e way e a c h o r g a n i s a t i o n m a n i p u l a t e s t h e s e t o f c o n s t r a i n t s w i t h i n w h i c h p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s o p e r a t e . I n f a c t , i t has been a r g u e d i n t h e DOI l i t e r a t u r e t h a t d i f f u s i o n r e s e a r c h s h o u l d s h i f t f r o m f o c u s s i n g on t h e i n d i v i d u a l a d o p t e r t o t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n ( e . g . B a l d r i d g e & Burnham, 1 9 7 5 ) , and models o f i n n o v a t i o n a t t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n a l l e v e l a r e b e i n g - 42 -d e v e l o p e d ( e . g . A m a b i l e , 1 9 8 8 ) . The t h r u s t b e h i n d t h e s e arguments has been t h a t , i n many s t u d i e s , d i f f e r e n c e s i n o r g a n i s a t i o n a l c o n t e x t have been b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r s o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s t h a n i n d i v i d u a l a d o p t e r v a r i a b l e s ( f o r some e x a m p l e s see E t t l i e e t a l . 1984; K i m b e r l y & E v a n i s k o , 1981 ; R o b e r t s o n & W i n d , 1 9 8 0 ) . Z a l t m a n e t a l . (1973) p r o p o s e s e v e r a l i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s a t t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n a l l e v e l w h i c h c o u l d a f f e c t i n n o v a t i v e n e s s ( p p . 1 3 4 - 1 5 5 ) . They a r e as f o l l o w s : 1. C o m p l e x i t y : t h e number o f o c c u p a t i o n a l s p e c i a l t i e s i n t h e o r g a n -i s a t i o n , and t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m ( p p . 1 3 4 - 1 3 8 ) . 2 . F o r m a l i s a t i o n : t h e emphas is p l a c e d on f o l l o w i n g s p e c i f i c r u l e s and p r o c e d u r e s i n p e r f o r m i n g o n e ' s j o b ( p p . 1 3 8 - 1 4 3 ) . 3 . C e n t r a l i s a t i o n : t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e l o c u s o f a u t h o r i t y and d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a r e h i g h e r i n t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n ( p p . 1 4 3 - 1 4 6 ) . 4 . I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s : t h e d e g r e e o f i m p e r s o n a l i t y w i t h i n t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s ( p p . 1 4 6 - 1 4 8 ) . 5 . A b i l i t y t o D e a l w i t h C o n f l i c t : ( p p . 1 4 8 - 1 5 4 ) . The i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s e v a r i a b l e s and i n n o v a t i v e n e s s a r e c o m p l e x . F u r t h e r m o r e , d e p e n d i n g on t h e s t a g e o f d i f f u s i o n , t h e e f f e c t s o f each v a r i a b l e may c h a n g e . A t t h e i n i t i a t i o n s t a g e s ( a w a r e n e s s , p e r s u a s i o n and d e c i s i o n ) i t i s e x p e c t e d t h a t l o w e r l e v e l s o f c o m p l e x i t y , f o r m a l i s a t i o n and c e n t r a l i s a t i o n w i l l f a c i l i t a t e i n n o v a t i v e n e s s . D u r i n g t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and c o n f i r m a t i o n s t a g e s , h o w e v e r , i t i s e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e r e v e r s e o f t h i s w i l l be t h e c a s e . T h u s , t h e way an o r g a n i s a t i o n o p e r a t e s and i s s t r u c t u r e d may have t o change o v e r t i m e d e p e n d i n g on t h e d e s i r e d d e g r e e o f d i f f u s i o n , t h e s t a g e o f t h e d i f f u s i o n p r o c e s s , and t h e p e r v a s i v e n e s s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e - 43 -a b i l i t y o f t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n t o h a n d l e c o n f l i c t w i l l i m p a c t on how w e l l and w i d e l y t h e i n n o v a t i o n i s e v e n t u a l l y d i f f u s e d . Many o f t h e a r g u m e n t s f o r f o c u s s i n g on o r g a n i s a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s make s e n s e when e x a m i n i n g i n t e r - o r g a n i s a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e r a t e o f d i f f u s i o n o f c e r t a i n i n n o v a t i o n s , and when s t u d y i n g o r g a n i s a t i o n a l l e v e l i n n o v a t i o n s . One s u c h MIS i n n o v a t i o n w o u l d be D a t a b a s e M a c h i n e s , t h e s u b j e c t o f a n o t h e r DOI s t u d y c u r r e n t l y u n d e r w a y ( A l e x a n d e r , 1 9 8 9 ) . These i n n o v a t i o n s must be a d o p t e d by e n t i r e o r g a n i s a t i o n s as o p p o s e d t o by i n d i v i d u a l s . O f f i c e A u t o m a t i o n (OA) c o u l d a l s o be an e x a m p l e o f an o r g a n i s a t i o n a l l e v e l i n n o v a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i f c o n s i d e r e d as a " w h o l e " , as o p p o s e d t o a c o l l e c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l PWS. N e v e r t h e l e s s , as has been a r g u e d e a r l i e r , much s t i l l r e m a i n s t o be l e a r n e d a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l a d o p t e r l e v e l about t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f PWS. The OA and EUC l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e t h a t , e v e n w i t h i n g i v e n o r g a n i s a t i o n a l , o r " m a r k e t " , c o n t e x t s , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t i n t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f PWS by i n d i v i d u a l a d o p t e r s . F u r t h e r m o r e , as w i l l be d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , o r g a n i s a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s w o u l d a f f e c t d i f f u s i o n by i n f l u e n c i n g i n d i v i d u a l norms and a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s a d o p t i n g PWS. T h e s e f a c t s a l l s u p p o r t an a p p r o a c h i n i t i a l l y c o n c e n t r a t i n g on i d e n t i f y i n g t h e s a l i e n t v a r i a b l e s a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l a d o p t e r l e v e l w h i c h a f f e c t a d o p t i o n o f t h e PWS. S u p p o r t f o r t h i s a p p r o a c h a l s o a p p e a r s i n t h e r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e . I n t r o d u c t i o n o f PWS i n an o r g a n i s a t i o n i s an e x a m p l e o f a p r o c e s s i n n o v a t i o n w h i c h m a i n l y a f f e c t s t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o r e . . I t s p r i m a r y i m p a c t i s g e n e r a l l y on k n o w l e d g e w o r k e r s ' w o r k p r o c e s s e s , w i t h a much s m a l l e r e f f e c t on t h e a c t u a l o v e r a l l t e c h n o l o g y u s e d by t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n . D i f f e r e n c e s h a v e been f o u n d b e t w e e n i n n o v a t i o n s w h i c h a f f e c t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o r e and - 44 -t h o s e w h i c h a f f e c t t h e t e c h n o l o g y c o r e o f o r g a n i s a t i o n s ( see A i k e n e t a l . , 1980; D a f t , 1978; K i m b e r l y & E v a n i s k o , 1981; and Zmud, 1982) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Zmud (1984) f o u n d t h a t u s e o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n n o v a t i o n was l a r g e l y a f u n c t i o n o f t h e m a n a g e r ' s k n o w l e d g e o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n , and t h a t o r g a n i s a t i o n a l r e c e p t i v i t y t o w a r d s change h a d no s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n n o v a t i o n ( p . 7 3 6 ) . K i m b e r l y and E v a n i s k o a l s o f o u n d t h a t o r g a n i s a t i o n a l and c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s were l e s s e f f e c t i v e p r e d i c t o r s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n n o v a -t i o n s t h a n o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l i n n o v a t i o n s ( 1 9 8 1 , p . 7 0 5 ) . These f i n d i n g s a l l l e n d s u p p o r t t o i n i t i a l l y c o n c e n t r a t i n g on PWS a d o p t i o n a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l a d o p t e r l e v e l . 3.6 VOLUNTARINESS OF PWS USAGE When e x a m i n i n g t h e a d o p t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s , c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be g i v e n as t o how f r e e an i n d i v i d u a l i s t o c a r r y o u t h i s p e r s o n a l a d o p t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n d e c i s i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , an i n d i v i d u a l may d e c i d e t o a d o p t an i n n o v a t i o n , b u t may be p r e v e n t e d f rom d o i n g s o . W i t h r e s p e c t t o PWS, an i n d i v i d u a l may h a v e d e c i d e d t h a t t h e PWS w o u l d be a d e f i n i t e a s s e t i n h i s j o b , b u t may n o t be a b l e t o a d o p t i t b e c a u s e c o r p o r a t e p o l i c y p r e v e n t s i t . I n t h i s c a s e , b e c a u s e o f t h e f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s and d e c i s i o n t o a d o p t , " s y m -b o l i c a d o p t i o n " has o c c u r r e d b u t a c t u a l a d o p t i o n has n o t . S i m i l a r l y , o f c o u r s e , " s y m b o l i c r e j e c t i o n " may o c c u r . I n t h i s c a s e , one w o u l d o b s e r v e an i n d i v i d u a l u s i n g t h e i n n o v a t i o n , b u t i f he had f r e e c h o i c e , t h e i n n o v a t i o n w o u l d n o t be u s e d . W i t h r e s p e c t t o PWS, cases e x i s t where some t y p i s t s d i d n o t want t o c o n v e r t t o w o r d p r o c e s s i n g f rom t r a d i t i o n a l t y p i n g b u t h a d no c h o i c e , o t h e r t h a n t o q u i t t h e i r j o b . S y m b o l i c r e j e c t i o n o c c u r r e d f o r t h o s e who c o n v e r t e d t o w o r d p r o c e s s i n g . - 45 -I n s i t u a t i o n s where t h e r e q u i r e d b e h a v i o u r i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e s y m b o l i c d e c i s i o n , i n n o v a t i o n dissonance o c c u r s ( R o g e r s & Shoemaker , 1971, p . 3 1 ) , a t e r m o b v i o u s l y a d a p t e d f r o m " c o g n i t i v e d i s s o n a n c e " ( s e e F e s t i n g e r , 1 9 5 7 ) . As w i t h c o g n i t i v e d i s s o n a n c e , i n o r d e r t o overcome i n n o v a t i o n d i s s o n a n c e an i n d i v i d u a l c a n e i t h e r a l t e r h i s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e i n n o v a t i o n , o r a t t e m p t t o change t h e r e q u i r e d b e h a v i o u r . The d i s s o n a n t r e j e c t o r , who i n i t i a l l y w a n t e d t o a d o p t t h e i n n o v a t i o n b u t c o u l d n o t , m i g h t e i t h e r d e v e l o p a l e s s e r o p i n i o n o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n , o r a t t e m p t t o c i r c u m v e n t o r g a n i s a t i o n a l d i c t a t e s and u s e i t anyway. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , a d i s s o n a n t a d o p t e r , f o r c e d t o use t h e i n n o v a t i o n , m i g h t e i t h e r d e v e l o p a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e i n n o v a t i o n o r a c t i v e l y a t t e m p t t o a v o i d u s i n g i t . I n t h e c a s e o f PWS, examples have been d e s c r i b e d o f d i s s o n a n t r e j e c t o r s c o v e r t l y a c q u i r i n g m i c r o c o m p u t e r s c o n t r a r y t o company p o l i c y ( B e n s o n , 1983 , p . 3 8 ) . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , d i s s o n a n t a d o p t e r s may be t h e c a u s e o f many o f t h e so c a l l e d " f a i l u r e s " o f OA p r o j e c t s . The t a r g e t e d i n d i v i d u a l s f a i l t o u s e o r s u p p o r t t h e p r o j e c t s , and t h e p r o j e c t s w i t h e r on t h e v i n e . I n e v e n more ex t reme c a s e s , t h e t a r g e t e d a d o p t e r s may even s a b o t a g e s u c h s y s t e m s . D o w l i n g (1980) r e p o r t e d d e l i b e r a t e s t a f f i n t e r f e r e n c e o r s a b o t a g e i n f o r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f h o s p i t a l i n f o r m a t i o n sys tems t h a t he s u r -v e y e d . These s y s t e m s were d e s i g n e d t o d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s p r o b l e m s i n t h e d e l i v e r y o f m e d i c a l c a r e t o p a t i e n t s . E x t r e m e r e p o r t s o f v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t t h e t e c h n o l o g y have a l s o been r e p o r t e d , s u c h as one w o r k e r u s i n g a s h o t g u n t o l i t e r a l l y b l o w away h i s t e r m i n a l . I n n o v a t i o n d i s s o n a n c e i s an i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h b e c a u s e t h e u s e o r n o n - u s e o f a PWS m i g h t be mandated by t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n , and h e n c e n o t be s o l e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s u n d e r l y i n g a t t i t u d e . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e d e g r e e o f v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f PWS use has been f o u n d - 46 -t o be a m a j o r d e t e r m i n a n t o f a c t u a l u s a g e ( K r a e m e r , 1986) . B e c a u s e o f t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , c a r e was t a k e n i n t h i s s t u d y t o measure t h e voluntariness of use o f t h e PWS. As w i t h most f a c t o r s , i t i s n o t t h e actual d e g r e e o f v o l u n -t a r i n e s s w h i c h w i l l i n f l u e n c e b e h a v i o u r , b u t r a t h e r t h e perception o f v o l u n -t a r i n e s s . T h u s , f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s t u d y , Voluntariness i s d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : Voluntar iness : the degree to which use of the PWS is perceived as being voluntary, or of free will. 3.7 THE STATE OF DIFFUSION THEORY Whereas d i f f u s i o n t h e o r y has n o t b e e n u s e d t o a g r e a t e x t e n t w i t h i n M I S , as was d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r Two, i t s u s e i s q u i t e p r e v a l e n t i n many o t h e r d i s c i p l i n e s . Downs & Mohr c a l l e d i t " p o s s i b l y t h e most f a s h i o n a b l e o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e a r e a s " i n t h e decade f r o m 1965-1975 (1976 , p . 7 0 0 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e y a l s o q u e s t i o n e d t h e t h e o r e t i c a l v a l u e o f t h e r e s e a r c h i n t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s f r o m v a r i o u s s t u d i e s showed s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a n c e . A t t h e same t i m e as c r i t i c i s i n g t h e r e s e a r c h , h o w e v e r , t h e y a l s o s a i d : This popularity [of diffusion research] is not surprising. The investigations by innovation research of the salient behavior of individuals, organizations, and polities can have significant social consequences. The latter imbue even the most obscure piece of research with generalizability that has become rare as social science becomes increasingly special-ized (p.700). R o g e r s l a t e r r e s p o n d e d t o t h e o p i n i o n s o f Downs and M o h r , s t a t i n g t h a t he b e l i e v e s t h e s t a t u s • o f d i f f u s i o n r e s e a r c h t o be " i m p r e s s i v e " ( 1 9 8 3 , p . 8 8 0 ) , and t h a t : when the reliability of our present generalizations [are compared] with those in other fields of social science, biological science, and physical science, I do not find them to be less reliable. So if the comparison is relative, -. 47 -diffusion generalizations are as reliable as those in other research fields, especially given the diverse range of scien-tific disciplines, methodologies, and types of innovations and adopting systems involved in diffusion research (1983, p.132). G i v e n R o g e r s ' s t a k e i n d i f f u s i o n r e s e a r c h , i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t he has a somewhat more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e r e s e a r c h t h a n Downs and M o h r . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t does behove us t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r c o n c e r n s , and a t t e n d t o t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n s o f f e r e d i n t h e i r a r t i c l e f o r i m p r o v i n g t h e r e s e a r c h . T h e i r f i r s t c o n c e r n i s t h a t some i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s l i k e l y a r i s e b e c a u s e a l l i n n o v a t i o n s h a v e been t r e a t e d as b e i n g s i m i l a r , when t h e y a r e n o t . A l t h o u g h an a d o p t e r may be i n n o v a t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o one i n n o v a t i o n , t h i s i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t r u e f o r a l l o t h e r i n n o v a t i o n s (Downs & M o h r , 1976, p . 7 0 2 ) . Downs and Mohr t h e r e f o r e c a l l f o r a taxonomy o f i n n o v a -t i o n s , so t h a t i n n o v a t i v e n e s s c a n be measured a g a i n s t a type o f i n n o v a t i o n . B i g o n e s s and P e r r e a u l t , i n t h e i r a t t e m p t t o o f f e r a " c o n c e p t u a l p a r a d i g m " f o r t h e s t u d y o f i n n o v a t i o n s , a g r e e : " a s i n g l e p r o d u c t c r i t e r i o n o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s a p p r o p r i a t e i f one i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h i d e n t i f y i n g i n n o v a t i v e n e s s o n l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t h i g h l y s p e c i f i e d c o n t e n t a r e a " ( 1 9 8 1 , p . 7 3 ) . These arguments r e f l e c t t h e d i s c u s s i o n e a r l i e r a b o u t how i n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s r e l a t i v e t o t h e content domain o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . As m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , t h i s s t u d y i s c o n -c e r n e d w i t h i n n o v a t i v e n e s s i n a h i g h l y s p e c i f i e d c o n t e n t d o m a i n , i n t h a t i t i s e x a m i n i n g t h e d i f f u s i o n o f a s p e c i f i c i n n o v a t i o n , t h e PWS. A s e c o n d c o n c e r n o f Downs and Mohr i s t h a t " a n i n n o v a t i o n i s r a r e l y t h e same t h i n g t o two o r g a n i s a t i o n s " ( 1 9 7 6 , p . 703 ) . T h i s i s b a s e d on t h e f a c t t h a t i n n o v a t i o n s have b o t h " p r i m a r y " and " s e c o n d a r y " a t t r i b u t e s . These terms a r e e x p l a i n e d as f o l l o w s : - 48 -G a l i l e o , D e s c a r t e s , L o c k e a n d o t h e r s d i v i d e d t h e q u a l i t i e s o f o b j e c t s a n d s u b s t a n c e s i n t o t w o c l a s s e s w h i c h L o c k e d e s i g n a t e d a s p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y . S e c o n d a r y q u a l i t i e s a r e t h o s e w h i c h a r e p e r c e i v e d b y t h e s e n s e s , a n d s o m a y b e d i f f e r e n t l y e s t i m a t e d b y d i f f e r e n t p e r c i p i e n t s ; p r i m a r y q u a l i t i e s a r e t h o s e w h i c h a r e e s s e n t i a l t o t h e o b j e c t o r s u b s t a n c e a n d s o a r e i n h e r e n t i n i t w h e t h e r t h e y a r e p e r c e i v e d o r n o t ( 1 9 7 6 , p . 7 0 2 ) . T h u s , Downs and Mohr c a l l f o r a d i v i s i o n o f t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f i n n o v a t i o n s i n t o p r i m a r y and s e c o n d a r y a t t r i b u t e s . As an example o f t h e e f f e c t o f t h i s d i v i s i o n , c o n s i d e r t h e a t t r i b u t e o f cost. T h i s i s a p r i m a r y q u a l i t y i f a c t u a l p r i c e o n l y i s u s e d , b u t c a n be a s e c o n d a r y a t t r i b u t e i f p r i c e r e l a t i v e t o d i s p o s a b l e income i s u s e d . T h u s , what m i g h t a p p e a r " c o s t l y " t o one p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r , c o u l d be " i n e x p e n s i v e " t o a n o t h e r , d e p e n d i n g on t h e i r r e l a t i v e l e v e l s o f i n c o m e . I t i s a r g u e d t h a t i t i s r e l a t i v e cost w h i c h has t h e g r e a t e s t e f f e c t on b u y i n g b e h a v i o u r . Downs and Mohr a r g u e t h a t i f s t u d i e s were t o be b a s e d o n l y on p r i m a r y q u a l i t i e s , t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n f i n d i n g s a c r o s s s t u d i e s w o u l d n o t be r e s o l v a b l e ( 1 9 7 6 , p . 7 0 3 ) . I f s e c o n d a r y q u a l i t i e s were u s e d , h o w e v e r , t h e n a more g e n e r a l t h e o r y i s p o s s i b l e by s t u d y i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o n among perceptions o f i n n o v a t i o n s . T h i s i s t h e v e r y a p p r o a c h u s e d i n t h e c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h . As w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r , one o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s e d d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e r a t e o f d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s a r e t h e perceived c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , o r s e c o n d a r y q u a l i t i e s , o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e t h e f o c u s o f t h i s s t u d y . F i n a l l y , Downs and Mohr a d d r e s s what t h e y c a l l i n s t a b i l i t y due t o d i f -f e r e n c e s i n t h e o p e r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n o f t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e , i n n o v a t i v e n e s s ( 1 9 7 6 , p . 7 0 9 ) . T h e y i d e n t i f y t h r e e common o p e r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n s w h i c h had been u s e d , w h i c h a l t h o u g h i n t e r r e l a t e d may a l s o have t a p p e d d i f f e r e n t b e h a v i o u r s . T h e s e a r e : 1. t i m e o f f i r s t u s e o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n , 2 . s i m p l e a d o p t i o n v e r s u s n o n - a d o p t i o n o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n , a n d - 49 -3. degre  of implementation of the inovation. F o r e x a m p l e , Downs and Mohr a r g u e t h a t t h e f i r s t o p e r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n a l l o w s i n f e r e n c e s t o be made a b o u t " s e a r c h p a t t e r n s , c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o c e s s e s , and r e f e r e n c e g r o u p b e h a v i o u r " ( p . 7 0 9 ) , b u t t h a t t h e l a s t w i l l n o t . W h a t e v e r t h e p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e s , t h e p o i n t i s t h a t t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e needs c a r e f u l e x p l i c a t i o n so t h a t t h e t y p e o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s b e i n g s t u d i e d i s u n d e r s t o o d . Where d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s may be i m p a c t e d by d i f f e r e n t s e t s o f i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s , c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be t a k e n t o e n s u r e t h a t t h i s i s n o t e d i n any d i s c u s s i o n o f r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s . T h i s s t u d y has a d d r e s s e d t h e s e c o n c e r n s . As was d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 3 . 4 , t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s u s e d r e f l e c t s t h r e e d i f f e r e n t d i m e n s i o n s o r b e h a v i o u r s . As w i l l be shown i n S e c t i o n 4 . 1 4 , t h e s e t h r e e d i m e n s i o n s were e x p l i c i t l y o p e r a -t i o n a l i s e d and m e a s u r e d . 3 .8 THE INNOVATION DECISION MODEL 3 . 8 . 1 S t a g e s i n t h e I n n o v a t i o n D e c i s i o n D i f f u s i o n o f an i n n o v a t i o n r e s u l t s f rom t h e c u m u l a t i v e d e c i s i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l s t o a d o p t t h e i n n o v a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , t h e p r o c e s s by w h i c h a p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r makes t h i s d e c i s i o n i s a v i t a l e l e m e n t i n any d i f f u s i o n s t u d y , and h e n c e a model o f t h i s p r o c e s s i s r e q u i r e d . The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o s u g g e s t one s u c h m o d e l . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , s e v e r a l models have b e e n d e v e l o p e d w h i c h t y p i c a l l y c o n c e p t u a l i s e the d e c i s i o n as a s t a g e p r o c e s s ( f o r a r e v i e w , s e e Z a l t m a n e t a l . , 1973) . The model d e v e l o p e d by R o g e r s ( 1 9 8 3 , p . 1 6 5 ) i s a p p e a l i n g b e c a u s e i t r e f l e c t s t h e s t a g e s o f t h e more g e n e r a l m o d e l o f t h e d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s , as d e f i n e d by S imon ( 1 9 7 7 ) . The s t a g e s i n R o g e r s ' model a r e as f o l l o w s : - 50 -1. Knowledge: o c c u r s when a d e c i s i o n maker i s e x p o s e d t o t h e i n n o -v a t i o n ' s e x i s t e n c e and g a i n s some u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f i t s f u n c t i o n s ; 2 . Persuasion: o c c u r s when t h e d e c i s i o n maker forms an a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e i n n o v a t i o n ; 3 . Decision: o c c u r s when t h e d e c i s i o n maker engages i n a c t i v i t i e s t h a t l e a d t o a c h o i c e t o a d o p t o r r e j e c t t h e i n n o v a t i o n ; 4 . Implementation: o c c u r s when t h e d e c i s i o n maker p u t s an i n n o v a t i o n t o u s e ; and 5 . Confirmation: o c c u r s when a d e c i s i o n maker s e e k s r e i n f o r c e m e n t o f an i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n a l r e a d y made, b u t may r e v e r s e t h e d e c i s i o n i f e x p o s e d t o c o n f l i c t i n g m e s s a g e s . F i g u r e 3-2 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s model w i t h some m o d i f i c a t i o n s . The f i r s t i s t h e a d d i t i o n o f a search loop be tween t h e P e r s u a s i o n and Knowledge s t a g e s . T h i s l o o p r e f l e c t s t h e p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r ' s g a t h e r i n g more i n f o r m a t i o n as he r e f i n e s h i s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e i n n o v a t i o n . The i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h c a n t a p a number o f s o u r c e s , i n c l u d i n g a t r i a l o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . W h i l e some r e s e a r c h -e r s have s e t t r i a l as a s e p a r a t e s t a g e ( s e e K l o n g l a n & C o w a r d , 1970; R o b e r t -s o n , 1 9 7 1 ) , i t i s i n c l u d e d h e r e i n t h e s e a r c h l o o p b e c a u s e i t i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be a method o f g a i n i n g more i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i n n o v a t i o n . A t r i a l may o r may n o t be a c t u a l l y c a r r i e d o u t , and hence i t c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d a d i s t i n c t s t a g e . The s e c o n d m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e model i s a t S t a g e I V , t o d e f i n e imple-mentation as e i t h e r adoption o r r e j e c t i o n , n o t j u s t use o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . T h i s d e f i n i t i o n h a d been i n c l u d e d i n R o g e r ' s o r i g i n a l d e p i c t i o n o f t h e s t a g e p r o c e s s ( R o g e r s & Shoemaker , 1971 ) , b u t f o r some r e a s o n was d r o p p e d f r o m h i s l a t e s t v e r s i o n . I t i s c o n s i d e r e d t h a t e x p l i c i t i n c l u s i o n o f r e j e c t i o n , as a b e h a v i o u r n o t j u s t a d e c i s i o n , i s n e c e s s a r y f o r c o m p l e t e n e s s . F i n a l l y , a s e c o n d l o o p , f r o m Confirmation back t o Decision, has a l s o been added t o t h e m o d e l . Confirmation i n t h e p o s t - d e c i s i o n e n v i r o n m e n t augments t h e e f f e c t s o f - 51 -t h e i n i t i a l p e r s u a s i o n " s o u r c e s " , w h i c h may i n f a c t s t i l l be o p e r a t i v e . T h i s l o o p a l s o h i g h l i g h t s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n maker may a c t u a l l y r e v e r s e h i s i n i t i a l d e c i s i o n . 3 . 8 . 2 Variables A f f e c t i n g the Innovation Decision I n R o g e r s ' m o d e l , s e v e r a l s e t s o f v a r i a b l e s a r e h y p o t h e s i s e d t o have e f f e c t s i n t h e v a r i o u s s t a g e s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n . One i s t h e a d o p t -e r ' s communications network, w h i c h i n c l u d e s s o u r c e , message , c h a n n e l and r e c i p i e n t e f f e c t s . R e c i p i e n t f a c t o r s a r e a l s o c a p t u r e d i n a s e c o n d s e t o f v a r i a b l e s , t h e a d o p t e r s ' personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . F i n a l l y , t h e r e a r e t h e perceived c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovation. B e c a u s e t h e p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c s a r e perceptions, t h e y c o u l d a c t u a l l y change o v e r t i m e . These changes may be c a u s e d by c o g n i t i v e d i s s o n a n c e s e t t i n g i n a f t e r a d e c i s i o n i s made, o r by a s s e s s i n g new i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d f r o m use o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n o r f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s . T h u s , w h i l e t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s n e t w o r k and p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e a d o p t e r a r e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s , t h e PCI a r e a c t u a l l y i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s . They a r e a f f e c t e d by t h e a d o p t e r ' s p e r s o n a l c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c s and b y c o m m u n i c a t i o n s r e c e i v e d about t h e i n n o v a t i o n , as w e l l as b y t h e objective c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f b o t h t h e i n n o v a t i o n and i t s p r e c u r s o r ( t h a t w h i c h t h e i n n o v a t i o n i s i n t e n d e d t o r e p l a c e ) . The o b j e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n and i t s p r e c u r s o r a r e t h e i r primary q u a l i t i e s , as d e f i n e d e a r l i e r . 3 . 9 THE PERCEIVED CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATIONS 3 . 9 . 1 General B a s e d o n a r e v i e w o f a number o f s t u d i e s , R o g e r s (1983) i d e n t i f i e d f i v e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i n n o v a t i o n s , as p e r c e i v e d by t h e p o t e n t i a l - 52 -a d o p t e r s . These w e r e : Relative Advantage: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than its precursor. Compatibility: the degree to which an innovation is per-ceived as being consistent with the existing values, needs, and past experiences of potential adopters. Complexity: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being difficult to use. Observability: the degree to which the results of an innovation are observable to others. Trialability: the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with before adoption. The c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e s s and v a l i d i t y o f t h e s e f i v e a t t r i b u t e s have r e c e i v e d s u b s t a n t i a l s u p p o r t i n a number o f s t u d i e s . I t s h o u l d a l s o be n o t e d t h a t t h e l a b e l s f o r e a c h o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o u l d be p r e c e d e d by t h e q u a l i f i e r , " p e r c e i v e d " . T h i s was n o t done f o r ease o f r e a d i n g , b u t r a t h e r i s a s s u m e d . The p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were i n i t i a l l y u s e d t o s t u d y t h e a d o p t -a b i l i t y o f i n n o v a t i o n s , as o p p o s e d t o t h e i n n o v a t i v e n e s s o f a d o p t e r s . A d o p t -a b i l i t y and i n n o v a t i v e n e s s a r e o b v i o u s l y i n t e r t w i n e d , h o w e v e r , i n t h a t an i n n o v a t i o n ' s a d o p t a b i l i t y i s d e p e n d e n t upon t h e number o f i n d i v i d u a l s who d e c i d e t h a t i t i s w o r t h a d o p t i n g . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , an i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n n o v a -t i v e n e s s w i t h r e s p e c t t o an i n n o v a t i o n w i l l be a f u n c t i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n ' s r e l a t i v e a d v a n t a g e , c o m p a t i b i l i t y , and so f o r t h . From e i t h e r p e r s p e c t i v e , R o g e r s ' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c s s h o u l d be v a l i d and a p p l i c a b l e . F o r e x a m p l e , i f one i n n o v a t i o n has an a p p a r e n t a d v a n t a g e o v e r a n o t h e r , i t l i k e l y w i l l be a d o p t e d more q u i c k l y and by more p e o p l e . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f one i n d i v i d u a l can p e r c e i v e an a d v a n -t a g e more r e a d i l y t h a n a n o t h e r c a n , he l i k e l y w i l l be more i n n o v a t i v e . The d i f f e r e n c e i s t h e p o i n t o f r e f e r e n c e : i n t e r - i n n o v a t i o n v e r s u s i n t e r - a d o p t e r . - 53 -F o r p u r p o s e s o f s t u d y i n g t h e PWS, b o t h r e f e r e n c e p o i n t s a r e a p p l i c a b l e . I f t h e i n t e r e s t i s i n why a p a r t i c u l a r t y p e o f PWS h a r d w a r e o r s o f t w a r e i s more s u c c e s s f u l t h a n a n o t h e r , t h e n t h e a d o p t a b i l i t y p e r s p e c t i v e s h o u l d be u s e d . I f , h o w e v e r , t h e i n t e r e s t i s i n why some i n d i v i d u a l s adopt PWS w h e r e a s o t h e r s do n o t , t h e n i n n o v a t i v e n e s s s h o u l d be t h e f o c u s . E a c h o f t h e p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s i n t e r m s o f a c t u a l l y using t h e i n n o v a t i o n , and t h u s a r e t h e perceived c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of innovating ( P C I ) . The r e a s o n s f o r d i s c u s s i n g them i n t h i s f a s h i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n 3 . 1 0 . 2 . E a c h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s c o v e r e d i n t u r n , w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , Image, added t o R o g e r s ' l i s t . F u r t h e r m o r e , Complexity has b e e n r e f o r m u l a t e d as Ease of Use. 3 . 9 . 2 Relative Advantage R e l a t i v e a d v a n t a g e i s d e f i n e d as t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h u s i n g an i n n o v a -t i o n i s p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g b e t t e r t h a n u s i n g i t s p r e c u r s o r ( R o g e r s , 1983 , p . 2 1 3 ) . W h i l e " a d v a n t a g e " i s o f t e n c o u c h e d i n e c o n o m i c o r s o c i a l t e r m s , w i t h i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s t h e r e l a t i v e a d v a n t a g e o f i n n o v a t i o n s i s e x p r e s s e d most o f t e n i n te rms o f i n c r e a s e d p r o f i t a b i l i t y , t i m e s a v i n g s , o r l a b o u r s a v i n g s . T h u s , i t seems t o be e s s e n t i a l l y an e f f e c t i v e n e s s and e f f i c i e n c y i s s u e . T h i s a p p e a r s t o be t h e c a s e w i t h r e s p e c t t o PWS u s a g e . Many i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y among t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l o r m a n a g e r i a l r a n k s , have become dependent on computer s e r v i c e s f o r t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f t h e i r t a s k s . I n c r e a s i n g demands a r e b e i n g made on t h e I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e s D e p a r t m e n t ( I S D ) f o r s u p p o r t a p p l i c a t i o n s , w h i c h has c r e a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t b a c k l o g i n a p p l i c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e ISD ( A l l o w a y & - 54 -Q u i l l a r d , 1983) . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , many l a t e r g e n e r a t i o n computer " p a c k a g -e s " , s u c h as s p r e a d s h e e t s , d a t a b a s e q u e r y l a n g u a g e s , r e p o r t g e n e r a t o r s , and so f o r t h , have now g i v e n u s e r s t h e power t o commence d e v e l o p i n g t h e i r own " a p -p l i c a t i o n s " . T h i s p o w e r , c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n b a c k l o g i n t h e I S D , i s one o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s e d c auses o f t h e g r o w t h o f PWS usage ( S p r a g u e & M c N u r l i n , 1986 , p . 2 8 8 ) . The u s e r c a n become " i n d e p e n d e n t " o f t h e I S D , and n o t be h e l d t o t h e I S D ' s s c h e d u l e . S i m i l a r l y , some u s e r s may a d o p t PWS s i m p l y t o become more i n d e p e n d e n t o f s u p p o r t s t a f f , f o r example by d o i n g t h e i r own w o r d p r o -c e s s i n g . I n b o t h c a s e s , PWS u s e r s may f e e l t h e y a r e more e f f e c t i v e , i n t h a t t h e y g e t r e s u l t s c l o s e r t o what t h e y want by d o i n g t h e i r own w o r k , and more e f f i c i e n t , i n t h a t t h e t i m e t o c o m p l e t e a t a s k i s s h o r t e r . F o r t h o s e whose u s e o f t h e PWS i s p a r t o f t h e i r " j o b d e s c r i p t i o n " , c o m p u t e r a s s i s t e d w o r k m i g h t be s e e n as b o t h more e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t t h a n p r e v i o u s ways o f c o m p l e t i n g t h e t a s k ( f o r e x a m p l e , use o f w o r d p r o c e s s i n g r a t h e r t h a n t y p e w r i t e r s ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e has been some d e b a t e on how t h e a v e r a g e support worker p e r c e i v e s u s i n g t h e PWS. The r o l e o f s u p p o r t w o r k e r s i s t o p r o v i d e s u c h s e r v i c e s as t y p i n g , f i l i n g , t a k i n g and f o r w a r d i n g m e s s a g e s , many o f w h i c h c a n be a u t o m a t e d . Some o b s e r v e r s a r g u e t h a t a u t o m a t i o n c o u l d a l l e v i a t e much o f t h e b o r i n g r o u t i n e o f t h e s e t a s k s , p r o v i d e j o b e n r i c h m e n t , and make t h e w o r k e r more e f f i c i e n t . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , one s u r v e y r e p o r t e d t h a t women o f f i c e w o r k e r s saw a u t o m a t i o n r e s u l t i n g i n "more o f t h e same b o r i n g w o r k , l e s s v a r i e t y , f e w e r s o c i a l c o n t a c t s , and l o w e r r e l a t i v e p a y " ( S p r a g u e & M c N u r l i n , 1986, p . 4 8 3 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , as d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r Two, some a n a l y s t s f e e l t h a t i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e PWS may e l i m i n a t e many w o r k e r s ' j o b s ( e . g . C a n n i n g , 1 9 8 5 b ) , and g i v e t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n a g r e a t e r a b i l i t y t o c o n t r o l and m o n i t o r w o r k e r s ' p e r f o r m a n c e ( K e e n , 1981) . Added t o t h i s a r e c o n c e r n s - 55 -a b o u t t h e p o t e n t i a l l y a d v e r s e h e a l t h e f f e c t s o f e x t e n s i v e PWS usage ( S u s s e r , 1 9 8 7 ) . A l l o f t h e s e i s s u e s c o u l d l i k e l y have a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on o n e ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s a d o p t i n g a PWS and c a u s e some i n d i v i d u a l s t o avoid u s i n g them. I n t h i s s t u d y , b e l i e f s a b o u t t h e n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f PWS u s a g e h a v e been l a b e l l e d computer avoidance b e l i e f s . One o f t h e g o a l s o f t h i s s t u d y i s t o a s s e s s t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e s e b e l i e f s as compared t o t h e " p o s i t i v e " r e l a t i v e advantage b e l i e f s ! 3 . 9 . 3 Image Image i s d e f i n e d as t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h u s e o f an i n n o v a t i o n i s p e r -c e i v e d t o enhance o n e ' s image o r s t a t u s i n o n e ' s s o c i a l s y s t e m . B e c a u s e Image c a n be c o n s i d e r e d t o be an a d v a n t a g e i n a d o p t i n g an i n n o v a t i o n , i t has b e e n i n c l u d e d by some r e s e a r c h e r s as an a s p e c t o f Relative Advantage, where i t was p l a c e d by R o g e r s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , a c c o r d i n g t o R o g e r s , " u n d o u b t e d l y one o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t m o t i v a t i o n s f o r a l m o s t any i n d i v i d u a l t o adopt an i n n o v a t i o n i s t h e d e s i r e t o g a i n s o c i a l s t a t u s " ( 1 9 8 3 , p . 2 1 5 ) . I n f a c t , some r e s e a r c h e r s have f o u n d t h e e f f e c t o f Image t o be s i g n i f i c a n t enough o r d i f f e r e n t enough t o be c o n s i d e r e d as a s e p a r a t e f a c t o r i n t h e a d o p t i o n d e c i s i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , H o l l o w a y ( 1 9 7 7 ) , i n e x a m i n i n g t h e d i f f u s i o n o f a p e d a g o g i c a l i n n o v a t i o n i n h i g h s c h o o l s , f o u n d t h a t status emerged as a d i s t i n c t f a c t o r even t h o u g h he had e x p e c t e d t h a t i t w o u l d be a component o f Relative Advantage ( p . 6 1 ) . As a r e s u l t , he a r g u e d t h a t " c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be g i v e n t o t h e ' s t a t u s ' c a t e g o r y when d e v e l o p i n g i n n o v a t i o n s t o be a d o p t e d by b u r e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s " ( p . 1 3 7 ) . Whether Image i s c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y f rom Relative Advantage depends on where t h e t h e o r e t i c a l bounds o f " a d v a n t a g e " a r e s e t . E v i d e n c e e x i s t s t h a t - 56 -t h e r e c e r t a i n l y seems t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t " i m a g e enhancement" component t o t h e a c q u i s i t i o n , i f n o t u s e , o f a PWS. I t has b e e n a r g u e d t h a t b e c a u s e l e a d i n g b u s i n e s s m a g a z i n e s o f t e n d i s c u s s t h e a d v a n t a g e s o f u s i n g PWS, " w h e r e e x e c u -t i v e s and managers o n c e l o o k e d down t h e i r n o s e s a t k e y b o a r d d e v i c e s , p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r s a r e now b e g i n n i n g t o t a k e on an a u r a o f s t a t u s s y m b o l s " ( S p r a g u e & M c N u r l i n , 1986, p . 2 8 7 ) . I n f a c t , e v e n t h e t e r m " k e y b o a r d i n g " seems t o have b e e n c o i n e d t o c i r c u m v e n t t h e n e g a t i v e image o f " t y p i n g " . T h u s , b e c a u s e o f i t s p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s , Image was i n c l u d e d as a s e p a r a t e p e r -c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n t h i s s t u d y . 3 . 9 . 4 C o m p a t i b i l i t y C o m p a t i b i l i t y i s t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h u s e o f an i n n o v a t i o n i s p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g v a l u e s , p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s and needs o f p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s ( R o g e r s , 1983, p . 2 2 3 ) . P e o p l e seem t o be most c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h t h i n g s o r i d e a s w h i c h a r e f a m i l i a r . T h i s c o n c e p t t i e s t o t h a t o f p r i m a -c y , w h i c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e way i n w h i c h an o r g a n i s m f i r s t s u c c e s s f u l l y copes w i t h a s i t u a t i o n s e t s a p a t t e r n w h i c h i s u s u a l l y p e r s i s t e n t ( W a t s o n , 1 9 7 2 ) . C o m p a t i b i l i t y seems t o o p e r a t e i n a t l e a s t two w a y s . F i r s t , i t has been a r g u e d t h a t p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e i n n o v a t i o n ' s domain l e a d s t o i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y t o r e c o g n i s e i t s p o t e n t i a l a d v a n t a g e s ( H i r s c h m a n , 1980) . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e " g r o w i n g f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h c o m p u t e r s " i s one o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s e d c a u s e s o f t h e g r o w t h i n PWS u s a g e ( S p r a g u e & M c N u r l i n , 1986, p . 2 8 7 ) . Second i s t h e i d e a o f " t e c h n o l o g y c l u s t e r s " ( R o g e r s , 1983, p . 2 2 6 ) , where s i m i l a r i n n o v a t i o n s a r e o f t e n v i e w e d i n t h e same manner , and a d o p t i o n o f one may t r i g g e r t h e a d o p t i o n o f o t h e r s . T h i s i s s u p p o r t e d by a s t u d y o f t h e a d o p t i o n o f home c o m p u t e r s , i n - 57 -w h i c h t h e use o f s e v e r a l s i m i l a r h i g h t e c h n o l o g y p r o d u c t s c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y w i t h t h e d e c i s i o n t o buy a home c o m p u t e r ( D i c k e r s o n & G e n t r y , 1 9 8 3 ) . E x p e r i e n c e w i t h c o m p u t e r s may be g a i n e d t h r o u g h o n e ' s work and e d u c a t i o n . Many i n d i v i d u a l s h a v e had e x p o s u r e t o c o m p u t e r s i n s c h o o l and c o l l e g e . O t h e r s , as was d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , h a v e been r e c e i v i n g computer s u p p o r t i n t h e i r w o r k f o r some t i m e , a l b e i t t h r o u g h t h i r d p a r t i e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e s e t y p e s o f e x p e r i e n c e s c o u l d l e a d t o t h e i d e a o f u s i n g PWS b e c o m i n g more com-p a t i b l e w i t h o n e ' s e x p e r i e n c e s , v a l u e s and n e e d s . 3 . 9 . 5 Ease of Use C o m p l e x i t y i s t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h l e a r n i n g t o use and a c t u a l l y u s i n g an i n n o v a t i o n a r e p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g d i f f i c u l t ( R o g e r s , 1983, p . 2 3 0 ) . T h i s i n c l u d e s b o t h t h e i d e a s " c o n t a i n e d " i n t h e i n n o v a t i o n , and on t h e ease o f i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e i n n o v a t i o n ( Z a l t m a n e t a l . , 1973, p . 3 9 ) . The more c o m p l e x t h a t u s i n g an i n n o v a t i o n a p p e a r s t o b e , t h e l e s s l i k e l y i t i s t h a t an i n d i -v i d u a l w i l l a d o p t i t . The r e v e r s e o f t h i s argument i s t h a t t h e e a s i e r i t a p p e a r s t o l e a r n t o use an i n n o v a t i o n , t h e more l i k e l y i t i s t o be u s e d . C a s t i n g t h i s p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c as Ease of Use s i m p l y r e v e r s e s t h e o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t . B e c a u s e t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e PCI a r e c o u c h e d i n p o s i t i v e t e r m s , i t was d e c i d e d t o u s e t h e same o r i e n t a t i o n f o r t h i s c o n s t r u c t . Ease of Use seems t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n t h e d e c i s i o n t o u s e PWS. I t i s a p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t has r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r l a y u s e r s . I n f a c t , one o f t h e s e l l i n g p o i n t s on w h i c h most d e v e l o p e r s and v e n d o r s c o n c e n t r a t e i s t h e " u s e r f r i e n d -l i n e s s " o f t h e i r p r o d u c t s . - 58 -3 . 9 . 6 O b s e r v a b i l i t y O b s e r v a b i l i t y i s d e f i n e d as t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e r e s u l t s o f u s i n g an i n n o v a t i o n a r e p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g v i s i b l e and communicable t o o t h e r s ( R o g e r s , 1983, p . 2 3 2 ) . T h i s i d e a seems t o t a p two a s p e c t s o f t h e more g e n e r a l c o n -s t r u c t o f t h e t a n g i b i l i t y o r demonstrability of r e s u l t s ( Z a l t m a n e t a l . , 1973 , p . 3 9 ) . The argument i s t h a t t h e more t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n c a n be m e a s u r e d o r d e m o n s t r a t e d , t h e more l i k e l y t h e i n n o v a t i o n i s t o be a d o p t e d . T a n g i b l e r e s u l t s seem l e s s u n c e r t a i n t h a n i n t a n g i b l e r e s u l t s . B e c a u s e a c q u i -s i t i o n o f PWS w i t h i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s o f t e n r e q u i r e s some form o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n , t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c may p l a y an i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n t h e a d o p t i o n o f PWS. Any j u s t i f i c a t i o n r e q u i r e d i s much e a s i e r i f t h e r e s u l t s o f u s i n g t h e PWS a r e b o t h v i s i b l e and c o m m u n i c a b l e . 3 . 9 . 7 T r i a l a b i l i t y T r i a l a b i l i t y i s t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l f e e l s he may t r y o u t an i n n o v a t i o n o n a l i m i t e d b a s i s b e f o r e a d o p t i n g i t ( R o g e r s , 1983, p . 2 3 1 ) . As d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , a t r i a l h e l p s i n c r e a s e o n e ' s k n o w l e d g e about t h e i n n o v a -t i o n . An i n n o v a t i o n t h a t can be t r i e d s h o u l d be more a d o p t a b l e t h a n one w h i c h c a n n o t . No m a t t e r how good an i n n o v a t i o n m i g h t b e , i f i t c a n n o t be t r i e d o u t , i t s a d o p t i o n c a r r i e s a d e g r e e o f r i s k w h i c h i n h i b i t s i t s d i f f u s i o n . E v i d e n c e o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s p r i n c i p l e e x i s t s i n e v e r y d a y m a r k e t i n g e f f o r t s , w h e r e " f r e e s a m p l e s " o f new p r o d u c t s a r e p r o v i d e d u n s o l i c i t e d t o a l l o w t h e consumer a t r i a l o f t h e p r o d u c t . A l s o t i e d t o t h e n o t i o n o f t r i a l a b i l i t y i s t h a t o f r e v e r s i b i l i t y , w h i c h i s t h e a b i l i t y t o r e v e r s e o n e ' s d e c i s i o n , and d i v i s i -b i l i t y , w h i c h i s t h e a b i l i t y t o b r e a k down a l a r g e r i n n o v a t i o n i n t o s m a l l e r components w h i c h c a n be a d o p t e d p i e c e m e a l ( Z a l t m a n e t a l . , 1973, p . 4 2 ) . A l l o f t h e s e c o n c e p t s r e l a t e t o t h e a d o p t e r ' s a b i l i t y t o r e t u r n t o t h e - 59 -p r e - a d o p t i o n s i t u a t i o n a t m i n i m a l c o s t o r r i s k . A g a i n , t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s e x p e c t e d t o p l a y an i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n t h e a d o p t i o n o f PWS. O r g a n i s a t i o n s have r e c o g n i s e d t h i s , and t h o s e a t t e m p t i n g t o f o s t e r t h e g r o w t h o f p e r s o n a l com-p u t i n g o f t e n h a v e a p o l i c y o f " i m m e d i a t e a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r e x a m i n a t i o n o r t r i a l o f EUC [End U s e r C o m p u t i n g ] h a r d w a r e and s o f t w a r e " (Munro e t a l . , 1987, p . 1 5 ) . 3 . 1 0 THEORY OF REASONED ACTION 3 . 1 0 . 1 G e n e r a l Because two s t a g e s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s i n v o l v e t h e f o r m a t i o n a n d / o r c o n f i r m a t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s t h e i n n o v a t i o n , t h e p e r -s u a s i o n and a t t i t u d e change l i t e r a t u r e was e x a m i n e d t o p r o v i d e f u r t h e r t h e o -r e t i c a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s t o t h e s t u d y . One t h e o r y w h i c h has been r e c e i v i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n and r e s e a r c h s u p p o r t i s F i s h b e i n ' s and A j z e n ' s (1975) T h e o r y o f R e a s o n e d A c t i o n ( f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s see P e t t y & C a c i o p p o , 1 9 8 1 ) . T h i s t h e o r y s p e c i f i e s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s be tween b e l i e f s , a t t i t u d e s , and b e h a v i o u r s . F i s h b e i n and A j z e n show R e a s o n e d - A c t i o n t h e o r y ( R - A t h e o r y ) t o be q u i t e s i m i l a r t o o t h e r models o f a t t i t u d e c h a n g e , s u c h as l e a r n i n g t h e o r y , e x p e c t a n c y v a l u e t h e o r y , c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r y , and a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y . R - A t h e o r y has been u s e d i n a v a r i e t y o f r e s e a r c h a r e a s , and r e c e n t l y has been a p p l i e d w i t h i n MIS ( D a v i s , 1 9 8 5 ) . R - A t h e o r y i s v e r y a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h b e c a u s e o f i t s p a r a l l e l s w i t h t h e i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n model (as i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 3 - 2 ) . I t h e l p s d e f i n e t h e l i n k a g e s between t h e p e r c e p t i o n s about u s i n g t h e i n n o v a -t i o n , c o m m u n i c a t i o n s r e c e i v e d about u s i n g t h e i n n o v a t i o n , and t h e e v e n t u a l a d o p t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . I t i s b a s e d on t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s o v e r t B e h a v i o u r (B) i s d e t e r m i n e d by h i s i n t e n t i o n t o p e r f o r m - 60 -that behaviour. As is further explained below, the Behavioural Intention (Bl) in turn is a function of two factors. The f i r s t is the individual 's Attitude towards performing the behaviour i t s e l f , (Ag), and the second is his Subjec-t i v e Norm (SN). 3.10.2 Attitude Towards the Behaviour R-A theory states that the a t t i t u d e towards the behaviour, A^, is a function of the individual 's expectation that the behaviour act w i l l lead to certain outcomes, and a weighted evaluation of those outcomes. The formation of A„ then would be determined by the following equation: In their early formulations, as well as in those of other researchers, Attitude or iginal ly was represented as the attitude towards the object of interest (A Q ) , not towards the behaviour (A^). The reformulation occurred because, as argued by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980, p.8), the attitude towards an object can frequently di f fer from the attitude towards a particular behaviour concerning that object. The example they cite is the potential difference that may exist between an individual 's attitude towards "blacks" (the object) and his attitude towards "hir ing blacks" (the behaviour). An employer who dislikes blacks may nevertheless believe that hiring blacks w i l l bring more positive than negative results. Thus his attitude towards h i r i n g blacks w i l l be positive. Not only have Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) shown that this refor-mulation including the A^ has better predictive power than that including the A q , but i t has great intuit ive appeal as well . This study, therefore, con-centrated on the attitudes towards using PWS, not towards PWS per se. A B = I(b.e.) b. = the expectation of the i th outcome e. = the evaluation of the i th outcome l - 61 -G i v e n t h a t A t t i t u d e i s fo rmed f r o m t h e v a r i o u s B e l i e f s about t h e b e h a v -i o u r , one o f t h e m a j o r t a s k s i s t o i d e n t i f y what t h e r e l e v a n t b e l i e f s a r e . As s t a t e d by A j z e n and F i s h b e i n : Although a person may hold a large number of beliefs about any given object, it appears that he can attend to only a relatively small number of beliefs, perhaps five to nine, at any given moment. According to our theory, these salient beliefs are the immediate determinants of the person's attitude (1980, p.63). One o f t h e methods t h e y s u g g e s t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s a l i e n t b e l i e f s i s t o u s e t h e f r e e r e s p o n s e f o r m a t o f h a v i n g t h e s u b j e c t l i s t t h e b e l i e f s a b o u t t h e b e h a v i o u r i n q u e s t i o n . I t i s assumed t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l t e n d t o l i s t b e l i e f s i n t h e o r d e r o f r e l a t i v e s a l i e n c e . A p r o b l e m , h o w e v e r , w i t h t h i s p r o c e d u r e i s t h a t one does n o t know when t h e r e s p o n d e n t s w i t c h e s f r o m s a l i e n t t o n o n - s a l i e n t b e l i e f s . W i t h i n t h i s s t u d y , h o w e v e r , t h i s p r o b l e m was o b v i a t e d i n t h a t t h e DOI r e s e a r c h has d e f i n e d t h e s e b e l i e f s i n t h e form o f t h e Per-ceived C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . B e l i e f s i n t h e R - A M o d e l , h o w e v e r , a r e d e f i n e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e outcomes o f a c t u a l l y a d o p t i n g , n o t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n n o v a t i o n i t s e l f . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e Perceived C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n can e a s i l y be r e c a s t i n t e r m s o f b e l i e f s about o u t c o m e s . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f R e l a t i v e Advantage needs o n l y s i m p l e r e w o r d i n g t o be c o u c h e d i n t e r m s o f b e l i e f s about a d o p t i n g an i n n o v a t i o n . I t w o u l d t h e n be d e f i n e d as " t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h using t h e i n n o v a t i o n is p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g b e t t e r t h a n using i t s p r e c u r s o r " . T h u s , f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s t u d y , t h e p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s a r e c o n s i d e r e d f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s ' p e r s o n a l u s e , t r i a l o r o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n , and were r e d e f i n e d as t h e Per-ceived C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Innovating. - 62 -3 . 1 0 . 3 S u b j e c t i v e Norm As d e f i n e d b y A j z e n and F i s h b e i n ( 1 9 8 0 ) , t h e S u b j e c t i v e Norm (SN) i s a f u n c t i o n o f two c o m p o n e n t s . The f i r s t i s t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s " n o r m a t i v e b e l i e f s " [ (NB) ] , w h i c h a r e h i s b e l i e f s a b o u t what h i s " i m p o r t a n t o t h e r s " , o r s a l i e n t r e f e r e n t s ( t h e j ' s ) , e x p e c t h i m t o do w i t h r e s p e c t t o a p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o u r . The s e c o n d component i s t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s " m o t i v a t i o n t o c o m p l y " (MC ) w i t h t h e s e b e l i e f s . The i n d i v i d u a l N B ^ ' s a r e t h e n w e i g h t e d by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e M C . ' s and c o m b i n e d t o f o r m t h e o v e r a l l S N . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t i t i s t h e J p e r c e p t i o n o f what o t h e r s e x p e c t , n o t t h e i r a c t u a l e x p e c t a t i o n s , w h i c h i s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e S N . F o r e x a m p l e , an i n d i v i d u a l may c o n s i d e r w o r k i n g l a t e a t t h e o f f i c e . F o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o u r , he may h a v e two s a l i e n t r e f e r e n t s : h i s w i f e and h i s s u p e r v i s o r . The i n d i v i d u a l may b e l i e v e t h a t h i s w i f e e x p e c t s h i m t o come home o n t i m e , e v e n t h o u g h she w a n t s h i m t o work l a t e so she c a n go s h o p p i n g . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , he may t h i n k h i s b o s s e x p e c t s h im t o s t a y l a t e t o f i n i s h a t a s k , e v e n t h o u g h t h e boss r e a l l y w a n t s h i m t o go home and r e s t . I n any e v e n t , t h e i n d i v i d u a l f o r m u l a t e s h i s SN by w e i g h t i n g what he t h i n k s e a c h o f h i s r e f e r e n t s w i s h e s h i m t o do by t h e d e s i r e t o go a l o n g w i t h e a c h o f them. I n t h i s two r e f e r e n t s y s t e m he w o u l d f o l l o w t h e s t r o n g e r MC. I n s y s t e m s w i t h s e v e r a l r e f e r e n t s , h o w e v e r , t h e i n t e g r a t i o n becomes more c o m p l e x . I n any e v e n t , t h e SN c a n be f o r m u l a t e d as f o l l o w s : SN = Z[(NB).(MC).] I t c a n be s e e n f rom t h e f o r e g o i n g t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i v e norm i s more n a r r o w l y and s p e c i f i c a l l y d e f i n e d t h a n t h e g e n e r a l v i e w o f norms . As p o i n t e d o u t by A j z e n and F i s h b e i n ( 1 9 8 0 ) , s o c i o l o g i s t s h a v e u s e d t h e c o n c e p t s o f norms t o r e f e r t o a b r o a d r a n g e o f p e r m i s s i b l e b u t n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e d b e h a v -i o u r s . The s u b j e c t i v e n o r m , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , i s an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n - 63 -t h a t an i m p o r t a n t o t h e r e x p e c t s t h e p e r f o r m a n c e , o r n o n - p e r f o r m a n c e , o f a p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o u r . S o c i a l norms may s e r v e as one o f t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e s u b j e c t i v e n o r m , i n t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l m i g h t i n f e r f r o m t h e more g e n e r a l s o c i a l norms t h a t an i m p o r t a n t o t h e r has a p a r t i c u l a r e x p e c t a t i o n . N e v e r t h e -l e s s , a p a r t i c u l a r e x p e c t a t i o n may a l s o r u n c o n t r a r y t o t h e s o c i a l n o r m , and t h u s t h e two a r e n o t i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e . 3 . 1 0 . 4 Behavioural Intention and Behaviour The Behavioural Intention ( B l ) , as m e n t i o n e d b e f o r e , i s t h e w e i g h t e d e v a l u a t i o n o f b o t h t h e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e b e h a v i o u r (A„) and t h e s u b j e c t i v e D norm ( S N ) . The a c t u a l Behaviour (B ) t h e n , a c c o r d i n g t o F i s h b e i n and A j z e n (1975) c a n be p r e d i c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a : B = Bl = W-jCAg) + W 2(SN) W^ and a r e t h e r e l a t i v e w e i g h t s g i v e n e a c h component by t h e i n d i v i d u a l . Behaviour does n o t a l w a y s c o r r e s p o n d d i r e c t l y t o Behavioural Intention i n t h a t s e v e r a l e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s may i n t e r v e n e between t h e i n t e n t i o n and t h e b e h a v i o u r ( A j z e n & F i s h b e i n , 1980, p p . 4 7 - 5 1 ) . One s u c h f a c t o r i s t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l may be p r e v e n t e d by o t h e r s f r o m i m p l e m e n t i n g h i s i n t e n t i o n . W i t h r e s p e c t t o PWS u s a g e , t h i s c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n e a r l i e r r e g a r d i n g t h e d e g r e e o f v o l u n t a r i n e s s t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l has i n a d o p t i n g o r r e j e c t i n g t h e i n n o v a t i o n . T h i s p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r i m p e t u s f o r m e a s u r i n g t h e p e r c e i v e d v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f PWS u s a g e . - 64 -3 . 1 0 . 5 Linking Innovation-Diffusion and Reasoned-Action Theory L i n k s c a n be made b e t w e e n d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s (DOI) t h e o r y and t h e R - A m o d e l . F i r s t , i t c a n be s e e n t h a t t h e Behaviour i n t h e R - A m o d e l w o u l d be t h e a c t u a l a d o p t i o n o r r e j e c t i o n o f an i n n o v a t i o n , and t h e Behavioural Inten-t i o n c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e a c t u a l d e c i s i o n t o e i t h e r a d o p t o r r e j e c t t h e i n n o v a -t i o n ( t h e i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n ) . N e x t , t h e p r o c e s s d u r i n g w h i c h t h e Intention i s f o r m e d c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e P e r s u a s i o n S tage o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n . The A t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e b e h a v i o u r i s b a s e d on t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t t h e Behaviour l e a d s t o c e r t a i n outcomes ( t h e b ^ ' s ) . These c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f u s i n g t h e i n n o v a t i o n ( P C l ' s ) , s u c h as w h e t h e r i t w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t , a d v a n t a g e o u s , r e v e r s i b l e ( t r i a l a b l e ) , and so f o r t h . F i n a l l y , t h e v a r i o u s w e i g h t i n g s , e v a l u a t i o n s and so f o r t h ( t h e e ^ ' s , M C ' s , and W ' s ) , r e f l e c t t h e a d o p t e r s ' p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e M C ' s w o u l d r e f l e c t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o m p l y i n g w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e f e r e n t g r o u p s , s u c h as w h e t h e r one i s more i n f l u e n c e d by management o r by o n e ' s p e e r s . S e c o n d l y , t h e W's c a p t u r e t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s t e n d e n c y t o make d e c i s i o n s e i t h e r i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f n o r m s , o r t o be i n f l u e n c e d by them. F i n a l l y , t h e e ^ ' s c o u l d r e f l e c t t h e d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i e n c e s i n d i v i d u a l s have had w i t h r e s p e c t t o s i m i l a r i n n o v a t i o n s . Those h a v i n g p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e domain o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n m i g h t p e r c e i v e u s e o f . t h e i n n o v a t i o n t o be e a s i e r , more c o m p a t i b l e , and so f o r t h . These a r e e m p i r i c a l q u e s t i o n s w h i c h c o u l d be t e s t e d . 3 . 1 0 . 6 The Innovation Decision Model I n summary, t h e s t u d y o f t h e d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s w o u l d be f a c i l i -t a t e d b y t h e u s e o f a model w h i c h c a p t u r e s t h e u n d e r l y i n g d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s e s o f p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s . The b r i e f r e v i e w above shows t h a t t h e t h e o r y b e i n g - 65 -d e v e l o p e d i n d i f f u s i o n r e s e a r c h i n many ways m i r r o r s t h a t o f p e r s u a s i o n r e s e a r c h . I t i s f e l t , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f t h e S u b j e c t i v e Norm, as h i g h l i g h t e d i n t h e Reaso n e d A c t i o n m o d e l , s h o u l d be e x p l i c i t l y c o n s i d e r e d i n any DOI s t u d y . T h u s , t h e i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n model u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y i s an a d a p t a t i o n o f t h e Reaso n e d A c t i o n m o d e l . I t i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 3-3. The model c o n t a i n s t h e f o u r s e t s o f i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s as d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r . These i n c l u d e t h e a d o p t e r ' s c o m m u n i c a t i o n s n e t w o r k , h i s p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and t h e o b j e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f b o t h t h e i n n o v a t i o n and i t s p r e c u r s o r . The p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n ( P C l ' s ) a r e c a p t u r e d w i t h i n t h e Attitude Towards Adopting ( A t t i t u d e ) as b e l i e f s a b o u t i n n o v a t i n g . The m o d e l as i l l u s t r a t e d makes a m a j o r d e v i a t i o n f r o m R o g e r s ' d e c i s i o n m o d e l , h o w e v e r , i n t h a t i t e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e s t h e i n f l u e n c e o f Subjective Norms i n t h e d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . F u r t h e r m o r e , i t can be s e e n t h a t b o t h t h e SN and Attitude a c t as i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s . The h y p o t h e s i s e d i n t e r a c t i o n s among t h e v a r i a b l e s a r e a l l i l l u s t r a t e d , i n c l u d i n g t h e " f e e d b a c k " e f f e c t s o f a c t u a l l y a d o p t i n g o r r e j e c t i n g t h e i n n o v a t i o n on b o t h t h e SN and Attitude. Attitude i s an i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e i n t h a t i t i s formed from c o n s i d e r a -t i o n o f t h e o b j e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f b o t h t h e i n n o v a t i o n and i t s p r e c u r -s o r , as w e l l as f r o m c o m m u n i c a t i o n s one has r e c e i v e d about t h e i n n o v a t i o n . O n e ' s p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s u c h as p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e d o m a i n o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n , o n e ' s n o v e l t y s e e k i n g b e h a v i o u r , and so f o r t h i n t e r a c t w i t h t h e s e o t h e r v a r i a b l e s so t h a t an e v e n t u a l a t t i t u d e i s f o r m u l a t e d . The SN i s an i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e i n t h a t i t i s formed i n a s i m i l a r way. As d i s c u s s e d - 66 -i n S e c t i o n 3 . 1 0 . 3 , i t c o n t a i n s two e l e m e n t s , t h e n o r m a t i v e b e l i e f s [ ( N B ) ^ ' s ] and t h e m o t i v a t i o n t o c o m p l y [ ( M C ) ^ ' s ] w i t h t h o s e b e l i e f s . The n o r m a t i v e b e l i e f s a r e perceptions o f what o n e ' s r e f e r e n t s e x p e c t , w h i c h may be f o r m e d i n a number o f w a y s , i n c l u d i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n s r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e r e f e r e n t s o r f r o m o t h e r s , o r by o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e r e f e r e n t s ' b e h a v i o u r . O n e ' s p e r s o n a l c h a r -a c t e r i s t i c s t h e n p l a y a r o l e i n t h e w e i g h t i n g s ( M C ' s ) o f t h e v a r i o u s expecta-tions ( N B ' s ) . 3 . 1 0 . 7 Use of R-A Theory i n MIS Research As d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r Two, t h r e e p r e v i o u s d i s s e r t a t i o n s were i d e n t i f i e d w h i c h u s e d R - A t h e o r y . These i n c l u d e D a v i s ( 1 9 8 5 ) , C h r i s t e n s e n ( 1 9 8 7 ) , and P a v r i ( 1 9 8 8 ) . F i r s t , D a v i s (1985) u s e d R - A t h e o r y i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a Technology Acceptance Model ( T A M ) . The t h r u s t o f D a v i s ' r e s e a r c h i s v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h i s s t u d y . A l t h o u g h he made no r e f e r e n c e t o t h e d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s m o d e l as a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r h i s r e s e a r c h , h i s g o a l was t o examine t h e e f f e c t s o f s y s t e m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on u s e r a c c e p t a n c e o f i n f o r -m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y . D a v i s i n i t i a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d h i s model i n t h e c o n t e x t o f u s e r acceptance t e s t i n g o f s o f t w a r e , w h e r e i n p o t e n t i a l u s e r s were i n t r o d u c e d t o a new s o f t w a r e p a c k a g e . W i t h i n T A M , D a v i s s p e c i f i c a l l y examined t h e perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use o f s o f t w a r e as t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f an a t t i t u d e towards using t h e s o f t w a r e . A l t h o u g h b a s e d e x p l i c i t l y on R - A t h e o r y , TAM d i d n o t i n c l u d e e i t h e r t h e Subjective Norm o r t h e Behavioural Intention. D a v i s ' r a t i o n a l e f o r o m i t t i n g t h e SN was t h a t s i n c e t h e s u b j e c t s w o u l d be s e e i n g a new s y s t e m ( p r o t o t y p e ) f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , " n o i n f o r m a t i o n [was] a v a i l a b l e t o s u b j e c t s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e i r s a l i e n t r e f e r e n t s r e g a r d i n g - 67 -t h e i r u s a g e o f t h e t a r g e t s y s t e m " ( 1 9 8 5 , p . 3 6 ) . I f t h i s i s t h e c a s e , t h e m o d e l must be v e r y t e c h n o l o g y s p e c i f i c , f o r w i t h i n an o r g a n i s a t i o n i t i s e x p e c t e d t h a t norms o r b e l i e f s a b o u t u s i n g g e n e r i c s o f t w a r e o r i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y must e x i s t t o some e x t e n t . D a v i s ' r a t i o n a l e f o r e l i m i n a t i n g t h e B e h a v i o u r a l I n t e n t i o n was b a s e d on h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e t i m e f r a m e r e q u i r e d t o f o r m s u c h an i n t e n t i o n . He a r g u e d t h a t t h e t i m e s p a n c a n be s i g n i f i c a n t t o r e a c h an i m p o r t a n t d e c i s i o n s u c h as w h e t h e r t o become a u s e r o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y ( p . 3 8 ) . He d e c i d e d t h a t i n t h e a c c e p t a n c e t e s t i n g c o n t e x t , a u s e r w o u l d n o t have t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o f o r m an s u c h an i n t e n t i o n , and t h u s A t t i t u d e was u s e d as t h e p r e d i c t o r f o r b e h a v i o u r . T h i s r e a s o n i n g seems o d d , as u n l e s s t h e b e h a v i o u r i s " a c c i d e n t a l " , i t must be b a s e d o n an i n t e n t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , w h e t h e r a s u b j e c t has t h e t i m e t o f o r m an i n t e n t i o n seems i r r e l e v a n t as D a v i s ' model i s f o r m u l a t e d . I n t e n t i o n i s b a s e d on two c o m p o n e n t s , t h e SN and A t t i t u d e . I f t h e SN i s e l i m i n a t e d , as i n TAM, t h e n t h e I n t e n t i o n i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e A t t i t u d e o n l y , and t h u s t h e l i n k a g e between A t t i t u d e and a c t u a l B e h a v i o u r can be made d i -r e c t l y . F i n a l l y , D a v i s ' u s e o f o n l y two p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n f o r -m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y seems o v e r l y l i m i t e d . As was d i s c u s s e d , t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r -a b l e e v i d e n c e w i t h i n t h e DOI l i t e r a t u r e t h a t a number o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n f l u e n c e t h e d e c i s i o n t o u s e o r r e j e c t new s y s t e m s . T h i s s t u d y o n t h e d i f f u s i o n o f PWS, t h e r e f o r e , d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r o m t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f TAM i n t h a t i t a d h e r e s more e x p l i c i t l y t o t h e R - A m o d e l , and makes a more e x h a u s -t i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f u s i n g t h e t e c h n o l o g y . - 68 -C h r i s t e n s e n ( 1 9 8 7 ) , as d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r Two, d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o i d e n t i f y any " g e n e r i c " b e l i e f s as t h e b a s i s o f Attitude. R a t h e r , he f o l l o w e d t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n s o f F i s h b e i n and A j z e n , and u s e d t h e b e l i e f e l i c i t a t i o n t e c h n i q u e . To do t h i s , he c o n d u c t e d a p r e l i m i n a r y s u r v e y w h i c h a s k e d t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o i n d i c a t e what t h e y b e l i e v e d w o u l d be t h e outcomes o f u s i n g a p a r t i c u l a r DSS. The r e s u l t was f o u r t e e n v e r y s p e c i f i c b e l i e f s w h i c h c o r r e -s p o n d c l o s e l y t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l i t e m s i n D a v i s ' s c a l e s . The u s e o f t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f s makes t h i s a p p r o a c h v e r y t e c h n o l o g y s p e c i f i c . T h u s , as has b e e n a r g u e d , i t i s b e l i e v e d t h e more g e n e r a l a p p r o a c h o f i d e n t i f y i n g b e l i e f s b a s e d o n DOI t h e o r y s h o u l d p r o v i d e g r e a t e r e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y t o t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y . F i n a l l y , P a v r i (1988) a l s o i d e n t i f i e d s p e c i f i c b e l i e f s , much i n t h e same way as C h r i s t e n s e n . As was i n d i c a t e d i n C h a p t e r Two, h o w e v e r , t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n P a v r i ' s a p p r o a c h was t h a t he d i d n o t d i r e c t l y measure Attitude, as d i d D a v i s and C h r i s t e n s e n . R a t h e r , he s y n t h e s i s e d Attitude by a d d i n g t h e s c o r e s t o t h e b e l i e f s s c a l e . One f i n a l s t u d y w h i c h i n d i r e c t l y u s e d R - A T h e o r y was t h a t o f B a r o u d i , O l s o n and I v e s ( 1 9 8 6 ) , who i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e e f f e c t o f u s e r i n v o l v e m e n t i n s y s t e m s d e v e l o p m e n t on s y s t e m u s a g e . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e y p o s t u l a t e d t h a t " u s e r i n f o r m a t i o n s a t i s f a c t i o n " was a k i n t o Attitude. W h i l e , as d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r Two, t h i s i s a c u r i o u s a s s u m p t i o n , n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e s u l t s o f p a t h a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t d i d have an e f f e c t on usage, w h i c h t h e y c l a i m r e f l e c t s R - A t h e o r y . - 69 -The use o f R - A t h e o r y i n t h e s e p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s p r o v i d e s v a l i d i t y t o t h e c u r r e n t a p p r o a c h . The m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e i n t h i s s t u d y i s t h e u s e o f t h e o r y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b e l i e f s t r u c t u r e . By t a p p i n g a l l o f t h e r e l e v a n t b e l i e f s , o r perceived c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of innovating, as i d e n t i f i e d i n DOI t h e o r y , t h i s s t u d y s h o u l d p r o v i d e a s t r o n g e r b a s i s f o r t h e s t u d y o f d i s p a r a t e t e c h n o l o g i e s . S E C T I O N B : T H E R E S E A R C H M O D E L 3 . 1 1 G E N E R A L The i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n m o d e l ( I D M o d e l ) i n F i g u r e 3-3 i s c l e a r l y v e r y g e n e r a l . I t s p e c i f i e s f o u r g e n e r a l sets o f i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s t h a t a r e h y p o t h e s i s e d t o i m p a c t on t h e i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n ( B e h a v i o u r a l I n t e n t i o n ) , i n c l u d i n g t h e Communications Network and Personal Chara c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e A d o p t e r , and t h e Objective C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f b o t h t h e I n n o v a t i o n and i t s P r e c u r s o r . These o p e r a t e t h r o u g h two i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s , t h e Subjective Norm and t h e A t t i t u d e Towards Adopting. I t i s o b v i o u s f r o m t h e b r e a d t h o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s t h a t c o u l d be d e v e l -o p e d f o r e a c h s e t o f v a r i a b l e s t h a t a t t e m p t i n g t o v a l i d a t e o r i n v e s t i g a t e t h e w h o l e model i s a p r o j e c t much b e y o n d t h e scope o f one p a r t i c u l a r i n v e s t i g a -t i o n . The i n i t i a l t h r u s t s h o u l d be t o i d e n t i f y t h o s e v a r i a b l e s w h i c h a p p e a r t o h a v e a major i m p a c t on t h e a c t u a l Behaviour, w h i c h i n t h i s s t u d y i s Innovativeness. B e c a u s e o f t h e i r r o l e i n t h e d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s , i t w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t t h e Attitude Towards Adopting ( A t t i t u d e ) , and t h e Subjective Norm (SN) c o u l d h a v e s u c h an i m p a c t . F u r t h e r m o r e , Innovativeness has been d e f i n e d i n t e r m s o f u s a g e o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n ( see S e c t i o n 3.4). I t may a l s o , - 70 -t h e r e f o r e , be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by t h e d e g r e e o f Voluntariness o f u s a g e , as d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n s 3 . 6 and 3 . 1 0 . 4 . T h u s , t h e f o c u s o f t h i s s t u d y i s on t h e i m p a c t t h a t e a c h o f t h e s e t h r e e f a c t o r s , ( S N , A t t i t u d e , V o l u n t a r i n e s s ) , has on Innovativeness, as i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e R e s e a r c h M o d e l i n F i g u r e 3 - 4 . F o c u s s i n g on t h e s e v a r i a b l e s a l l o w s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s as o u t l i n e d i n C h a p t e r One. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e Behavioural Intention i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n . T h i s was done f o r s e v e r a l r e a s o n s , b o t h p r a g m a t i c and t h e o r e t i c a l . F i r s t , Innovativeness as d e f i n e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s a c o m p l e x c o n s t r u c t r e f l e c t i n g v a r i o u s t y p e s o f b e h a v i o u r , b o t h p a s t and p r e s e n t . F o r e x a m p l e , Adoptive Innovativeness i s b a s e d on t i m e o f f i r s t u s e o f t h e i n n o v a -t i o n . T o d a y , f o r most r e s p o n d e n t s , f i r s t use w i l l have l o n g s i n c e p a s t . T h e r e f o r e , m e a s u r i n g an i n t e n t i o n t o a d o p t PWS u s a g e i s n o t p o s s i b l e . S e c o n d , Use Innovativeness i s b a s e d o n t h e number o f d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s t h a t t h e a d o p t e r u s e s on t h e PWS. An i n t e n t i o n measure f o r t h i s a s p e c t o f Innova-tiveness w o u l d r e q u i r e e l i c i t i n g many i n t e n t i o n s , one f o r each o f t h e v a r i o u s f u n c t i o n s one c o u l d u s e on t h e PWS. T h i s w o u l d o b v i o u s l y s t r e t c h t h e bounds o f p r a c t i c a l i t y . T h i r d , Implementation Innovativeness i s b a s e d on t h e number o f h o u r s one u s e s t h e PWS. A g a i n , f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o i n d i c a t e an i n t e n t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h i s v a r i a b l e n o t o n l y w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t , b u t any answer w o u l d a l s o l i k e l y be q u i t e i n a c c u r a t e . Of p r i m a r y i n t e r e s t i n t h i s s t u d y i s t h e a c t u a l Behaviour, and how i t i s i n f l u e n c e d by o t h e r v a r i a b l e s . The p r i m a r y r o l e o f Intention i s t o i l l u s t r a t e t h a t t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e Subjective Norm and Attitude on Behaviour may be m e d i a t e d by o t h e r v a r i a b l e s ( A j z e n .& F i s h b e i n , 1980, p . 5 9 ) . I f t h e r e were no - 71 -v a r i a b l e s w h i c h i n t e r v e n e d once an a t t i t u d e and s u b j e c t i v e norm were f o r m e d , t h e n i n t e n t i o n c o u l d be d r o p p e d f r o m t h e model w i t h o u t a l o s s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . T h u s , t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e SN and A t t i t u d e t o p r e d i c t B e h a v i o u r depends on t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e I n t e n t i o n - B e h a v i o u r l i n k , w h i c h i n t u r n i s a f f e c t e d by t h e s t r e n g t h and number o f o t h e r i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s . One o f t h e most s i g n i f i -c a n t v a r i a b l e s w h i c h w o u l d i n t e r v e n e b e t w e e n an I n t e n t i o n and t h e B e h a v i o u r i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s V o l u n t a r i n e s s , w h i c h i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e s e a r c h m o d e l . T h u s , by t a k i n g i t i n t o a c c o u n t , t h e r o l e o f I n t e n t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y i s r e d u c e d . F i n a l l y , i n t e n t i o n s a r e u s e d t o p r e d i c t b e h a v i o u r , and t h e r e f o r e t o be o f v a l u e " i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o measure [them] as c l o s e as p o s s i b l e t o t h e b e h a v i o r a l o b s e r v a t i o n " ( A j z e n & F i s h b e i n , 1980, p . 4 7 ) . I n t h i s s t u d y , we a r e n o t a t t e m p t i n g t o p r e d i c t f u t u r e b e h a v i o u r . R a t h e r , we a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o d e t e r m i n e how c u r r e n t b e h a v i o u r i s r e l a t e d t o SN, A t t i t u d e , and V o l u n t a r i n e s s . T h i s a g a i n r e d u c e s t h e r o l e o f I n t e n t i o n i n t h e m o d e l . F o r a l l o f t h e s e r e a s o n s , i t was c o n s i d e r e d t h a t i n c l u s i o n o f B e h a v i o u r a l I n t e n t i o n i n t h e m o d e l was n e i t h e r p r a c t i c a l n o r n e c e s s a r y , and i t was t h e r e f o r e o m i t t e d . 3.12 THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS ADOPTING 3 . 1 2 . 1 G e n e r a l A l t h o u g h t h e r e s e a r c h model d e v e l o p e d f o r t h i s s t u d y i n c l u d e s b o t h t h e S u b j e c t i v e Norm and A t t i t u d e Towards A d o p t i n g , t h e r e i s s u p p o r t i n p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h f o r f o c u s s i n g p r i m a r i l y on A t t i t u d e . T h i s i s because s e v e r a l o f t h e P e r c e i v e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f I n n o v a t i n g ( P C I ) , f r o m w h i c h A t t i t u d e i s f o r m e d , h a v e b e e n f o u n d t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t on a d o p t i o n d e c i s i o n s . F o r e x a m p l e , i n two d i f f e r e n t s t u d i e s on t h e a d o p t i o n o f new consumer p r o d u c t s , O s t l u n d (1974) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t by u s i n g t h e P C I , he c o u l d c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f y 79% o f a d o p t i o n d e c i s i o n s . i n one s t u d y , and 68% i n t h e o t h e r . N e x t , H o l l o w a y - 72 -(1977) f o u n d t h a t t h e PCI d i s c r i m i n a t e d between a d o p t e r s and n o n - a d o p t e r s o f a b u r e a u c r a t i c i n n o v a t i o n ( a h i g h s c h o o l p e d a g o g i c a l t e c h n i q u e ) . F i n a l l y , B o l t o n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , i n a l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d y o f t h e a d o p t i o n o f v i d e o t e x t t e c h n o l o g y i n i n d i v i d u a l ' s homes, f o u n d t h a t Relative Advantage and Compatibility had more power t h a n s e v e r a l o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l and c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s t o d i s c r i m -i n a t e be tween a d o p t e r s and n o n - a d o p t e r s o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y . T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e t h e P C I have b e e n f o u n d t o h a v e a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on a d o p t i o n o f i n n o -v a t i o n s , b e c a u s e t h e y f o r m t h e b a s i s o f Attitude, and b e c a u s e Attitude i s i n a s t r a t e g i c p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e m o d e l , t h i s p a r t o f t h e model became t h e p r i m a r y f o c u s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h . I n summary, o n e ' s Attitude towards Adopting a PWS i s e x p e c t e d t o h a v e a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on o n e ' s i n n o v a t i v e n e s s w i t h r e s p e c t t o PWS u s a g e . A f t e r t h e p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n , t h i s may a p p e a r t o be a t r u i s m , y e t t h e r e a r e many o t h e r v a r i a b l e s w h i c h may r e s u l t i n an i n d i v i d u a l u s i n g t h e PWS, s u c h as b e i n g r e q u i r e d t o do so i n o n e ' s j o b . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f one had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e a b o u t PWS u s a g e , y e t were c o m p e l l e d t o u s e o n e , i t i s l i k e l y t h a t one w o u l d a t t e m p t t o f i n d a n o t h e r l i n e o f w o r k . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s h y p o t h e s i s e d t h a t : H I : O n e ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s u s i n g P W S w i l l i n f l u e n c e o n e ' s i n n o v a t i v e n e s s w i t h r e s p e c t t o P W S u s