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

AN  EXAMINATION  INFORMATION A  DIFFUSION  OF T H E IMPLEMENTATION  TECHNOLOGY  OF  FOR END USERS:  OF INNOVATIONS  PERSPECTIVE  By  GARY C. MOORE B.A. (Honours), The Royal M i l i t a r y C o l l e g e o f 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 o f Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d  THE  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1989 © Gary C. Moore, 1989  In  presenting  advanced Library  this  thesis  in partial  degree at the University shall make it freely  agree that  permission  purposes may  fulfilment of the requirements f o r an of British  Columbia,  I agree that the  available for reference and study.  f o r extensive  copying  of this  thesis  I further  f o r scholarly  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 The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia Canada V6T 1Y3  Administration  Date: 24 J u l y 1988  c  ABSTRACT  In recent ogy  (IT)  this  years,  within  to  integral  part  is  of  to  met  with  mixed success.  adoption to h o s t i l e  innovations many  understanding of the research  has  end-user oriented Information TechnolThe  reactions  to  w h i c h c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d t o be a n i n n o v a t i o n i n . t h e w o r k p l a c e ,  from e n t h u s i a s t i c  reactions  d i f f u s i o n of  organisations  technology,  range  the  in  general.  Nevertheless,  organisations'  factors  rejection,  plans,  because  organisations  w h i c h may i n f l u e n c e i t s  d e v e l o p and t e s t  and a r e  a model o u t l i n i n g  use.  typical this  must  of  IT  an  a  good  The p u r p o s e o f  this  potential  have  is  the  factors  and  their  inter-relationships.  Because two a r e a s  of  personally using prior  research  IT  can  be  were used t o  v i e w e d as develop the  the D i f f u s i o n of  I n n o v a t i o n s model (Rogers,  an i n n o v a t i o n i s  dependent upon s e v e r a l p e r c e p t i o n s  Second,  the  behaviour out  the  Theory of  i n general  behaviour,  one t h i n k s a general  that  Reasoned A c t i o n  an  1983),  others  one h a s  ( F i s h b e i n and A j z e n ,  subjective  expect  r e s e a r c h model t o  one t o  norms.  do.  investigate  and  research  postulates  i s m o t i v a t e d b y an i n d i v i d u a l ' s and h i s  innovative behaviour,  non-users',  adoption of  1975),  posits  that  a t t i t u d e towards c a r r y i n g  These  central  that  First,  of the i n n o v a t i o n .  norms  are  These two t h e o r i e s the  model.  research  underlying  based  on what  were melded  into  questions:  1.  What a r e t h e u s e r s ' , p e r s o n a l l y u s i n g IT?  perceptions  of  2.  Do a n y o f t h e a b o v e how a r e t h e y l i n k e d , a l l y use IT?  p e r c e p t i o n s dominate? a n d how do t h e y a f f e c t  If so, which are they, the d e c i s i o n to person-  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 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?  about o n e ' s u s i n g IT on  Items subjective  to norms,  cross-sectional analysis adopters (LISREL). of  the  to  be  measure  survey to  IT,  were  540  regression  seven s p e c i f i c  determinants  research  correlated of  characteristics  individuals  used,  The a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s  highly  perceived  of  innovating,  the  a n d 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 a n d a d m i n i s t e r e d i n a  approaches of  the  with  i n seven o r g a n i s a t i o n s .  including analysis,  a  comparison  and  of  structural  Three  data  and  non-  adopters equation  modelling  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 hypotheses. one's  Usage o f  attitudes  a t t i t u d e were c o n s i s t e n t  and  the  t e c h n o l o g y was f o u n d  subjective  with diffusion  theory.  norms,  and  the  -  iv  T A B L E OF  -  CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i i  L I S T OF TABLES  xi  L I S T OF FIGURES  xii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  xiii  CHAPTER ONE:  INTRODUCTION  1.1  The P r o b l e m  1.2  Research  1.3  The P e r s o n a l Work S t a t i o n  8  1.4  Research  9  CHAPTER TWO: 2.1 2.2  1  G o a l s and Q u e s t i o n s  and D i s s e r t a t i o n O v e r v i e w  .  6  THE USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BY L A Y USERS  General  11  Issues  11  2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3  General Benefits Summary  and P r o b l e m s  11 12 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 Research  23  2.5  The U s e o f  2.6  Summary  CHAPTER THREE:  the  PWS as  a Work I n n o v a t i o n  27 30  THE D I F F U S I O N OF INNOVATIONS: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK  Section A:  The T h e o r e t i c a l  Model  3.1  Introduction  32  3.2  Innovation  32  3.3  Diffusion  33  3.4  Innovativeness  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  Voluntariness  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  3.8  The I n n o v a t i o n D e c i s i o n Model 3.8.1 3.8.2  3.9  o f PWS U s a g e  44 ;  49  Stages i n t h e I n n o v a t i o n D e c i s i o n Variables A f f e c t i n g the Innovation Decision  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 3.9.1 General 3.9.2 R e l a t i v e Advantage 3.9.3 Image 3.9.4 Compatibility 3.9.5 Ease o f Use 3.9.6 Observability 3.9.7 Trialability  46  r  ..  of Innovations  3.10 Theory o f Reasoned A c t i o n ,3.10.1. General 3.10.2 A t t i t u d e Towards t h e B e h a v i o u r . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10.3 S u b j e c t i v e Norm 3.10.4 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 3.10.5 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 ReasonedA c t i o n Theory 3.10.6 The I n n o v a t i o n D e c i s i o n Model 3.10.7 U s e o f R - A T h e o r y i n MIS R e s e a r c h  Section B:  49 51 51 51 53 55 56 57 58 58 59 59 60 62 63 64 64 66  The Research Model  3.11 General  69  3 . 1 2 The A t t i t u d e Towards A d o p t i n g  71  3.12.1 3.12.2 3.12.3 3.12.4  General 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 Innovation Evaluation of the Perceived Characteristics Relative Effects - Perceived 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  71 72 73 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 U s a g e  76  3 . 1 5 Summary - The R e s e a r c h  77  Section C: 3.16 General  Model  Research Design 78  - vi  CHAPTER FOUR:  -  INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT  Section A - Introduction 4.1  General  84  Section B: The Perceived Characteristics of Using the PWS 4.2  Perceived Characteristics  of  Innovating  4.3  Instrument  Development Process  4.4  Instrument  Development  - Stage I:  87 91  S t e p 1 and  Step 2 Instrument Development - Stage I I : S t e p s 3 and 4 4.5.1 General 4.5.2 Inter-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y 4.5.3 S o r t i n g Procedures  93  4.6  S t e p T h r e e - R o u n d One 4.6.1 Judges 4.6.2. Results  106 106 107  4.7  S t e p F o u r - R o u n d One 4.7.1 Judges 4.7.2 Results 4.7.3 S c a l e Refinement  110 110 110 Ill  4.8  S t e p 3 - R o u n d Two 4.8.1 Judges 4.8.2 Results 4.8.3 S c a l e Refinement  113 113 113 115  4.9  S t e p 4 - R o u n d Two 4.9.1 Judges . 4.9.2 Results 4.9.3 S c a l e Refinement  4.5  96 96 101 105  ••  115 115 116 117  4 . 10 P r e - P i l o t T e s t 4.10.1 General 4.10.2 Sample 4.10.3 Results  120 120 121 121  4.11  P i l o t Test 4.11.1 General 4.11.2 Sample 4.11.3 Results  126 126 126 126  4.12  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 4.13.1 General 4.13.2 S c a l e Development 4.13.3 Reliability  130 130 130 134  4.14 A t t i t u d e 4.14.1 General 4.14.2 Development o f A t t i t u d e S c a l e  134 134 135  4.15  135 135 137 138 140  Innovativeness 4.15.1 General 4.15.2 Adoptive Innovativeness 4.15.3 Implementation Innovativeness 4.15.4 Use I n n o v a t i v e n e s s  Section D: Questionnaire Design 4 . 16 G e n e r a l  141  4.17 Format  142  4.17.1 4.17.2 4.17.3 4.18 T e s t i n g  Booklet Question Layout Covering Letter  142 143 144  .  144  Section E: Final Survey - Scale Reliabilities 4 . 19 G e n e r a l  145  4.20 Results  145  CHAPTER FIVE:  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS  Section A: Data Collection and Conditioning 5.1  Introduction  150  5.2  S u r v e y Sample  151  5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3  151 153  5.3  Survey S i t e s Response Rates Demographic S t a t i s t i c s Sample  of  Survey  C o n d i t i o n i n g the Data 5.3.1 General 5.3.2 Accuracy of Input Data 5.3.3 M i s s i n g Data 5.3.4 O u t l i e r s a n d Skewness 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 5.3.6 Summary ;  153 154 154 154 155 156 160 160  - viii  S e c t i o n B:  Descriptive  -  Statistics  5.4  General  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  Perceived Characteristics  162  5.7  Subjective  5.8  Innovativeness  S e c t i o n C: 5.9  of Innovating  Norms  164  Measures  165  Regression Analysis  General  169  5.10 Regression  of Perceived Characteristics  on  Attitude  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 5.11.1 General 5.11.2 A t t i t u d e , SN a n d V o l u n t a r i n e s s o n Innovativeness 5.11.3 P C I , SN, and V o l u n t a r i n e s s o n Innovativeness S e c t i o n D:  174 174 175 177  S t r u c t u r a l Equation Modelling  5.12 General  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 5 . 1 5 Goodness  of F i t  5.16 A t t i t u d e - Causes 5.17 Subjective  and E f f e c t s  - Causes  190  and E f f e c t s  and E f f e c t s  Innovativeness  5 . 2 0 Summary o f R e s u l t s :  191 193 193  Structural  Modelling S e c t i o n E:  185 188  Norm - C a u s e s  5.18 V o l u n t a r i n e s s 5.19  ;  Equation 194  Summary o f Data A n a l y s i s  5.21 General  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  -  ix -  5 . 2 3 Summary o f H y p o t h e s i s T e s t i n g 5.23.1 H y p o t h e s i s One 5.23.2 H y p o t h e s i s Two 5.23.3 Hypothesis Three 5.23.4 Hypothesis Four 5.23.5 Hypothesis Five 5.23.6 Hypothesis S i x 5.23.7 H y p o t h e s i s Seven 5.24 General CHAPTER S I X :  ...  Summary o f R e s u l t s  196 196 197 198 198 199 199 200 200  CONTRIBUTIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS  6.1  Introduction  6.2  Summary o f t h e R e s e a r c h  6.3  The R e s e a r c h  6.4  6.5  216  Questions  Process  217  Answered  220  6.3.1 Q u e s t i o n One 6.3.2 Q u e s t i o n Two 6.3.3 Question Three C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o Theory 6.4.1 General 6.4.2 Theory o f Reasoned A c t i o n 6.4.3 D i f f u s i o n of Innovations Theory 6.4.4 Instrument Development 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  220 220 225 226 226 227 229 231 233  L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 6.5.1 General 6.5.2 Data C o l l e c t i o n 6.5.3 Survey Scales 6.5.4 Sample 6.5.5 Generalisability 6.5.6 Causality 6.5.7 Implementation Success  236 236 236 237 238 239 239 240  ,  6.6  Managerial Implications 6.6.1 General 6.6.2 Attitude 6.6.3 S u b j e c t i v e Norm . 6.6.4 Voluntariness  241 241 241 243 244  6.7  Suggestions  244  6.8  Conclusions  BIBLIOGRAPHY  f o r Further Research  246 248  - x  -  APPENDICES A p p e n d i x One: A p p e n d i x Two: Appendix Three: Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix  Four: Five: Six: Seven: Eight: Nine: Ten: Eleven: Twelve:  I n i t i a l Item P o o l Item P o o l f o r S o r t i n g Rounds Card S o r t i n g I n s t r u c t i o n s for I n i t i a l Sort Item Development H i s t o r y R e s u l t s o f Item S o r t i n g Judges' Labels for Categories I n t e r - J u d g e Agreements Item Placement R a t i o s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Cover L e t t e r F i n a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Format Inventory of Hypotheses Glossary of Abbreviations  263 270 276 277 280 291 293 294 297 298 321 322  - xi -  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE 4 - 1 :  RELIABILITY  COEFFICIENTS:  PRE-PILOT  TEST  147  TABLE 4 - 2 :  . RELIABILITY  COEFFICIENTS:  PILOT TEST  TABLE 4 - 3 :  RELIABILITY  COEFFICIENTS:  F I N A L SURVEY  TABLE 5 - 1 :  DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND OF  148 ..  SURVEY  RESPONDENTS TABLE 5 - 2 :  201  CORRECTIONS FOR SKEWNESS:  RESULTS  OF  DATA TRANSFORMATION TABLE 5 - 3 :  SURVEY VARIABLES  -  202  DESCRIPTIVE  STATISTICS  203  TABLE 5 - 4 :  USERS  TABLE 5 - 5 :  USE OF PWS FUNCTIONS  TABLE 5 - 6 :  REGRESSION R E S U L T S :  VERSUS NON-USERS  CHARACTERISTICS TABLE 5 - 7 :  TABLE 5 - 8 :  TABLE 5 - 9 :  204 205  PERCEIVED  ON ATTITUDE  REGRESSION R E S U L T S : ON A T T I T U D E  PCl'S  206  AND SN 207  REGRESSION R E S U L T S : A T T I T U D E , S N , AND VOLUNTARINESS ON INNOVATIVENESS REGRESSION R E S U L T S :  PCI  AND  208  SUBJECTIVE  NORMS ON INNOVATIVENESS TABLE 5-10:  GENERAL S T A T I S T I C S  TABLE 5 - 1 1 :  STRUCTURAL  209  FOR T E S T E D MODELS  EQUATION  MODELLING:  RESULTS  OF HYPOTHESIS  TESTING  210  FACTOR  LOADINGS AND STRUCTURAL C O E F F I C I E N T S TABLE 5 - 1 2 :  149  ....  211 212  - xii -  LIST OF FIGURES  FIGURE 3-1:  DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS  FIGURE 3-2:  STAGES OF THE INNOVATION DECISION PROCESS  80  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  completion  occasional of  "significant  gratitude.  visor,  Chief  support.  Professors  this  dissertation  required  p r o d d i n g " f r o m many p e o p l e ,  among t h e s e  who o f f e r r e d n o t  personal tee,  of  is  Professor  o n l y guidance  I would  A l Dexter  also  like  and C r a i g  to  thank  Pinder  to  Izak  and a d v i c e ,  help,  support,  and  whom I owe a g r e a t  deal  Benbasat,  but  the  for  the  my t h e s i s  patience,  other  their  super-  tolerance,  members  of  my  and  commit-  insightful criticism  and  encouragement.  I  also  am v e r y  the  University of  who  was  crucial  backing,  this  students  at  Calgary, in  project  Professor  initially  me  may n o t  UBC a n d t h e  to  who  keeping  UBC, and t h e  A r e a b o t h at and  grateful  faculty  motivated  focussed  have  on  even been  members  U n i v e r s i t y of  Malcolm  the  Munro, me t o  task  started.  i n the  my " n e i g h b o u r "  pursue  a  Ph.D.,  and  Without  his  at  hand.  In  addition,  Management  my f e l l o w  Information  Calgary provided constant  at  Systems  encouragement  support.  Finally, overcoming  some  I would  like  very  trying  s u p p o r t e d my e f f o r t s and  Shannon,  was  being  who h a d  completed.  to  times;  throughout to  thank  those  closest  my p a r e n t s ,  my e d u c a t i o n ;  do w i t h o u t  their  to  me:  Jack  and  Lisa,  who h e l p e d  Audrey Moore,  a n d e s p e c i a l l y my c h i l d r e n ,  Dad f o r  too  long while  this  in who  Kent  thesis  -  1 -  C H A P T E R ONE INTRODUCTION  In technology, anything is possible if you don't know it isn't available yet. Anon. A n y problem can be solved given enough time and money, but you will never be given enough time and money. Anon.  1.1  THE PROBLEM In  recent  years  considerable time that  the  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  a n d money d e v o t e d t o  proportion of  the work f o r c e  p r o d u c e s m a t e r i a l goods has are  that  it  (Barcomb, decade ivity  now o v e r  1981), w h i l e Brown,  1984).  rose  85%  the  in  50%,  l e v e l (Bowen,  raise  the  appropriate  output  U.S.  created  already  use a  early  users  survey  during  1986). of  to  of  number i n the  1970's,  senior  identified  issues  and the  Information  Systems  their  three  In the  U.S.,  end o f  estimates  the  century  through  top  product-  that  white  large &  T h i s has  investments  of  1982;  caused a  rapid  concerns  started  information technology some f i v e y e a r s  (IT) ago,  practitioners  and  concerns  improvement  the  in  Pyburn,  p r o f e s s i o n a l computing c i r c l e s These  at  a r e now b e i n g made  (Curley  For example, (IS)  estimated  therefore,  concerns. use  is  the  o r may e v e n h a v e r e m a i n e d  technology  outside the  professionals).  among  it  Q u i b l e & Hammer, 1 9 8 4 ) .  e v o l u t i o n of  (non-systems  of  of  than  however, w h i l e i n d u s t r i a l  attempts,  information  computers  information rather  e x p e c t e d t o r e a c h 60% b y t h e e n d o f  the  Serious  fact  72% b y t h e  "information workers"  computer-based  growth i n the  lay  rise  A t t h e same t i m e ,  G r e e n w o o d & G r e e n w o o d , 1984;  develop  and w i l l is  based on t h e  dramatically.  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 ) ,  a 1960's  has  This problem i s  which processes  rising  i n Canada i t  (J.  collar  to  is  been  it.  academics of  and to by one had IS  -  2 -  planning, the f a c i l i t a t i o n and management of end user computing (EUC), and the integration  of data  processing,  (Dickson et a l . , 1984).  telecommunications  and o f f i c e  The use of IT by lay users  automation  i s part of a l l three  concerns, which demonstrated the impact that the d i f f u s i o n of IT was having i n organisations.  This has spawned a number of studies into the d i f f u s i o n of end  user IT, a l l of which have attempted  to understand  some of the basic forces  which underlie this d i f f u s i o n (see, f o r example, Brancheau, 1987; Christensen, 1987;  Pavri, 1988).  The issues a r i s i n g out of these concerns two  different  perspectives seem to exist.  are being widely examined, but  One- i s a Management  Information  Systems (MIS) viewpoint, which concentrates mainly on problems created by the i n f l u x into computing of individuals who personally assume many t r a d i t i o n a l IS functions by acquiring and using t h e i r own IT. The other i s an o f f i c e automat i o n (OA) perspective, whose focus deals primarily with attempting to have IT win acceptance by users i n organisations.  While much has been written about  the management of end user IT i n both areas, very l i t t l e has been grounded i n theory, which has been a chronic problem i n IS research (see Weber, 1985,  for  some of the recent discussion).  Researchers  i n OA and MIS have chronicled two s i g n i f i c a n t l y  reactions by potential users to IT. wherein it  enthusiasm,  the user recognises the benefits of using the technology, and adopts  wholeheartedly.  wherein  The other  extreme  users are often forced to adopt  Between these these  At one extreme i s unbridled  different  extreme cases  reactions seem also  setting  p o l i c i e s with  lies  i s overt  hostility  the technology  and resistance  against t h e i r  the complete range of reactions.  to be t y p i c a l  of those  who  will.  Indeed,  are responsible for  respect to the use of IT within organisations.  The  - 3 -  president of delusion"  one  company was q u o t e d as  which  (Pyburn,  1986,  a F o r t u n e 500  ate p.49).  on  the  reactions  basis seem  of  to  underlie  these IT.  ces,  still the  unfortunate  resistance  to  ation that while only  or are  to  electronic  question:  accepting i t  IT  affecting  is  been  to  i n the  be its  to  p r o v i d e the (Freedman,  integrated office second  survey  18% h a d some  systems of  form of  some  no  that  expected  the " o f f i c e  of  the  1986,  across  to  justify  p.50).  These  organisations. the  The  factors  users,  installed  and  i n the  it?".  which  potential  work  are  still  and  place,  I n t o o many  hard  quantitative  of  of  some  data  instan-  resisting  Personnel  benefits  because  of  More r e c e n t l y ,  a  lack  OA ( V e r i t y , exist,  i n some q u a r t e r s , still  but  but i n the  it  is  1985). is  For as  automation of  cooper-  one s u r v e y c o n c l u d e d (Canning,  mini/micro-computer sites  integrated  how  Management was q u o t e d  a l l f u n c t i o n a l l y sound o f f i c e  p.82).  6400  describing  i n d i c a t i o n s do e x i s t .  have n o t been w i d e l y a c c e p t e d  future" is  from  "becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y  Many p e o p l e  diffusion,  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 n o t g r o w i n g as  results  only grudgingly.  expected 1983,  way o f  and a  an e c o n o m i c a l l y f e a s i b l e  people use  US O f f i c e  many as 40 p e r c e n t  is  "No!".  the  investigate  "once  system  will  IT  reference  (1985) put i t :  appear  from u s e r s "  a  is  there  "as  fail  research  particular  IT i s  (Pyburn,  this  answer has  a specialist  saying that projects  the  savings" user  with  in  without being forced to  to  efficient  remains  Although  example,  of  cost  [if]  I T was " a s n a r e  a s e n i o r MIS e x e c u t i v e  user  responses  As S t r a s s m a n  the technology,  saying that  user  little  however,  the  reactions,  technologically there  same t i m e ,  measurable  typify  therefore,  of  produced  - everyone s h o u l d have  purpose,  users,  At the  but  f i r m was q u o t e d as  l i k e the telephone it  up r e s o u r c e s  saying that  clear  It  1985a),  indicated is  that  that  unclear use of  meeting resistance.  It  IT  how is  seems  f u t u r e i n many o r g a n i s a t i o n s .  -  While others  some r e s e a r c h e r s  have  problems  described  that  with  "growth  p.l).  It  of  firms  295  another within  as  rates  appears  as  Centres)  the next  50  to  if  growth  users  100  this  that  22 p e r c e n t  rapid  when  54  -  c h r o n i c l e d the resistance of  f i v e years  per cent  growth  concerns  (micros).  including  "Managing the Micro  equated  to  295  users, for are  cited  while  end u s e r s seen  in  integration uals  Pavri,  concern  1984).  less  than  (Bohl,  respect  many because  half  firms  p.48).  as  of their  to use the machines.  a  the  cent  of  EUC i s  solely  of  per  to  that  that,  number  to  but  do t h e  same  was t h a t " e n d  control  o f many  micro-  articles,  the  Microcomputer  t o many o b s e r v e r s , EUC  o f many o r g a n i s a t i o n s  directed  at  Centres  evaluate  it  while  "What T o Do W i t h A l l  microcomputer  I n any e v e n t ,  sub-units  end u s e r s ,  how t o  1985),  Information  proliferation,  survey  this  on t h e u s e o f m i c r o s  evaluate  problem,  is  "Controlling  appears  A recent  T o MIS p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,  i n the t i t l e s  and t h e a t t e n t i o n  focussed  90  1988,  It  and  1982,  intended  1988).  (Chrysler,  1985),  Furthermore, above,  i s evidenced  Invasion"  with  1988,  (Hoffman,  1983),  & Rockart,  by t h e author  b y MIS p r a c t i t i o n e r s  the use of micros,  employees).  firms  grow"  Woodman,  therefore,  example,  level  This  (Kahn & G a r c e a u ,  researchers, (for  to  faced  computers  &  they  The c o n c l u s i o n reached  technology.  organisational  indicated  that  the  today.  firms  a number o f p r o b l e m s .  is  (Gerrity  of the  growth  Environment"  per year"  (EUC) and t h e  & Flannery,  are s p e c i f i c a l l y to support  this  (Keen  ago ( R o c k a r t  roles  continue  Micros  to  whose  computing w i l l  Those  take  had e s t a b l i s h e d  user  One o f t h e  t o IT by l a y u s e r s ,  computing  i n EUC c o n t i n u e s  per cent  two y e a r s .  creates  end u s e r  enthusiastically  " b o o m i n g " some  of  found  (Information  the  can occur  EUC was d e s c r i b e d  have  4  and  technology  by managerial  i n the  survey  of  software  f o r end  mainframe/mini  software  it  seems as  is  a  if  problem  microcomputers of  control  not a problem o f g e t t i n g  and  individ-  -  5  -  Another major concern among the IS community under-educated w i t h r e s p e c t significant, overall  negative  t o computing.  impact  i n t e g r i t y of their  This  on d e c i s i o n s  computing.  Davis, careless The  they  d i d not t e s t  1981).  End u s e r s  properly are a l s o  made  who  do t h e i r  overall  information  system's  writers  see end u s e r s  professionals that  (Laberis,  "personal  their  and on the  tens o f thousands o f d o l l a r s ,  characterised  efficiency  already  programmes  as having  "a  frequently  will  be  degraded.  t o the r o l e  Finally,  and f u t u r e  1984; Zink,  1984).  made  largely  users  that the  o f these i s s u e s  i n t o computing. to properly  so  independent  r e s i s t a n c e t o IT.  manage t h e use o f IT by these u s e r s ,  1987).  On the other  organisations  hand,  need t o under-  f o r c e s which motivate the u s e r s t o take t o the t e c h n o l o g y  enthusiastically.  end user  of  and concerns are r a i s e d by the large i n f l u x o f end u s e r s  managed a p p r o p r i a t e l y , of  o f IS  f u t u r e developments i n software w i l l enable [them] t o be  None i s based on u s e r s '  stand t h e u n d e r l y i n g  many  One argument i s  independent o f IS departments f o r software support, as w e l l " (Dearden, All  (G.B.  e f f i c i e n c y " (Guimaraes, 1984), t h e more i t i s f e l t  a threat  1983; Guimaraes, have  users,  self-developed  computing,  as c r e a t i n g  computers  mainframes [and t h a t ]  own  by these  c o u l d have a  Examples e x i s t o f e n t h u s i a s t i c y e t i l l  ... a t t i t u d e toward system o p e r a t i o n a l  more users  many end users are  l a c k o f education  t r a i n e d end u s e r s making mistakes c o s t i n g f i r m s because  i s that  Until  these  forces  are understood,  addressed,  and  many o f the attempts t o c o n t r o l the d i f f u s i o n and use  IT may be seen  as " t u r f  protecting"  by the users.  Thus,  these  f o r c e s need t o be i d e n t i f i e d .  The the  question  one hand,  other users.  hand,  a  which must be addressed, t h e r e f o r e ,  a tremendous p u l l resistance  by some users  to using  i s why there  towards u s i n g  the technology  by many  e x i s t s , on  IT, and on the other  potential  I f t h e f o r c e s which are at work i n e i t h e r case can be understood, i t  -  will  provide  manage  1.2  tremendous  the d i f f u s i o n of  motivation  investigate  advantage  to  organisations  which  are  trying  to  IT.  for  the  and v a l i d a t e  the use of  IT by l a y p e r s o n s .  reject  personal,  discussed  more  d i s t i n c t yet of  developed  the  does  use  basis this  process  of  years  the  as  a  behaviour  to  examine  for  Attitudes  of  in general,  has  w i t h one as  of Reasoned Action,  A j z e n and F i s h b e i n ,  is  to  s t u d y a n d management  of  users  for  the  research  had  the  most  developed  by  Fishbein  1980).  This  theory  is  testing to  will  based  on  the  D i f f u s i o n theory and  adoption or  and  poten-  predicting  (Fishbein  Theory  and  Ajzen  should help to gain insight  forces which u n d e r l i e the p a r t i c u l a r behaviour of  lay  in using by  in  the  by  models b e i n g the  Ajzen  two  has  examining  rejection  success  be  diffusion  t h e r e s h o u l d be b e n e f i t  successful  adopt  As  information technology  significant  of  and  decide  These are  understanding  the use of  first  technology.  attitudes p a r a d i g m . basis  The  development  research.  technology's  theory  the  through the  chapters,  In that  the  twofold.  information  l i n k e d bodies and  is  by w h i c h p o t e n t i a l  subsequent  innovations.  theory  users.  1975;  research  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 ,  diffusion tial  in  paradigm,  i n t r o d u c t i o n of is  the  theoretically  over  It  hands-on  fully  innovations  users  present  a theoretical  a p a r t i c u l a r model of  or  the  -  RESEARCH GOALS AND QUESTIONS The  of  a  6  into  adoption or r e j e c t i o n  of  IT.  Both bodies IT,  is  very  of  much a  theory posit  that  behaviour,  function  both  personal  of  u s e d by t h e  Theory of Reasoned Action, t h e  perceptions  about  sised  into  the  outcomes  an A t t i t u d e a b o u t  of the  and  personal  performing the behaviour.  in this  The  case personal  social  factors.  factor  behaviour, social  is  based  which are  factor  is  a  use  of  In  terms  on  one's  synthefunction  -  o f w h e t h e r one p e r c e i v e s this  with  research w i l l mation  regard to  of  by  and  adopt or t o r e j e c t  to the tions  to  its  second g o a l  diffusion  of  concerns  the is  for  insight  It the  i n t o the  pay  of  outcomes  of  of  Norm.  of  these  an i n n o v a t i o n .  This  acceptance of  particular  attention  inforto  the  u s i n g , or p o t e n t i a l l y u s i n g ,  whether  research,  once  the  others  theory  to provide a basis addressing,  both  to  the  f o r the  with  respect  resistance  overly enthusiastic  to  to IT  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 p r o b l e m s h o u l d be more w i s e l y  the major questions  is  expect  tested  them  with  d e r i v a t i o n of  and s u b s e q u e n t l y  to  Thus,  determinants  examine t h e  will  perceptions  termed the S u b j e c t i v e  rejection  of work t o  and managers  relate  perhaps  about  is  and  this  its  This  in  to  use.  IT,  MIS p r o f e s s i o n a l s  one t o c a r r y o u t t h e b e h a v i o u r ,  adoption or  users.  their  of  and g u i d e l i n e s  These  lay  these users  technology,  The  the  draw on b o t h b o d i e s  technology  perceptions  of  expect  theory provides considerable  factors  the  others  -  case t o a c t u a l l y use the t e c h n o l o g y .  Diffusion two  that  7  the by  managing,  respect  prescrip-  the  diffusion  of  concerns user  some p o t e n t i a l  a d o p t i o n by o t h e r s .  If  t i m e and money d e v o t e d  research  include:  1.  What are personally  2.  D o a n y o f t h e 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 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 , h o w a r e t h e y l i n k e d , a n d h o w d o 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 use IT?  3.  What are the  the (potential) users' underlying using information technology?  effects  of o t h e r s '  users,  prescriptions  spent.  u n d e r l y i n g the  perceptions  expectations a b o u t  IT on one's decision to use, or not use, I T ?  IT.  one's  of  using  to  - 8 -  1.3  THE PERSONAL WORK STATION Because the  not on  dependent the  reaction  to  on s p e c i f i c  adoption or  Station  (PWS).  personal  use  instances  rejection  The PWS i s  with  word p r o c e s s i n g  programme.  aspect  user,  as  system  or  a mainframe  of  a PWS i s  opposed  generally  one  to  used  determined  from by  it  "generic a set  of  IT",  this  also  again  is  with  computer  view  of  In  and  be  the  Secondly,  this  instance,  thus  this  aspect  used the  its of  PWS  use  that  directly  a  or  software.  use  include  for  a spreadsheet  appropriate  technology  PWS c o u l d  as  computer terminal  a  a  designed  personal computer  a  such  focus  Personal Work  computerised tools of  general,  study w i l l  termed the  packages,  a third party.  This  job,  technology,  software  computer,  terminal.  one's  of  A PWS c o u l d  through  a  the  seems t o be q u i t e  which u s u a l l y consists  more  that  interactive.  use  of  d e f i n e d as  (microcomputer)  key  of  individual,  b y an  h o o k e d up t o  information technology  of  The  by  the  the  PWS  single, would  is  is  on-line  likely  be  also  be  microcomputer  as  usage  will  investigated.  Some r e s e a r c h e r s the  basis  seems t o  for be  have  s t u d y i n g the  overly  microcomputer,  to  are  carry  differences while  still  "user  very  processing,  between evident,  as  of  similar  similar  terminals are  or  for  now  for  for  the  it  seems  transparent  offered  mainframes The  on  for  This  terminal, user.  that  non-communications  developed  micros.  individual  1988).  to  micros  mainframes,  or  a  From a  employed i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s  increasingly  are  Pavri,  a mainframe  Moreover,  originally  developed  now a v a i l a b l e  IT are  of  on t h e  example,  either  level  micros  originally are  for  of  tasks.  becoming  applications  (see,  the  both kinds of  many  specifically  use  at  etc.)  SPSS)  IT  i n that  spreadsheets,  applications such  out  friendly"  use  limiting  functional perspective, users  concentrated  by  that  lay the  applications, users.  Many  (e.g.  word  while  some  (e.g.  statistical  latter  development  packages has  been  - 9  made  possible  because  capacity,  processing  gap  mainframes.  with  the  obsolete,  This  and  e v e n t u a l l y merge the  various  to  of  on the g e n e r i c  1.4  brief  to  reduce  computer  tends IT,  an i n i t i a l  the  file  and  to  but  Finally,  deal to  not  IT  in  as d e f i n e d  the  between  will  discussion  in  reaction  of  Therefore,  to  the  general. focus  will  terminal  the  with  macro l e v e l , t h i s  close  dumb t e r m i n a l s  intelligent  1987).  storage  differences  has been a r g u e d t h a t  P e r s o n a l Work S t a t i o n ,  by  the  dissertation  review of lay  v i e w e d as  research.  Three  Action  of  behaviour.  to determine the  chapter tion  that  instance  then  managing of  the  focuses  (Fishbein  in  develops  of  of t h i s  research  above.  and A j z e n , is  and a n a l y s i s .  date with  diffusion  the  chapter  respect  of  end  provides  to the  user  IT  an i n f o r m a t i o n  used  to  which  couch  use  of  can  be  system,  underpinnings  of  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 1975),  a  w i t h i n MIS.  theoretical  rejecting  overall  and p r e s e n t s  the  this  s p e c i f i c perceptions an  the  The n e x t  implementation of  on  adopting or  forming  follows.  implementation research  D i f f u s i o n theory  context  as  the work conducted t o  As was d i s c u s s e d a b o v e ,  Reasoned  salient  organised  also discusses  of  particular  In  a specific  chapter  is  some o f  persons.  Chapter  be  at  including  improving dramatically to  (Healy,  of  micros,  RESEARCH AND D I S S E R T A T I O N OVERVIEW This  IT  box"  forms  is  it  literature  specific  of  tends  personal  single  examine t h e s e r e a c t i o n s is  again  In f a c t ,  the  i n "a  bodies  individuals  performance  power and s p e e d ,  m a i n f r a m e and m i c r o u s e . become  -  this  is  Theory  a generalised general  theory  theory  information technology.  this  in  It  the  helps  of performing the behaviour which should  Attitude  research  about,  adopting  PWS  usage.  model w h i c h g u i d e d the d a t a  The  collec-  - 10 -  Given  the  nature  studied,  it  research  approach.  survey  was  these  process  that  are  that  with  Five  the  using  of  the  nology  (the  the  degree  to  the  context. defined  in  towards  using  the  data is  would in  be  the  variables  the  most  and/or  the  to  be  appropriate  development  gathered.  detail  collection  supported  three  Norm), job. feels  data  and t h e The  Chapter  instrument  shows  with  of  the  that  which to  the  theory,  of  Four  a de-  development  is  expect that  set  and  help  discusses  the  to  the  data  one  one  is  Theory  is  of  explain  the  shows  use  that about  the  tech-  required to by  most  of  Further-  Action  innovations,  of  one's  different  use  determining  beneficial  Reasoned  determinants  It  degree,  Attitude  to  is  some  voluntary.  characteristics  significant  as,  investigated  technology  the  activities.  one's  d i f f u s i o n theory  perceived are  data,  factors:  others  factor  analysis  A n a l y s i s of  perception  last  use  major  that  and  by t h e  hypotheses.  by  innovation,  to using  identification  data  perception  particular,  in into as  attitude  reactions  of  IT.  Chapter  Particular  earlier,  the  the  diffusion  Finally, study.  predicated  variables  In  individuals  of  the  research  w h i c h one  analysis  f i e l d s u r v e y w o u l d be  the  the  model  i n one's  and  out.  the  Subjective  technology  defining  is  a  questions  and p r e s e n t s  presents  technology,  the  more,  which  research  IT  research  required  was c a r r i e d  v i r t u a l l y a l l of  adoption  sis.  This  activities,  Chapter shows  the  concluded that  instrument  scribes  of  Six  reference  and t o t h e m a n a g e r i a l  The C h a p t e r c o n c l u d e s  is  paid  to  implications the- r e s e a r c h  i m p l i c a t i o n s of  and  limitations  questions  t h e outcomes  w i t h some s u g g e s t i o n s  for  future  of the  as  of  outlined  data  research.  the  analy-  -  11  -  C H A P T E R TWO T H E USE OF INFORMATION T E C H N O L O G Y  BY L A Y USERS  The easiest computer to use is the one you don't have to. An anonymous survey GENERAL  2.1  The  purpose  have been ogy  (IT)  of  this  chapter  identified with  respect  by l a y u s e r s ,  and t o relates  research  computing  on  end user  systems  implementation,  chapter  concludes  innovation,  2.2  ISSUES  2.2.1  General  office  was i n  automation. of  the  use  indicates  that  tions  use  to  rejection. this  the  area.  there of  This  of  Office  issues  IT  by  seems  benefits  section  by  that  In general,  (OA),  that  technolhas  this  for viewing of  using  research  use of  diffusion  the of  been  includes  information  has  t o be a w i d e enthusiastic very b r i e f l y  been range  The  PWS as  an  innovations  organisations.  of the motivation f o r  into  end u s e r  carried of  adoption  out.  distinctly through  this  computing and  t h e p r i m a r y a r e a s where d i r e c t  l a y users  will  research  Automation  One, t h e g e n e s i s  raised  PWS, f r o m  the key issues  towards use o f i n f o r m a t i o n systems.  arguments  i n Chapter  the  phenomenon.  (EUC),  These have been of  some  t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f PWS i n  As was d i s c u s s e d research  the  outline  t o managing t h e use o f i n f o r m a t i o n  and a t t i t u d e s  and d i s c u s s e s  to b r i e f l y  to this  by p r e s e n t i n g  theory to investigate  is  highlight  conducted to date that  tion  respondent.  The  investigaliterature  different  apathy  to  reachostile  r e v i e w some o f t h e w o r k t o d a t e i n  -  OA a n d EUC a r e foci,  at  ties  the  of  and h a z a r d s .  the  For  to  individual  example,  exist,  few h e l p  nition  of  manage  i n f o r m a t i o n " (Barcomb,  Meyer,  1983;  "the  similarity which  is  writers  Rockart  between also  i n each  &  these  true  for  area.  the  example,  Greenwood & Greenwood,  1985c).  Thus,  fits  use  2.2.2  issues  has  to  creates,  technology  or  of  the  defi-  help  &  the  and  (see  people  than  base  any are  (see  by  functions  as  professionals,  Therefore,  at  the  They  offering  pro-  Canning,  EUC a n d OA both  can  similar  l e v e l of the  PWS s h o u l d r e q u i r e s i m i l a r  systems  word  1983;  d i s t i n c t i o n between applications.  The  discussed  discuss  Benson,  the  difference,  management  EUC o t h e r s  be  1986).  i n c l u d e such  data  to  1984;  Henderson &  McNurlin,  PWS t h a t  mail  clear  seen  individual  OA some  their  to  generally  striking  w h i l e under  no  A typical  be  bene-  individual  approaches.  and Problems been  while to  be  s i m i l a r problems.  discussed  main i s s u e  resistance  more  within  b o t h EUC a n d OA  t w o phenomena.  Sprague  uses  IT by n o n - s y s t e m s  i n Chapter  w i t h i n OA a n d EUC t e n d t o  the  is  similar opportuni-  d e f i n i t i o n s of  EUC i s  and e l e c t r o n i c  definitions  managing the use o f  Benefits As  of  1985).  1983;  different  a l s o Greenwood & Greenwood,  systems,  1984),  appears  their  and c r e a t i n g  adopter,  EUC,  the  support  calendars  there  either  v i e w e d as  p . l ; see  specific  For  decision  electronic  the  present  appropriate  definitions  (see  on  1981,  Flannery,  processing,  cessing,  they  a computer by a non-systems  data  based  between  and V o g e l & Wetherbe,  1984;  adopter  i n c o r p o r a t i o n of  of  a l t h o u g h t h e y may h a v e  while several  differentiate  d i r e c t hands-on use Treacy,  -  discussed together because,  level  OA i s  12  in the  is  the  OA t h e  rapid main  technology.  One a n d  in  r e v o l v e around the growth of focus  When t h e  is  the  usage of  PWS u s a g e ,  primarily benefits  of  previous  on  the  and t h e the  section, PWS.  u s i n g the  Within  problems  potential  the  this users'  technology  are  -  indicated, For  they  example,  than  Services  (ISD's)  the  systems  & Pyburn,  i s that  it  although  cial.  for years.  effectiveness  resistance  terized  management  matched  expectations  er,  to  several systems. tion it  i s the vehicle  however,  sound  systems.  why managers  that  i n c r e a s i n g l y under c o n t r o l o f s e n i o r  argued that ranges  of  seen usage  before,  thus  having  i t i s seen  user  users  re-  as o n e way  & Quillard,  1983;  one b e n e f i t  o f PWS  These a r e o n l y a few i n organisations.  achieved  i n many  In  ways,  seen  failures".  example,  This  can also  Argyris  have  leads  exist,  (1970)  life  [compu-  most  " r a t i o n a l " management usage  benefi-  "of those  implemented,  Resistance  as  has b e e n a f a c t o f  not to  a  howev-  presented information  o f a n MIS w o u l d p u t i n f o r m a -  management,  and r e v e a l  hemming i n m i d d l e m a n a g e r s .  o f a n MIS makes  information.  of  argued that  outright  For  the  Information  not always  h e ' d ] seen  would r e s i s t  Among them was t h e a r g u m e n t  had never  is  ago, A c k o f f (1967)  been  than  for doing so.  t o the use o f IS i n g e n e r a l  a n d some h a v e  quicker  . From t h e  (Alloway  c a n be  being  "knows what  perspective,  and e f f i c i e n c y  t o be i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e s y s t e m .  arguments  is that  concerns.  The u s e r  benefit  bottleneck"  i n f o r m a t i o n systems  functionally  are.  for himself. the  as  effective  l a y u s e o f I T c a n be o f a s s i s t a n c e  Over twenty years  resistance  perceived  them f r o m d e p e n d e n c y o n t h e I S D .  information technology,  In fact,  it  and e f f i c i e n c y  a n d more  From t h e u s e r s '  hands-on use of the technology  of  is  own a p p l i c a t i o n s  development  1983).  frees  t h e ways i n w h i c h  Use  technology  perspective,  for developing their  "breaking  short,  the  effectiveness  t o a t h i r d p a r t y what h i s needs  Department's  Gremillion  of  using  to  a n d s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o g e t  sponsible  usage  relate  go t h r o u g h a n i n t e r m e d i a r y ,  to indicate  he w a n t s "  of  personally  having to  trying  generally  13 -  a m i d d l e manager  to i t  Furthermore,  more a c c o u n t a b l e  By n o t u s i n g t h e M I S , t h e r e f o r e ,  things he  for wider  the middle  manager  -  might  be  able  Argyris' system,  to  continue  arguments  were  to  not  -  avoid  these  the  context  in  but s i m p l y i n the manager's  some f o u r t e e n y e a r s  14  use of  developments. of  its  actual  As  can  hands-on  outputs.  be  use  seen, of  H i s ideas were  the  echoed  later:  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, information is much more visible and much more widely shared than was true when information systems were limited to a hard copy medium. Consequently, mistakes are much more visible too (Foster & Flynn, 1984). The p o t e n t i a l in  the  effect  f o l l o w i n g comment  this  is  h a v i n g on a c t u a l  users  is  best  illustrated  from 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 c a r r y i n g 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). Thus,  implementation  expectations resistance which  about to  the  its  above  of  i n f o r m a t i o n systems  individuals' usage.  performance,  This  accountant's  certainly  comments  are  a  also  has  often  factor holds  likely  served  which  for  use  to  could of  an e x a m p l e .  the  The  raise  lead  to  PWS,  of  resistance  o  to  PWS, h o w e v e r ,  goes  to  the  is  evidenced  15  i n Sprague & M c N u r l i n ,  significant  changes  including  nology w i l l  result  Thiel,  tages of  within  i n such t i t l e s  resistance,  1984;  beyond t h e s e  1984).  office  the  i n the This  as  loss is  automation is  Resistance  organisations  that  to  PWS a l s o  PWS u s a g e  relates  may w r e a k ,  and  "The Rocky 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  1986). fear  concerns.  There  a r e many h y p o t h e s i s e d r e a s o n s  b y many w o r k e r s of  their  jobs  f u e l e d by t h e  that  the  i n f l u x of  for the  this tech-  ( C a n n i n g , 1 9 8 5 b ; Q u i b l e & Hammer, fact  that  one o f  a reduction i n labour costs.  the  touted  For others,  advanthere  - 15  is  the  simple  Matherly, but  has  tion.  difficulty  1985;  Uttal,  existed In  weavers  1982).  the  introduction  i n t o the machinery. r e a c t i o n to IT,  (Brod, 1982,  workers  new  looms by  technology"  back at  l e a s t to  been t r a c e d  mechanical  looms  the  in  IT  O v e r a l l , these f a c t o r s can  t o adapt t o the  systems  can  also  carries  which i s the  1988;  the  threat  Wynne &  Otway,  focus  of  from  interaction,  and  of  both  1983;  also  increase  the  (Keen,  1981,  analysed,  that  typing  accuracy  not  Zuboff,  d e g r a d a t i o n i n performance q u i c k l y p u b l i c , the  length  compared to  the  of  workers  of an i n d i v i d -  operation  of new  technol-  d e s k i l l i n g and  r e s u l t s of  t h e i r t i c k e t i n g and  1982).  making,  and  other  and  speed  ability  identified.  be  For  substi-  computer becomes deskilling  employees.  to  monitor  Typists'  can  instead  Both  affected  1982).  "Deskilling"  "Alienation" is a result  people.  to the  alienating  and  control  keystrokes  accurately  the  interaction.  such i n f o r m a t i o n  check-in personnel.  Finally,  indications  The  can  and  employees d e a l i n g w i t h  the  i s aware of  then  a major  f o r s a l a r y adjustments  Even the time away from t e r m i n a l s  exist  that  be  computed,  author  as the b a s i s  and  Certain  of their, i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h c l i e n t s can be monitored and  a i r l i n e which i s u s i n g  reported.  reaction  These  "inability  among workers, where the  organisation's  work  be  the  a s i g n i f i c a n t negative  Zuboff,  decision  s i g n i f i c a n t l y discouraging  individuals' so  computers,  i n d u s t r i a l revolu-  Europe.  create  introduction  changing i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s  a l i e n a t i o n are  to  &  throwing t h e i r wooden shoes, c a l l e d " s a b o t s " ,  removing human judgement  primary  the  back t o  t u t i n g r e l i a n c e on "computer" d i r e c t i o n f o r a c t i o n s . o f the  peculiar  (Matherly  p.754).  (Blackwell,  includes  dating  of  to  phenomenon i s not  termed " t e c h n o s t r e s s " ,  u a l or o r g a n i z a t i o n  The  This  adjustment  word "sabotage" has  attempted to wreck the  ogy"  "human  f o r decades,  f a c t , the  to  of  -  prolonged  exposure  to  of can  video  -  display  terminals  becoming  a  major  Kirkpatrick, back p a i n ,  may h a v e n e g a t i v e  concern  to  Susser,  eye s t r a i n ,  VDT e l e c t r o m a g n e t i c  publicised using  the  1985).  1983),  or  use of the of  see as  lack  increased  aspects  1984).  of  Among  stress,  on o n e ' s  especially  the  health,  women  potential  which  (Debow,  problems  is  1988;  are  severe  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  of  true  they  fail  among s e n i o r  PWS u s a g e  a means  technological  and t h e y perceived  see of  any  others  may  i n the  of  its  typing"  be  machine.  becoming  individuals  also  benefits as  (Fearon,  "human" s u p p o r t .  using the  all  organisation  no p e r c e i v e d a d v a n t a g e  benefits  are  many  the  "executives  reducing their  reject  inappropriately prevent  to  levels  s i m p l y as  of  change  A p p a r e n t l y , however,  technology offers  operating,  this  is  employees,  1987).  PWS s i m p l y b e c a u s e  This  executives  many  effects  of  radiation.  negative (Thiel,  -  (VDT's)  1988;  These  16  Thus,  over the  organisation  some  resist  (Salerno,  well. 1984;  their  their  senior  Some Benson,  personal  current  More i m p o r t a n t l y ,  leading  well  however,  executives  from u s i n g the  way  to  technology:  During a recent systems review for a major hospital, reviewers w e r e a s t o u n d e d to f i n d virtually no p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r s in use. 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 an e d i c t t h a t t h e y w e r e not allowed. Instead, all p r o c e s s i n g was done on an antiquated, centralized-site mainframe. N e e d l e s s to s a y , m a n y u s e r s w e r e not happy Some executives interviewed [in a variety of firms] indicated a l a c k of appreciation for computer technology. Many q u e s t i o n e d how p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r s fit with the e x i s t i n g mainframe technology. T h e y also questioned the m u c h - v a u n t e d productivity gains associated with micro-computers (Gilmore, 1988).  Finally,  there  is  evidence  of  a  generalised  technology because of the p o t e n t i a l l y negative Lee of  (1970)  found that  mankind",  aversion  to  or  computers  "awesome  computer  c o u l d be  regarded  t h i n k i n g machines".  interaction.  effects  Morrison  The  as  resistance  to  i t may h a v e o n either  latter  (1983),  computer society.  "beneficial factor  when  leads  tools to  attempting  an to  -  replicate  Lee's  work,  found that  17  -  his  subjects  had s i g n i f i c a n t  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 the  control  attitudes puters,  computers  of  could exercise  individuals  they therefore  in turn could lead to  2.2.3  general,  behaviours. ever,  is  These  how t o  be t o s l o w t h e  been  reaction  reactions  rate of  for of  the  managing  concerns  PWS i n t o t h e g r e a t e r  at  over  that  were  the  these  time  by  comThis  t o p e r s o n a l l y u s i n g PWS.  its  to  personal  raise rate  a number  of  PWS b y  has  of  of  diffusion  while  potential  issues. of  the  a wide range  One m a j o r  technology,  so  as  and u se  of  IT,  The  it to  will  area  how-  that  be t o  its  the  increase  diffusion.  outputs,  two s e c t i o n s  have  describe  s o as t o p u t t h e u s e  i n f o r m a t i o n systems  of  t h e g o a l may  increase  and  next  one,  so  I n some c a s e s ,  users  been conducted i n t h i s o f use o f  covers  i n many o t h e r s  acceptance  context  IT  u s e c a n be a t t a i n e d .  diffusion,  the  use  of  i n general.  INFORMATION SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION To some,  special  case  Christensen,  the of  e v o l u t i o n of  with  evolution,  i n t r o d u c t i o n o f PWS i n t o t h e w o r k p l a c e information  1987).  uous r e d u c t i o n s rate  In  directly affected  among MIS p r o f e s s i o n a l s .  some o f t h e w o r k t h a t  ing  lives".  as d i s q u i e 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 .  resistance  c o n t r o l the  acceptance  Historically,  2.3  reflect  the  organisational goals  long  who w e r e n o t  their  over  Summary In  the  over  - as w e l l  concerns  systems  Development of  the  i n f o r m a t i o n systems, i n the  substantial which,  physical size gains  simply,  in its  has  made  implementation PWS i s  seen  w h i c h has and c o s t  of  performance. it  possible  been  as  c a n be c o n s i d e r e d a (for  a step  example, i n the  characterised  to  put  IT  continu-  by c o n t i n -  computer hardware, The PWS i s  commensu-  a result into  see  the  of hands  this of  -  "end  users".  Now, t h e y  18 -  may d i r e c t l y  "support"  themselves,  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 computer s u p p o r t .  It to  is a basic  enhance  basic  axiom t h a t  the performance  goal  is  the r o l e of i n f o r m a t i o n systems,  o f t h e d e c i s i o n makers  operationalised,  Over twenty y e a r s assumptions that  however,  ago, A c k o f f (1967) systems  designers  i n organisations.  has been  to,  properly.  and c o u l d ,  i d e n t i f i e d , what he c a l l e d f i v e  mistaken  For example,  he a r g u e d  His criticism  that:  n  t h a t t h e r a t e i s t h e lack a g e r s l a c k a I d o d e n y f r o m w h i c h r o m a n over  Ackoff d i d support the notion that  improve  the  was w i t h  How t h i s decades.  abundance of irrelevant information.  intended  is  for  made.  open t o debate  " 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 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 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 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 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 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  I n s p i t e o f s u c h comments,  i n general,  performance  respect  to  of  managers  a n MIS was  if  developed  how i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s  were  implemented.  Systems successfully  professionals, implement  proving  the performance  such  a  difficult  been  used.  here  i s that  individuals ness.  have  i n f o r m a t i o n systems of  construct  One o f  therefore,  t h e most  their to  clients.  measure,  n o t u s e an i n e f f e c t i v e  As s t a t e d b y E i n - D o r ,  so  as  to  Because several  p o p u l a r has been  a s y s t e m c a n n o t be a s u c c e s s would  l o n g been  surrogates of  the  aim o f i m -  usage  for  success  the system.  i s not used.  system,  Segev and S t e i n f e l d  achieve  how t o  "improved performance"  usage  if it  concerned w i t h  must  The  is  have idea  Because r a t i o n a l mean  effective-  (1981):  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 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 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 ,  c l e a r w o u l d h e n c e  -  19  -  the importance 1981; G a r r i t y ,  of r e s e a r c h in t h i s a r e a 1963; S w a n s o n , 1974).  Later,  and Segev  Ein-Dor  importance of system  [e.g.]  ( 1 9 8 2 ) w e r e t o be  (Ein-Dor  & Segev,  e v e n more e m p h a t i c  about  the  use:  t h e r e a r e a n u m b e r of 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 , applicat i o n to major p r o b l e m s of t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , q u a l i t y of d e c i s i o n s o r performance, user satisfaction, and widespread use. These criteria are clearly mutually dependent; profitability is correlated with performance, application to major problems, and actual use. We 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 of t h e c r i t e r i a , a n d t h a t u s e is highly correlated with them. Thus we choose use as a prime c r i t e r i o n of M I S s u c c e s s .  Another approach to assessing perceived  effectiveness  as  system  and  (1978,  1981b),  between  of  effectiveness  p e r c e i v e d by t h e  its  usage  the  outputs, one of  of  the  measures  obvious  that  it  argued  was  may  the  u s e may n o t that  enhancing performance system  was  provide  meeting  a better  including user  system of  quality,  this  designed to  as  perceptions  of  performance. how  effective  measure  of  the  Thus,  success  of  the  tenuous.  If  the  system's  the  managers,  success. On t h e  link  It  other  system  was  effectiveness  is  hand,  i n d i c a t i o n of whether  perceived the  of  the  Ginzberg  argued t h a t was  the  measures  forth.  the performance of  c o u l d p r o v i d e a more a c c u r a t e objectives.  so  indicators  enhance  approach  of  satisfaction with  and  approach,  enhance  misleading  necessarily  its  this  and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s u c c e s s  quite  users'  Briefly,  users,  advocates  system  be  system.  perceived  s y s t e m i s v i e w e d as a s e r v i c e usage  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s u c c e s s has b e e n t h a t  in the  could  implementation  than  system usage.  Finally, Ives,  some h a v e a r g u e d t h a t  Olson & B a r o u d i , 1983).  two a p p r o a c h e s ,  concluded:  both approaches  S r i n i v a s a n (1985),  may be a p p r o p r i a t e  i n an e m p i r i c a l s t u d y o f  (e.g. the  -  -  20  R e s e a r c h e r s have to be e x t r e m e l y cautious about u s i n g s u r r o g a t e measures of system e f f e c t i v e n e s s . While in certain classes of systems s t r o n g p o s i t i v e associations may e x i s t between t h e two t y p e s of measures [system usage, p e r c e i v e d e f f e c t i v e n e s s ] , in o t h e r classes of systems t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p may be n o n - e x i s t e n t . R e s e a r c h e r s will have to c l e a r l y s p e c i f y what the exact n a t u r e of the d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s a r e . S y s t e m use and system e f f e c t i v e n e s s may be i n d i c a t i n g two e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t phenomena.  Srinivasan's  f i n d i n g that  the  two measures  m i g h t n o t be t a p p i n g t h e  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 b y B a r k i a n d H u f f In  this  case,  specifically  they  examined  effectiveness by  asking  Decision  Support  studying  different  measures  measured  was  were  was  measures  user  respondents  System  "decision  report  One  system  success.  information  to  (DSS).  of  support  One o f  the  frequency  conclusion  and  perceived  while  use  was  they  used  the  that  which Barki  (1984).  success", their  satisfaction,  same  and H u f f  reached  that: the r e l a t i v e l y small c o r r e l a t i o n between u s e r information satisfaction and system use (.394), [ c o n f i r m e d ] that t h e two measures, while r e l a t e d , a r e not m e a s u r i n g t h e same t h i n g .  Given the tutes cepted  foregoing,  implementation at  upon the  this  mentation  research  indicator  of  is  that  (1986)  is  appropriate  s i t u a t i o n one  is  has  attempt  success  been  in  a  raised  Unfortunately, the  to  particular  forces which u n d e r l i e success  first  question  success.  point  particular  the  as  the  answer  measure  researching. to  of  and  w h i c h must  success  Thus,  identify  situation,  for that  t o what a c t u a l l y  the the  then  is  thrust most  to  understand  is.  as  "a  series  of  steps  taken  ac-  contingent of  imple-  appropriate the  implementation.  i n t o implementation, however,  implementation  be  understand  In order to understand research what  consti-  by  Implementation responsible  is  one  defined  organizational  should by  Nutt  agents  in  - 21 -  planned  change  (p.230).  processes  to e l i c i t  compliance  needed  to . i n s t a l l  changes"  W i t h i n i n f o r m a t i o n systems, implementation was d e f i n e d as:  an o n - g o i n g p r o c e s s w h i c h includes t h e entire development of t h e system from the original suggestion through the feasibility study, systems analysis and design, programming, training, conversion, and installation of the system ( L u c a s , 1981, p. 14).  The agents"  common  thread  planning  change,  another.  definitions  or "conversion",  I t i s seen as a r a t i o n a l  implementation therefore, is  i n both  i s a paragon  i s the idea  from  process.  "responsible  one way o f doing  In f a c t ,  of rationality.  of  Given  Lucas  these  1  d e f i n i t i o n of  characteristics,  i t might be argued t h a t the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f PWS i n t o  sometimes  not n e c e s s a r i l y  one o f planned systems  things to  organisations  implementation.  This i s  p r i m a r i l y t r u e i n t h e area o f EUC, which seems t o be a user d r i v e n phenomenon. There i s not n e c e s s a r i l y any p l a n n e d change, because t h e users r e a c t , on t h e i r own, t o the v a g a r i e s o f t h e moment and adopt PWS usage, o f t e n by a c q u i r i n g a microcomputer. is  no  Similarly,  "responsible  many IS p r o f e s s i o n a l s would argue t h a t o f t e n  agent"  involved  i n the a c q u i s i t i o n  and use o f a  there PWS.  Instead, i n many cases, t h e r e are q u i t e i r r e s p o n s i b l e agents who do not f o l l o w the t r i e d  and t r u e  rules  o f system development  and implementation.  Thus, i n  t h i s s i t u a t i o n , u s e o f the PWS i s seen by IS p r o f e s s i o n a l s as a " f a i l u r e " , not a success.  The f o r e g o i n g argument does  not i n t e n d  some systems  t o imply,  functions  w i t h r e s p e c t t o the a c q u i s i t i o n and use o f a PWS however,  that  a l l instances  f o r themselves are n e g a t i v e .  o f users  taking  over  Many o r g a n i s a t i o n s  have  r e c o g n i s e d the b e n e f i t s o f end users doing t h e i r own computing and a p p l i c a t i o n development take  over  (Davis systems  & Olson, 1985; G r e m i l l i o n development  tasks  & Pyburn,  can h e l p  1983).  to relieve  Having users  t h e shortage o f  - 22  systems  development  personnel,  t r y i n g t o communicate t h e i r  to  use  systems  by " e x p e r t s " . ised  that  Policies quality  need  mentation.  the  clients  of  focus  be t h e is  due t o  In these  those  however,  with  s i t u a t i o n does  of  most  is  seen  these  as  the  developed for  them  must be  to  user  one o f  systems. training,  the  use  is  of  imple-  measures  condition for  efforts  recogn-  planned  and o t h e r  a necessary  users  more  nevertheless,  become  implementation  users  developed  respect  situations,  the  are  it  poorly  of  and t r a n s f e r s  thought that  while perceived effectiveness  of  hand, while of  fact  from  that  its  i n t r o d u c e d as the  because  may  success.  to  encourage  s y s t e m u s a g e becomes  may o r  may  O f f i c e Automation g e n e r a l l y  is.  are  i n organisations  t y p i c a l l y i n t r o d u c e d when a n that  computer  gains  usage.  in productiv-  Furthermore,  system on an o r g a n i s a t i o n w i d e  intra-organisational  linkages  i n t e r - o r g a n i s a t i o n a l systems  be  have  the  must  be  gains  are  t h e measure o f  assumed  that  gains  hard to  measure.  implementation  success.  OA  basis,  i d e n t i f i e d and  a l s o been  " p l a n n e d c h a n g e by r e s p o n s i b l e a g e n t s " .  generally  many o f  EUC  concludes  direct  an i n t e g r a t e d  requires it  these projects  employees'  More r e c e n t l y ,  occur,  growth of  an i n d i v i d u a l ,  necessary  projects,  the  implementation projects,  opposed t o  A l l of t h i s  these  will  as  that  developed.  of  is  potentially  therefore,  the  use  the  made  t o be  requiring  oped.  It  developed than  from  task  t o an a n a l y s t ,  over these tasks,  place,  success,  result  c a n be  tends  in  and hence  other  organisation, ity  take  difficult  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  This  be  have  exist  Furthermore,  indicators  not  to  encouraged,  Thus,  they  risks  the  to the users.  c o n t r o l and a s s u r a n c e .  PWS i s  be  that  When u s e r s  certain  eliminates  i n f o r m a t i o n needs  system implementation process likely  -  devel-  W i t h many  in productivity For t h i s  reason,  23  -  Given  the  above  implementation, to  discourage  Thus,  use o f its  use  arguments, the  of  one's  the  2.4  forces  clear  that  in  the  or  which  to  promote  motivate  i n managing i t s  i n systems  case  of  a prime c o n s i d e r a t i o n , whether its  use  or  usage.  use  Some o f t h e  in  PWS  it  bo  others.  non-use  of  the  This  leads  to  implementation.  A t t i t u d e t o w a r d s u s i n g the t e c h n o l o g y ,  f o u n d t o be a p r i m a r y f a c t o r r o l e of Attitude i s  is  situations,  t e c h n o l o g y becomes a k e y f a c t o r consideration  becomes  technology  i n some  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f  it  -  w h i c h has  research  been  into  the  described below.  ATTITUDE RESEARCH Within  MIS r e s e a r c h  A t t i t u d e on s y s t e m u s e .  there  have  One o f t h e  been  several  studies  the  effects  e a r l i e r s t u d i e s was t h a t o f Schewe  who f o u n d no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n w h e t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s p r o f e s s e d a t t i t u d e towards the system. with beliefs  of  a b o u t MIS c a p a b i l i t i e s ,  used a system  it  d i d not  covary with  (1976),  and  Schewe f o u n d t h a t w h i l e u s a g e  of  their  covaried  attitudes  towards  use.  Many  other  system usage. factors the  studies,  however,  found  that  S c h u l t z and S l e v i n ( 1 9 7 5 ) f o u n d t h a t  corresponded h i g h l y w i t h  system.  have  the  attitudes  do  influence  f o u r of seven a t t i t u d i n a l  likelihood that  the  respondent would  use  Robey ( 1 9 7 9 ) 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 p e r c e i v e d 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 research  of  system  model t o  Lucas  (1978)  model  presented  users'  use.  investigate  had e a r l i e r  attitudes  Based  several  on  usage  his  findings,  questions-.  he  proposed  B a s e d on a s e r i e s  d e v e l o p e d a d e s c r i p t i v e model o f hypothesised  and p e r c e p t i o n s ,  determinants  of  t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y of  an  attitude  of  studies,  systems  systems  use,  the system,  use.  This  including situational  - 24 -  factors,  personal  system.  Of t h e s e ,  attitude  influenced use.  and  perceptions  other  found  a n d t o p management  consistent  support  f o r h i s hypothesis  More i m p o r t a n t l y , h o w e v e r ,  the role  of  he f o u n d t h a t  variables  intervening  support f o r the  between  that  attitudes  use and t h e  determinants.  systems  to  decision style,  Lucas  play  More r e c e n t  that  factors,  usage,  studies  have  especially with  also  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  respect  t o t h e PWS.  Christensen  (1987)  in  found  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 m a n a g e r s use,  Pavri  and o f  (1988)  computers the  subsequent  use o f ,  f o u n d A t t i t u d e t o have  by managers.  effect  this  their  of  Finally,  attitudes  recognition,  Support  a significant effect  Howard  on managers'  he then  a Decision  (1986)  use of  investigated  simply  System  on t h e u s e o f m i c r o recognised,  microcomputers.  various  (DSS).  hypothesised  a  priori,  Starting  with  determinants  of  Attitude.  While  this  nevertheless usage.  discussion  indicates  the  is  only  a  importance  Given A t t i t u d e ' s importance,  cursory of  review  Attitude  however,  s h o u l d have been developed about t h e c o n s t r u c t ' s  the  case.  and  Baroudi  basic  (1983),  concepts  as A t t i t u d e  and l i k e l y  different.  However,  been  1974),  treated  system  have  failed  acceptance  similar.  (Igersheim,1976),  These  some  definition.  This  it  system conseni s not  by I v e s ,  While these  t h e y s h o u l d be t r e a t e d  again as n o t e d b y Ives e t a l . ,  as e s s e n t i a l l y  to  t o d i s t i n g u i s h between  a n d User S a t i s f a c t i o n .  causally linked,  research,  respect  i n a review of the research  MIS r e s e a r c h e r s  correlated,  have  as n o t e d  with  the  i t w o u l d seem t h a t  sus  F o r example,  of  Olson such  a r e no d o u b t  as c o n c e p t u a l l y  a wide range o f  constructs  i n c l u d e f e l t need  (Guthrie,  perceived  usefulness  (Larker  &  - 25  Lessig,  1980),  feelings  -  about t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  (Maish,  1979),  chapter,  arguments  system  a n d MIS  (Swanson,1974).  appreciation  As w i l l  b e 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  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  to  more  provide  a  theoretical  Attitude with respect Reasoned which  Action  to  t o PWS u s a g e  (Fishbein  proceed.  underpinning for (Moore,  & Ajzen,  Nevertheless,  1987).  1975) even  research  the  as  need  in its  operationalisation,  minants.  recent  studies  Three  suggested, of  have  mail  and g r a p h i c s  t a n c e o f a DSS, and P a v r i  (1988)  used  a theoretical  basis  of  Reasoned  operafionalised approaches  or  item scales included work"  clearly  there  still  of  Reasoned  D a v i s (1985)  Christensen  they  defining have  been  deter-  Action,  as  examined t h e use  (1987)  studied  accep-  the g e n e r a l use o f microcomputers  showed no c o n s i s t e n c y  i n how A t t i t u d e ' s  from  determinants  were  used  the  i n how A t t i t u d e was identified  .  Their  are described below.  f i e d two g e n e r a l system,  foundation  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, a n d i n f a c t Action,  of  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  Based on a r e v i e w o f the r e l e v a n t  the  IT.  researched  Even though these s t u d i e s  Theory  the Theory  packages.  by managers.  role  and i n i d e n t i f y i n g i t s k e y  to study the acceptance of user  electronic  a  for  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 b y r e s e a r c h e r s , inconsistencies  the  S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e Theory o f  was p r o p o s e d  once  into  as  constructs,  such  items  as  Davis  (1985)  identi-  p e r c e i v e d ease o f use a n d p e r c e i v e d u s e f u l n e s s o f  the hypothesised beliefs  t o measure  MIS l i t e r a t u r e ,  which  determined A t t i t u d e .  Multiple  ease o f use a n d u s e f u l n e s s w e r e t h e n d e v e l o p e d . "using electronic  f o r perceived usefulness,  mail  gives  me more  and " l e a r n i n g to o p e r a t e  control  These o v e r my  the e l e c t r o n i c  mail  -  system  i s easy  tionalised  f o r me",  While  -  f o r p e r c e i v e d ease o f use.  u s i n g f i v e semantic  a seven-point  26  d i f f e r e n t i a l items  Davis  (1975) t o  identified  general  identify  the  an i n i t i a l  to  beliefs  particular  u s i n g the DSS. using  the  System less to  beliefs  As a r e s u l t  particular  (IFPS).  calculation  DSS  their  included* i n the  they  on  Before  t h a t h i s respondents  by F i s h b e i n and  conducting  about  his  sample i n order the  outcomes  he i d e n t i f i e d f o u r t e e n very s p e c i f i c b e l i e f s in his  study,  the  beliefs  Interactive  as  full  Financial  of  about  Planning  " u s i n g the IFPS model i m p l i e s  final  survey  were next  These e l i c i t e d b e l i e f s  q u e s t i o n n a i r e , where respondents  evaluated  by  the  on  a  "agree-disagree"  respondent  to  whether  was  multiplied  s c o r e f o r the b e l i e f .  F i n a l l y , t o o p e r a t i o n a l i s e A t t i t u d e , C h r i s t e n s e n used  identified  determinants  some v e r y  specific  of Attitude.  as u s i n g micros taries",  l i t e r a t u r e reviews  His  "allows one  or u s i n g micros  and  items s i m i l a r  overall a  t o those of Davis'.  about u s i n g microcomputers  instrument  access  as  included eight b e l i e f s ,  t o be more independent  "provides  Each  i n t e r v i e w s with managers, P a v r i (1988)  beliefs  final  scale).  i t s e v a l u a t i o n t o d e r i v e an  d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e c o n t a i n i n g seven  U s i n g both  point  as  "agreement" statement  by  seven  indicated  "negative"  also  (again  (on a seven-point  were  or  semantic  "positive"  had  review,  summation work", or " u s i n g the IFPS model makes i t easy  These b e l i e f s  were  literature  the method suggested  degree o f agreement w i t h the b e l i e f s  scale).  on . a  q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o a convenient  These i n c l u d e d such and  based  change the s t r u c t u r e o f the f i n a n c i a l model".  then  opera-  (e.g. "good-bad"), based  relevant beliefs.  study, he c i r c u l a t e d elicit  then  scale.  C h r i s t e n s e n (1987) f o l l o w e d more c l o s e l y Ajzen  A t t i t u d e was  of subordinates  to h i g h e r  quality  and  the such  secre-  information for  - 27  better  decisions".  He,  however,  A t t i t u d e as d i d the other Christensen,  he  statement  (on  (again  a  on  first a  1-7  1-7  two  scale)  These t h r e e  by  studies  much  still  and  needs  A t t i t u d e i s f o r m u l a t e d , and  being  dependent  professed  agreement with  then s y n t h e s i s e d  with  the the  from these s c a l e s  to  be  the  done  specifically are  have been made by on  forward w i t h i n MIS  to  system usage.  bring  some  i n t o how  identified  and  of  the  study  However, as  consistency  by  explicated.  into  In t h a t  theory,  p a r t i c u l a r study,  i t is  simply  theory.  In  this  way  i n a p a r t i c u l a r study.  Attitude The  will  how  not  be  a  that  signif-  rather  based  of can  the p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f s  d e f i n i n g A t t i t u d e based on  contingencies  i n the  A t t i t u d e , a l s o be  beliefs  belief outcome  mended t h a t the b e l i e f s , which are the b a s i s of the on  of  a method s i m i l a r to  desirability  i t s e f f e c t s on  to i t s formulation  gains  more d i r e c t measure  Rather, u s i n g  are marked steps  be  icant  the  a  f o r each b e l i e f .  i t s formulation,  contribute  attempt  respondent's  A t t i t u d e was  Attitude, seen,  not  researchers.  m u l t i p l i e d the  scale).  summing the s c o r e s  did  -  than  recomdefined  function  next s e c t i o n suggests a method f o r  of  doing  this.  2.5  THE  USE  As was changes.  As  OF THE defined  PWS  AS A WORK INNOVATION  earlier,  implementation i s b a s i c a l l y a process of planned  i n d i c a t e d by Nutt (1986), these changes can r e s u l t i n g from  the  involve:  1.  t e c h n i c a l innovations o f technology;  a p p l i c a t i o n and  2.  administrative innovations dealing with relationships and p r o m u l g a t i n g new r u l e s , r o l e s , procedures, or structures w i t h i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s ; and  3.  adaptation of technology or managerial competing or c o o p e r a t i n g o r g a n i s a t i o n s .  practices  used  use  by  -  As  c a n be s e e n ,  organisations. (DOI)  its  istrative IS  less,  systems  theory,  First,  innovations  with  the  that  i n general exception  described extent  below,  PWS,  or  some  3085 p u b l i c a t i o n s ,  One Kraemer  for  its  within  of  a very  as  d i f f u s i o n of innovations  studying  relationships  a process  notable  of  either  i n general.  In a  between u s e r s of  innovation.  i n interest  apparently  p u b l i s h e d MIS w o r k ,  or of  in  has n o t been  to  study  review  and  infor-  Neverthediffusion applied to  the d i f f u s i o n  by Rogers  (1983)  n o m e n t i o n i s made o f MIS n o r MS/OR among t h e  exception  governments.  assessment  DOI  model  to  the  lack  o f u s e o f DOI w i t h i n  who u s e d a DOI f r a m e w o r k e x t e n s i v e l y  interventions  ogy  on the d i f f u s i o n  Huff  & Munro  developed  of several practices.  examined  and f o u n d  by Rogers  of  (1986)  and a d o p t i o n model,  software  of of  several  organisational-level  some  evidence  also  study to  technology  developed  and r e l a t e d  (1961).  One r e c e n t  computing  Zmud  it  by Raho,  support  1982;  McFarlan,  of the technology  1983).  a s s i m i l a t i o n process  1984)  This  an  earlier  examined  the  modern  and F i e d l e r  (1987)  nature  of McFar-  (McKenney & M c F a r l a n ,  model d e s c r i b e d  based  technol-  of  the d e s c r i p t i v e  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 and P y b u r n ,  to  on t h e d i f f u s i o n Belohlav  of  among A m e r i c a n  an i n f o r m a t i o n  1983,  Perry &  the e f f e c t s  specifically  (1982,  variables  MIS i s  t o examine  lan's  stages  i n terms  implementation  increase  t h e DOI f r a m e w o r k  implementation,  innovation, both  Indeed,  recent  the  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 -  use has c r e a t e d . can be seen  a  listed.  (1979),  effects  basis  Second,  systems implementation  disciplines  therefore,  t h e PWS i s a t e c h n i c a l  its  great  local  a  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  t o d e a l w i t h t h e changed  any  policy  provide  and i t s hardware.  professionals  mation  i s very  implementation  should  o f PWS.  functions  -  F o r a number o f r e a s o n s ,  framework  diffusion,  28  essentially  the  on t h e  various degree  - 29 -  of  institutionalisation  model, which  not  the  study,  motivate  ultimate  of  an  the  technology  however,  explicitly  organisation to  works  primarily  is  addressed  t o the  diffusion  t o study implementation  implementation  MS/OR t e c h n i q u e s . izational  of MIS,  The  latter  i n n o v a t i o n " and  implementation  that  remain  the use  derson  saw  implementation  can be  DOI  completed other the  IS  to  the  model  was  (1975) w i t h r e s p e c t t o case of  use  a DOI  1987;  of DOI  Alexander  study  of  organ-  study  of  diffusion  These  PWS.  environment studied  As  who  this  the  particular  result,  were  research  explicitly  however,  of  1989),  had  also  not  of  to  are  now  identified  any  Brancheau p r i m a r i l y  adoption  a  (Moore, 1986), c o n t a c t  whose d i s s e r t a t i o n s  (communication the  in  suggestions  were a l s o u s i n g the t h e o r y  students,  t h e o r y w i t h MIS.  of PWS  phenomenon (see f o r example Hen-  d o c t o r a l students  Alexander,  i n n o v a t i o n , d a t a base machines.  the  not aware of any others who  d o c t o r a l students  adopters'  while  i n g e n e r a l , and  There have been, however, some  o f MIS  implementation.  explicit  actions),  these  organisational level,  as "a s p e c i a l  N e v e r t h e l e s s , when work on  other  (Brancheau,  potential  all  an  s u g g e s t i o n s , the v a s t m a j o r i t y of approaches  the author was model  made w i t h two  investigate  the  which  made f o r some r i g o u r i n the  viewed as  p r e s e n t a t i o n t o a consortium was  by  Furthermore,  Schultz & Slevin  was  atheoretical.  1986).  commenced i n 1986, the  process  forces  methods, by Ginzberg (1981) w i t h r e s p e c t  implementation,  of PWS  & Treacy,  applying  underlying  the  from t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e .  study of MIS  particular,  Neither  F i n a l l y , the use of a DOI  by  a call  the  at  and  In s p i t e of t h e s e views and t o the  nor  the  reached.  not at the l e v e l o f i n d i v i d u a l adopters. a l s o proposed  organisation.  addressed  innovate,  adoption/rejection decision  particular  i n the  investigated  channels, o r g a n i s a t i o n a l an  organisational level  N e v e r t h e l e s s , w h i l e these d i s s e r t a t i o n s were  - 30  concerned w i t h they  -  the d i f f u s i o n o f IT, and  used d i f f u s i o n of i n n o v a t i o n s  are o n l y p e r i p h e r a l l y r e l a t e d t o the c u r r e n t  In  any  event,  other d i s c i p l i n e s ,  given  and  seems a p p r o p r i a t e  success  the new  t o apply  accused of adopting other  the  that  DOI  theory  the  DOI  i n i t among MIS  identification  2.6  t h i s was  of PWS,  done w i t h r e s p e c t to t h i s  had  in  without  being  1980).  Among  which  affect  next  chapter  of g e n e r i c b e l i e f s section.  has  researchers, i t  month approach" (Keen,  Attitude, an o b j e c t i v e h i g h l i g h t e d i n the p r e v i o u s o u t l i n e s how  perspective  t o the d i f f u s i o n  a "framework of the  b e n e f i t s , i t allows  study.  the  found i n t e r e s t  theory,  The  research.  SUMMARY The  personal  Information  use  of  information  technology  by  individuals outside  Systems Department i s a phenomenon which has  i n the  individuals,  PWS  usage has  o f f e r e d many p o t e n t i a l advantages, whether i t be w i t h r e s p e c t t o  end  To  both o r g a n i s a t i o n s  there  and  automation of many o f f i c e  are many i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t the  functions.  acceptance of PWS  usage i s  from u n i v e r s a l , which i s c r e a t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t management problems.  tance been  years.  a p p l i c a t i o n development, or t o the  Nevertheless, far  few  considerable  attention  user  last  received  the  to i n f o r m a t i o n technology, a  reluctance  among many t o  however, i s not the  use  of  a new  phenomenon.  information  systems  Resis-  There  since  has  their  i n c e p t i o n , w i t h r e s p e c t not o n l y to hands-on use of the systems, but t o use t h e i r outputs  as w e l l .  With r e s p e c t that use  the  initial  o f the  T h i s i s the b a s i s of the implementation problem.  to the  diffusion  measure of  machine.  of  In  success  of  PWS  of  i t s implementation i s the  that a c t u a l use  in organisations,  i t can  be  seen  appropriate  i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y p r e d i c a t e d by  one's  -  Attitude  towards  done w i t h and  use  respect  of  advances, study  in  PWS  the  this  have  been  effect  there s t i l l  of PWS  -  reviewed  t o A t t i t u d e towards use  of  I t has  made t o  of i n f o r m a t i o n  a more  One  systems use.  as  an  innovation,  and  can  t h i s study.  be  seen t h a t  Thus i t may  there  i s an  object,  has  been  systems i n g e n e r a l , the  attempts, basis  Nevertheless, this  of the suggested ways of doing  i n organisations  work t h a t  theoretical  as  for  the  was  l i n e of  this  and  dis-  research  i s to view  the  thus t o draw upon the body  o f theory developed i n the d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s  It  the  c h r o n i c l e d some o f  provide  A t t i t u d e on  some of  i s much work t o be done i n couching  t h e o r e t i c a l terms.  use  chapter  in particular.  that  of  cussed,  use,  31  research.  the  PWS,  seem t o some t h a t t h i s r e s e a r c h  which  i s c e n t r a l to  i s technology  driven,  which opens i t up t o the p o t e n t i a l c r i t i c i s m s of some o b s e r v e r s :  Even to the casual observer, it quickly becomes apparent that the IS literature is technology d r i v e n . As each wave of new technology 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,  study,  i t i s not the c e n t r a l focus.  intent  of  this  viewed  as  a  systems  chapter  has  continuation  implementation.  theoretical basis for this next  chapter.  of The  been a  the  PWS  is  the  c e n t r a l object  T h i s i s use of the technology. to  long  intent  show  that  standing of  l i n e o f study.  the  the line  current of  research  to  this  Thus,  research  research, is  of  the  can  be  information  provide  a  more  This b a s i s w i l l be developed i n the  - 32 -  CHAPTER THREE T H E DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS: A T H E O R E T I C A L  Things  FRAMEWORK  d o not c h a n g e ; we c h a n g e . Thoreau,  WALDEN  SECTION A : T H E T H E O R E T I C A L MODEL  3.1  INTRODUCTION  Throughout  their  life  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 i n some way unsatisfactory.  This may result from discov-  ering that the present programme of a c t i v i t i e s i s inadequate, which leads to undertaking  a search  learning that  for a better  a superior  alternative.  course of action exists,  course i n comparison seem unsatisfactory.  It may  also  from  which makes the present  This has been termed discovery of  the "performance gap" (Zaltman, Duncan & Holbek, 1973, p.2). impetus, according to March and Simon,  result  Whatever the  once consideration of "change" over  "persistence" occurs, the process of innovation i s started. Initiation and innovation are present when change 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 n e w p e r f o r mance p r o g r a m s that h a v e not p r e v i o u s l y been p a r t of a n 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 b e 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 ing rules ( 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  corresponding variety of d i f f e r e n t meanings.  of contexts,  with  a  In a review of these contexts by  - 33 -  Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek (1973),  the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s 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 r e s u l t of t h e i r  review,  Zaltman et  d e f i n i t i o n of innovation i s the most appropriate. can be considered  a l . concluded that I t focuses on why  the  last  something  an innovation, whereas the f i r s t two d e f i n i t i o n s focus  on  the processes of invention and adoption r e s p e c t i v e l y . This l a s t d e f i n i t i o n i s close to that o f f e r e d by Rogers (1983), innovations, i n the t h i r d and  one of the pioneers  l a t e s t e d i t i o n of h i s now  i n the study  c l a s s i c book on  of 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 i t . 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 c e r t a i n channels over time among the members of a s o c i a l system" (Rogers, 1983, p.5). many e a r l y studies the d i f f u s i o n of an innovation was  In  compared to the spread  of a disease, which from the theory of epidemics follows.the c l a s s i c S-shaped  - 34 -  curve  ( F i g u r e 3-1).  late  they  tors,  or  Davies  adopted  the  innovation.  " e a r l y adopters",  and  c a t e g o r i s e d depending how  Those who  individuals  adopted  who  e a r l y or  e a r l y were the  adopted  later  were  innovalaggards.  (1979), however, c h r o n i c l e d many of the weaknesses of t h i s model.  example, not as  I n d i v i d u a l s were then  the  a l l individuals  availability  of  are e q u a l l y s u s c e p t i b l e to a p a r t i c u l a r  inoculations could  make some  initially  For  disease,  immune.  The  i n o c u l a t i o n c o u l d wear o f f , however, and thus one's immunity might change. is  difficult,  over time. to  therefore, to  In d i f f u s i o n ,  resist  an  f o r e c a s t the  the analogy  innovation.  In  any  shape the  i n f e c t i o n curve  will  It take  to immunity would be some p r e d i s p o s i t i o n  event,  because  of  the  somewhat  simplistic  approach of the " d i s e a s e " model, other models of d i f f u s i o n have been  developed  with  which  the  thrust being  to  recognise  i n f l u e n c e d by a v a r i e t y of  3.4  innovation  as  a  change process  factors.  INNOVATIVENESS At the c o n c e p t u a l  level,  i n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s the dependent v a r i a b l e c e n t r a l  t o many s t u d i e s of the d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s  (DOI). . As d e f i n e d by Rogers,  i n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s the "degree to which an i n d i v i d u a l or other u n i t of is  relatively  (1983,  earlier  p.22).  This  s e a r c h e r s , but and  is  Dowling  i n adopting definition  is  appears to capture  have  argued  new  that  ideas than  quite  other  popular  o n l y p a r t of the  this  particular  members of  among  many  adoption a  system"  diffusion  actual construct.  definition  i s , in  re-  Midgley fact,  an  o p e r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n o f the c o n s t r u c t , as i t i s couched d i r e c t l y i n terms of the construct's terms. measure,  Such and  pp. 230-232).  measurement a  (time  definition  what The  we  is  measure result  of  adoption),- not  tautological, is of  for  innovativeness" this  tautology  in  abstract  or  "innovativeness (Midgley is  that  &  conceptual i s what  Dowling, any  study  we  1978, of  - 35 -  i n n o v a t i v e n e s s u s i n g t h i s d e f i n i t i o n must be the study's  generalisability,  Midgley individual  and makes  experience  belief  of  is  i s also  held  As  relative very  by  will  be  evidence, to  be  but  a  greater For  at best.  degree of  to  the  or  personality lesser  example,  i s a "normally  which  in  viewing  discussed  trait  degree"  Hurt,  Joseph  distributed,  innovativeness  below,  considerable  that innovativeness innovation.  respect are  an  communicated  "that  and  This  Cook  ( 1977)  underlying personality  as  general  research  are  t o c e r t a i n behaviours,  u n w i l l i n g to  a  i s not a g e n e r a l Examples  all  (p.235).  i n t e r p r e t e d as a w i l l i n g n e s s to change" (p.59).  a particular  products,  "the  limits  T h i s d e f i n i t i o n r e f l e c t s t h e i r view t h a t  generalised  to  as  independently  a  others.  problems  innovative with  nology  possess  innovativeness  however,  anecdotal  innovativeness  decisions  essentially  c o n s t r u c t , which may  trait.  define  innovation  society  argue that  are,  and makes theory g e n e r a t i o n suspect  of o t h e r s " (1978, p.235).  innovativeness members  Dowling  i n n o v a t i o n s p e c i f i c , which  personality  exits,  trait,  l e g i o n of  There  as w e l l  but  rather i s  those  who  such as u s i n g h i g h  change i n other  areas,  as  such as  are tech-  eating  habits.  A second problem w i t h it  does  tions,  i n c l u d e the the  verbally  authors  between  experience  with  Midgley  vital define  new  Dowling's d e f i n i t i o n  communications  individual the  and  aspect  communicated consumers  product  in  of  the  experience  [which] everyday  diffusion  as  of  "information  is generally usage"  i s that  based  (p.235).  on  although innovapassed actual  Linking  the  communicated i n f o r m a t i o n t o a c t u a l usage of the i n n o v a t i o n seems to be o v e r l y limiting. nications  For  example,  process,  can  social  norms, which are developed  heavily  influence  behaviour,  through the  i n c l u d i n g the  commuuse  of  - 36  innovations.  S u c h norms  having experienced  assume  by  the  a  of  others,  most  of  to  Although likely  it  more  to  an  of  been  effective  whom w i l l  that  the  generally than  accepted  other  i n one  time purchasers  case  interpersonal the  marketing influences to  some  problems  whatever  the r e s u l t s i c t r  that  effects  the  ever  w h i c h i n many  is probably  heavily  safe  influenced  experienced  an  emotional  aborimpact  required in  nor  for  the  order  opinion  interpersonal c o m m u n i c a t i o n  In r e s e a r c h i n g  six various  communication  were  equal;  m o d e l he was  media,  and  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 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 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 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  different  consumer p r o d u c t s , was  more  i n the  attempting  d i d or d i d not demonstrate,  down p l a y i n g  the  An e x a m p l e i s p r o v i d e d b y a  w e r e more i n f l u e n t i a l " ( p . 3 9 ) .  with  have  communications  of  media;  is  innovation,  media can c r e a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s .  cases  It  norm  others.  i n f l u e n c e on f i r s t two  the  abortion,  usage i s not n e c e s s a r i l y  (1976).  "in  not  of  i n n o v a t i o n s do n o t h a v e t h e  s t u d y conducted by M i d g l e y h i m s e l f  that  is  many a n t i - a b o r t i o n i s t s  o p i n i o n about  influence  has  i n f l u e n c e of other  One s u c h e x a m p l e  majority of  form  h o l d e r t o be a b l e  is  behaviour  the p o i n t remains  person  communicators  an i n n o v a t i v e b i r t h c o n t r o l m e t h o d .  While the vast  abortion,  for  the  attitudes  tion. of  that  w i t h o u t the  the behaviour.  ways c a n be v i e w e d as to  can a r i s e  -  effective  types he  Although Midgley to  develop,  he  found  than  remaining three  of  the cases  admitted  concluded,  that: o n e t y p e o t h e r . A o r p o r a t e a n d i n f l u e n  o f n y n d c e  (p.39).  What seems t o be amount  and t y p e o f  important,  therefore,  in defining innovativeness  i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d b y an i n d i v i d u a l ,  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 .  relative  to  is'the others,  - 37  A  further  d i f f i c u l t y with  innovativeness and n o t an  to  related  actual  individual  arrived the  is  at  Midgley's  essentially  to  use o f i n n o v a t i o n s .  ever  adopts  independently.  innovation.  -  and  the It  Dowling's  independence o f d e c i s i o n making,  apparently  does  decisions  may a l w a y s  be  apparently  fundamental  flaw only  in  " d e g r e e t o w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l  is  perhaps  adding the  receptive  t o new i d e a s " m i g h t s t r e n g t h e n  added c o m p l i c a t i o n " ( p . 2 3 7 ) .  are  d o u b t and t h e i r  is  taken  to  ideas  seems  would  appear  mean to  a  be  decision quite  that  this  to  adopt,  simply  is  meaning of  the  exclusion  illogical.  receptivity  decision  the d e f i n i t i o n , but that  " p r e s s i n g p o i n t t o make t h i s the  any  whether  independent this  that  matter  The  address  rather  not  but  They argue t h a t  of  that  innovation,  The a u t h o r s  benefit  is  an  passing.  given the  definition  As  the  a  reject  t h e r e was no  Even i f  the  authors  "innovation decision" of  first  essential  to  is  receptivity level  to  definition,  component  of  new it  innovative-  ness.  In offered  spite by  generally other  of  Midgley  one  innovativeness  to  the  Rogers  is  a  strengths  made  of  relative  s h o u l d be  maintained  Rogers'  d e f i n i t i o n , innovativeness i s  Innovativeness use of  of the  by M i d g l e y  is  Rogers'  construct,  the  members  d e f i n i t i o n of  d e f i n i t i o n g i v e n by  capture  novel  the  is  the  Dowling,  with  point  be  points  problems their  of  below,  of  and  accepted  hand,  discussed  some  the  in  and  referent  or  an  social  aspect  as  is  that  which,  well  the  which  an  adopting as  (Moore,  it  the  shows reasons  i n order  to  strength  of  study:  unit  compared 1987).  the  On  for  Thus, as  that  weak.  follows in this  process(es), system  taken  conceptually  definition.  Dowling,  to  well  definition  d e f i n e d as  degree  product(s)  any  very  innovativeness  to  makes other  - 38 -  This of  d e f i n i t i o n i s conceptually broad i n that  the innovativeness  ness,  or  time  definition.  of  construct.  adoption  The e a r l i e r  of  The f i r s t an  dimension i s  innovation,  one a d o p t s  i t taps  which  is  adopter  A second  innovativeness adopted should  innovation the  novel  is  may a l r e a d y be w e l l  type  of use which  the t h i r d  the degree  i d e n t i f i e d which  ly.  of  This  or  constitutes  use  the  solve  itself  entrenched  t h e more  system.  Thus,  i n the d e f i n i t i o n i s  is  to  process  social  Rogers'  use  of  a  a novel might  no  i n the s o c i a l  innovativeness.  use  previously  problem.  It  longer  be  an  It  is  system.  The g r e a t e r  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  the  dimension of  to which  the  The r e l a t i v e l y t h e more  construct.  It  whose u s e r e m a i n s  over  innovativeness  innovation is more  an a d o p t e r  dimension,  would time,  constant  it  facilitate,  reflected  put to use, or uses  i n n o v a t i v e w o u l d he b e .  examined t h i s  changing usage p a t t e r n s ers  the. crux  the  would  innovativeness.  given use domain,  of  product  adoptive innovative-  adopter.  captured  domain o r  as  innovativeness.  part  use  that  Finally, tion  p.288).  noted it  the  construct  1980,  i n a novel  d e g r e e o f b e h a v i o u r change be t h e  the  (Hirschman,  innovation be  i s more i n n o v a t i v e t h a n a l a t e r  dimension of  dimensions  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 ,  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 an e a r l i e r  several  defini-  implementation  an i n n o v a t i o n w i t h i n A l t h o u g h no s t u d i e s  a  were  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 for  example,  or of the d i f f e r e n c e s  and l a t e r  i n the  adopters  investigations  between  of  early  adopt-  whose u s e m i g h t grow  rapid-  - 39  The c a p t u r i n g o f the of  definition.  post-adoption behaviour  F o r example,  is  believed to  T o r n a t z k y and K l e i n  (1982)  innovativeness which would i n c l u d e such behaviour,  scales  to  nition  measure  above  strengths. other it  -  the  degree  calls  First,  for  it  vative, more  and  use  innovative  "referent  of  social  the  departments  more  he  be.  system",  the  the  definition  that  an  relating  of  ing' s point),  s i m p l y because n o v e l use would imply t h a t  experience  communicate.  As  an  tiveness, see  the  consider benefits  balances, This  is  example  as  interrelation  the  three  be  among t h e  month-end  If  dimensions  dimensions and  PWS  behaviours.  to  acquire  to  use  implementation are  important  in  particular,  of  is  Dowlhave  innova-  A user  may  month-end  a  purpose. different  would occur.  Final-  same p u r p o s e s ,  when s t u d y i n g t h e different  the  would  calculate  innovativeness  as  to  and  (PWS).  r e l a t i v e l y more f o r t h e  the  decisions  a PWS f o r t h a t  innovativeness  inno-  play  making  t h e u s e r were t h e n to a c q u i r e  spreadsheet  balances,  general  u n d e r l i e the v a r i o u s  first  word p r o c e s s i n g ,  adopter used the  spreadsheets  can  few o t h e r s  using  electronic  be uses,  (Midgley*s  of  s u c h as  in  the  others  of  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  innovativeness  innovations  of  of  idea  the  adoptive innovativeness.  calculating three  the  and t h e r e f o r e  application, ly,  of  experience  Secondly,  innovativeness  independently  communicated  the  other  adopters  one t o  factors  defi-  has  individual  environmental  includes  measure  The  also  for  of  developing  a property of  Finally,  to  definition  a  or whole o r g a n i s a t i o n s .  by  that  for  innovation.  c a n be  innovations  role  called  required i n order  Thirdly,  a strength  and s u g g e s t e d  acknowledged.  the  the  The  innovativeness  innovation is  that  would  implementation of measures.  s u c h as  the  implies  such  shows t h a t  than i n d i v i d u a l s ,  shows t h a t  of  be  occurs. adoption  motivations  All of may  - 40  As was m e n t i o n e d ess  & Perreault,  other  members  relative  above,  1981,  of  innovativeness  p.70).  one's social  innovativeness  First,  system.  across  be  innovative  pants  during  a  in  heat  one  wave  b a n k i n g community i n Bermuda. in  relative  terms  the  p. 71).  Individual  concept  ing very  units  may b e  cited  high technology  This,  to  with  earlier  to  an  content  d o m a i n was  various  applications.  was d e f i n e d as  with  to  entrenched  not  very  across be  a  narrowly  Secondly,  knowledge workers  the  This  respect  to  Again, very  various  bounded  in  across  the  p.72).  What  wearing  short  among  themselves,  which  & Perreault,  means t h a t  certain  this  is  with  adopt-  respect to eating  in  respect  confounding v a r i a b l e s  in  the  to  include  or  current the  even  within  study.  settings.  and the to  habits.  PWS i t s e l f  into  studies.  First,  r e f e r e n c e domain ( p o p u l a t i o n o f  in office  product  some  illustrated  is  1981,  innovations,  innovative  studies,  the  may v a r y  a continuum from h i g h  may i n t r o d u c e  problem  may v a r y  innovativeness  (Bigoness  along  but u n i n n o v a t i v e w i t h  innovativeness  to  behaviour  innovations  being  1981,  (Bigon-  relative  words,  bankers'  domain where  others.  individuals  results  should  as  b e i n g more u n i v e r s a l .  respect of  i n other  such  the  may v a r y  innovative  products,  compare  however,  to  quite  The r e l a t i v i t y o f attempts  respect  innovativeness  specificity,  uninnovative  example  with  The s e c o n d  or,  & Perreault,  setting, is  is  p a r t i c u l a r behaviours  systems,  London,  construct"  innovativeness  content domain of the innovation  called  or  is  a "relative  one's  (Bigoness  social in  is  Thus,  social  reference domain of the innovator might  -  and  the its  interest)  - 41 -  3.5  THE MARKET PERSPECTIVE To d a t e ,  trate  research  on e i t h e r  innovations. potential more in  the characteristics The aim has been  adopters  adoptable.  that  p.5).  on t h e d i f f u s i o n  they  o f i n n o v a t i o n s has tended t o  of  to  adopters  attempt  more i n n o v a t i v e t h a n o t h e r s ,  These  approaches  concentrate  have  been  t h e supply s i d e  he t e r m s t h e market perspective,  i n that  by  available  a n i n n o v a t i o n i s made  spective takes will,  the view that  but rather  ities.  These  within  affect  the rate  constraints. of  factors,  ers'  of diffusion  F o r example, including  accessibility  these,  t h e agency  innovation  The  Brown  to  makes  product  t h e adoption perspective,  o f the process  to potential  (Brown, 1981, which  the processes  adopters.  This  per-  d o n o t a c t s o much o u t o f  a given set of constraints  free  and o p p o r t u n -  l e v e l o f awareness o f , a n d t h e i r  has argued  that  a "diffusion  agency" can of  these  t o a n 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  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 -  t h e market  can attempt  some  o r w h a t makes some i n n o v a t i o n s  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  access  of  itself.  to affect  By m a n i p u l a t i n g f a c t o r s  both the rate  such  as  and d i r e c t i o n t h a t  an  takes.  market  found across  perspective  organisations  the  set of constraints  has  been  argued  shows  1975),  that  different  rates  d e p e n d i n g o n t h e way e a c h  within  which  potential  i n t h e DOI l i t e r a t u r e  from f o c u s s i n g on t h e i n d i v i d u a l Burnham,  what  i t e x p l i c i t l y addresses  include the p o t e n t i a l adopters'  access t o , t h e i n n o v a t i o n .  determine  s h o u l d a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d ,  p o t e n t i a l adopters  make c h o i c e s  or the characteristics  termed  o n t h e demand a s p e c t s  Brown h a s a r g u e d t h a t  which  to  concen-  that  of diffusion  organisation  adopters  operate.  diffusion  research  may be  manipulates In fact, should  it  shift  adopter t o the o r g a n i s a t i o n ( e . g . Baldridge &  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  developed that,  (e.g.  Amabile,  i n many s t u d i e s ,  predictors examples  of  see  1988).  Ettlie  The  differences  innovativeness et  al.  thrust  behind  these  in organisational  than  1984;  -  individual  arguments  context  adopter  Kimberly & Evanisko,  have been  variables  1981;  has  been better  (for  some  Robertson & Wind,  1980).  Zaltman  et  organisational as  al.  (1973)  several  l e v e l which could affect  independent  innovativeness  variables  (pp.134-155).  at  the  They  are  follows:  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 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.  Formalisation: and p r o c e d u r e s  3.  C e n t r a l i s a t i o n : the degree t o which the locus o f a u t h o r i t y d e c i s i o n making are h i g h e r i n the o r g a n i s a t i o n (pp.143-146).  and  4.  Interpersonal interpersonal  the  5.  A b i l i t y to Deal with C o n f l i c t :  The  interaction  R e l a t i o n s : the degree o f r e l a t i o n s (pp.146-148).  between  d e p e n d i n g on t h e  may c h a n g e .  At the  expected  will  that  facilitate  stages,  the  over  time  diffusion  it  is  levels  of  process,  variables  on  the  and t h e  and  (awareness,  complexity,  that  innovativeness  desired  pervasiveness  persuasion  implementation  reverse  and i s  degree of  effects  are  complex.  o f each  variable  and d e c i s i o n )  f o r m a l i s a t i o n and  the  the  operates  rules  (pp.148-154).  During  expected  way a n o r g a n i s a t i o n depending  organ-  impersonality within  stage of d i f f u s i o n , the  innovativeness.  however,  Thus,  these  i n i t i a t i o n stages  lower  i n the  t h e e m p h a s i s p l a c e d on f o l l o w i n g s p e c i f i c i n performing one's job (pp.138-143).  Furthermore,  is  propose  of  this  structured  and will  centralisation confirmation be  may h a v e  of  diffusion,  the  innovation.  the  it  the  case.  to  change  stage  of  the  Furthermore,  the  - 43 -  ability  of  w i d e l y the  Many  the  organisation  innovation is  of  the  to  handle  eventually  arguments  for  conflict  certain  innovations,  and  focussing  when  on  differences  studying  s t u d y c u r r e n t l y underway ( A l e x a n d e r ,  could also  organisations be  considered  an example  as  a  Nevertheless, the  as  individual  literature contexts, adopters. would  has  been  adopter  that,  significant  facts  i d e n t i f y i n g the  salient  adoption of the  PWS.  Support Introduction mainly  impact  is  have  been  for of  this  affects  actual  to  will  be  at  approach  also  DOI  adopted  of  individual  remains of  especially  t o be  PWS.  The  if  PWS.  learned OA a n d  at EUC  or  "market",  a c c e p t a n c e o f PWS by  individual  below,  appears  organisational  norms  adopter  in  the  an e x a m p l e  variables  and a t t i t u d e s  initially  individual  is  innovations.  O f f i c e A u t o m a t i o n (OA)  organisational,  an a p p r o a c h  the  level  subject of another  collection  individual  support  variables  the  i n the  discussed  influencing all  given  make  rate of d i f f u s i o n  innovation,  acceptance  within exist  a  level  much s t i l l  the  PWS i n an o r g a n i s a t i o n  generally  e f f e c t on t h e  as  d i f f u s i o n by These  even  differences  Furthermore,  a d o p t i n g PWS.  opposed  about  the  by i n d i v i d u a l s .  argued e a r l i e r ,  level  and  variables  T h e s e i n n o v a t i o n s must be  an o r g a n i s a t i o n a l as  i n the  organisational  1989).  opposed to  of  "whole",  indicate  affect  which  as  o n how w e l l  organisational  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 ,  by e n t i r e  impact  diffused.  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 of  will  of  towards  concentrating  l e v e l which  research  on  affect  literature.  a process  innovation  organisation's  administrative  core.  . Its  primary  on knowledge w o r k e r s '  work p r o c e s s e s ,  with  a much  smaller  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  found between  innovations  which  affect  organisation.  the  Differences  administrative  core  and  - 44  those  which  affect  1980;  Daft,  1978;  Zmud  (1984)  the  technology  -  core  Kimberly & Evanisko,  found  that  use  f u n c t i o n of the manager's r e c e p t i v i t y towards  of  an  organisations  1981;  a n d Zmud,  administrative  knowledge of  change  of  the  (p.736).  K i m b e r l y and E v a n i s k o a l s o  contextual  variables  were  tions lend  than  of  support  adopter  3.6  technological to  initially  predictors  innovations  (1981,  concentrating  When be  examining given  adoption  on  or  as  the  to  adoption  how  rejection  an i n d i v i d u a l  free  or  an  decision.  may h a v e  of  largely  process  organisational  These  adoption  at  a  organisational  administrative  p.705).  PWS  rejection individual  For  decided that  job,  b u t may n o t be a b l e  this  case,  because  adoption"  course,  using  of  has  "symbolic  individual  to  the  the  not  to  convert  to  other  than  who c o n v e r t e d  to  but  the  and  innova-  findings  respect  their  t o word p r o c e s s i n g .  is  to an  carry  all  individual  PWS w o u l d be  attitudes  actual  but  if  to  PWS,  job.  In  this  he  had  cases from  out  case,  exist  personal decide  asset  p o l i c y prevents  has  free  may  a definite  to  not. one  to  rejection  his  it.  In  adopt,  would  where  in  "sym-  Similarly,  choice,  traditional  Symbolic  his  W i t h r e s p e c t t o PWS,  and d e c i s i o n  adoption  consideration  individual  because corporate  word p r o c e s s i n g  quit  innovations,  from d o i n g s o .  may o c c u r .  innovation, With  it  of  example,  the  favourable  rejection"  be u s e d .  want  adopt  occurred  would not  choice,  was  USAGE  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  bolic  Specifically,  and t h a t  found that  al.,  level.  VOLUNTARINESS OF PWS  must  effective  1982).  et  impact on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  innovation  less  Aiken  innovation  innovation,  had no s i g n i f i c a n t  (see  the  observe  an  innovation  some t y p i s t s  t y p i n g but occurred  of  for  did  had  no  those  - 45  In  situations  decision,  where  cognitive  can e i t h e r  change  required  the  adopt  of  the  the  might  of  to  cause  (Benson, of  fail  vine.  such  of  the  so  use  called  or  sabotage  in  Dowling  forty-five  the  These  systems  (1980)  were  of  designed  literally  have  because  organisation, attitude.  been  b l o w away h i s  Innovation research  also  use  and hence n o t  Furthermore,  to  reported,  such  lesser  dictates  have  one  and u s e  described  may be  The  projects  address  company  wither  that  problems  a  on  sabotage  interference  using  the  targeted  may e v e n  of v i o l e n c e  worker  actively  been  systems  it  innovation,  adopters  staff  reports  opinion  to  adopters  to  wanted  contrary  and t h e  directly  as  a  OA p r o j e c t s .  information  Extreme  an  he  or sur-  in  the  against  the  shotgun  to  terminal.  dissonance the  of  deliberate  hospital  dissonance  innovation or  examples  targeted  reported  d e l i v e r y of medical care to p a t i e n t s . technology  the  projects, the  As  f o r c e d t o use the  hand, dissonant  "failures"  support  percent  develop  a  1957).  who i n i t i a l l y  a c q u i r i n g microcomputers  On t h e o t h e r  p.31),  i n n o v a t i o n , or attempt  either  PWS,  symbolic  1971,  innovation  towards  case of  the  Festinger,  rejector,  adopter,  attitude  I n e v e n more e x t r e m e c a s e s ,  systems.  veyed.  p.38).  (see  towards the  might  to  & Shoemaker,  overcome  dissonant  a dissonant  In  contrary  circumvent o r g a n i s a t i o n a l  covertly  the to  to  a positive  1983,  many  individuals the  hand,  rejectors  to  could not,  avoid using i t .  dissonant  The  is  dissonance"  attitude  behaviour.  develop  (Rogers  order  his  i n n o v a t i o n but  either  policy  alter  On t h e o t h e r  attempt  occurs  in  i n n o v a t i o n , or attempt  anyway.  behaviour  from " c o g n i t i v e  dissonance,  individual  to  required  innovation dissonance  term o b v i o u s l y adapted with  the  -  the  is or be  an  important  non-use solely  degree of  of  a  related  consideration PWS to  might the  voluntariness  of  be  in  the  mandated  individual's PWS u s e  has  current by  the  underlying been  found  - 46  to  be  a major  determinant  considerations, use o f  the  tariness  care  PWS.  tariness.  Thus,  actual  was t a k e n  As w i t h  which w i l l  of  most  influence  for  the  -  usage  in this factors,  study  to  it  not  behaviour,  purposes  of  (Kraemer,  is but  this  1986).  measure the  rather  study,  Because of  the  voluntariness  actual degree the  these of  of  volun-  perception of  volun-  Voluntariness  is  defined  as  follows:  the degree to which use of the PWS is perceived as being voluntary, or of free will.  Voluntariness:  3.7  THE STATE OF DIFFUSION THEORY Whereas  as  was  d i f f u s i o n theory  discussed  disciplines. science  Chapter  not  Two,  i n the  also  questioned  from  various the  decade  used to  use  is  theoretical  studies  showed  value  of  quite  they  (1976,  the  significant  however,  a great  also  research  in  many  fashionable  p.700).  variance.  extent w i t h i n  prevalent  " p o s s i b l y t h e most  from 1965-1975  the  research,  been  its  Downs & Mohr c a l l e d i t  areas"  criticising  in  has  in At  of  MIS, other  social  Nevertheless, that the  the same  they  findings time  as  said:  This popularity [of diffusion research] is not s u r p r i s i n g . 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 specialized (p.700). Rogers believes and  the  later  responded to the  status• of  o p i n i o n s o f Downs and M o h r ,  d i f f u s i o n research  to  be  "impressive"  stating that (1983,  that:  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,  he  p.880),  -. 47  -  diffusion generalizations are as reliable as research fields, especially given the diverse tific disciplines, methodologies, and types and adopting systems involved in diffusion p.132). Given Rogers' has  a  somewhat  Mohr.  stake  more  in diffusion  positive  Nevertheless,  it  does  to the p r e s c r i p t i o n s o f f e r e d  Their likely they  first  arise are  not. this  Mohr,  p.702).  tions,  so  Bigoness the is  that  is  respect  to  reflect  the  that  cerned with  can  in their  one  is  the  earlier  their  improving the  of  all  i n the  with  about  area"  research  how  attend  b e i n g s i m i l a r , when with  respect  a taxonomy o f a  type o f  to  one  (Downs & innova-  innovation.  a "conceptual paradigm"  p.73).  innovativeness  is  earlier,  i n a h i g h l y s p e c i f i e d content  for  innovativeness only  These  arguments  relative  this  with  study  to  the  is  domain, i n that  conit  is  i n n o v a t i o n , t h e PWS.  Downs a n d Mohr  two o r g a n i s a t i o n s "  and  findings  for  (1981,  he  research.  i d e n t i f y i n g innovativeness  As m e n t i o n e d  a specific  and  innovations  (1976,  is  that  p . 703).  "an  thing  that  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 " e x p l a i n e d as f o l l o w s :  as  against  to o f f e r  Downs  other  call  measured  than  concerns,  innovative  for  s u r p r i s i n g that  research  same  are  not  "a s i n g l e product c r i t e r i o n of  innovation.  examining the d i f f u s i o n of  concern  be  attempt  concerned  innovativeness  to  be  true  s p e c i f i e d content  discussion  A second  for  Downs a n d Mohr t h e r e f o r e  highly  c o n t e n t domain o f  may  necessarily  i n n o v a t i o n s , agree: if  the  consider  article  is  some i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s  adopter  innovativeness  appropriate  towards  us t o  in their  an  not  and P e r r e a u l t ,  study of  behove  it  i n n o v a t i o n s have been t r e a t e d  Although  innovation, 1976,  attitude  concern i s that  because a l l  research,  those in other range of scienof innovations research (1983,  innovation is  This  is  based  attributes.  rarely on the These  the fact  terms  - 48  -  Galileo, Descartes, Locke and others divided the qualities of objects and s u b s t a n c e s into two classes which Locke designated as p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y . Secondary qualities are those which are p e r c e i v e d b y the s e n s e s , and so may be differently estimated by different percipients; primary qualities are those which are e s s e n t i a l to t h e o b j e c t o r s u b s t a n c e a n d so a r e i n h e r e n t in it w h e t h e r t h e y are p e r c e i v e d or not (1976, p . 7 0 2 ) .  Thus, into  p r i m a r y and  division,  disposable adopter,  is  the  used,  income  It  for  can  used.  of  be  argued  on b u y i n g b e h a v i o u r .  it  is  not  p.703).  among  a  more  perceptions  current  research.  hypothesised perceived  of As  are  Downs  i n the  p.709).  be of or  focus  They  which although  These  are:  is  discussed the  rate  secondary of  this  interrelated  of  innovations  effect  of  price  "costly"  to  which  cost  that  if  the in  one  has  studies  this  chapter,  of  of  greatest  were  to  be  studies  were  used,  interaction used  in  the  one  of  the  are  the  innovations  the  levels  across  approach  to  potential  the  s t u d y i n g the  diffusion  qualities,  relative  qualities  very  actual  relative  in findings  by  this  innovation.  These  study.  a n d Mohr a d d r e s s  what  of  i d e n t i f y three  if  secondary  later  of  the  d e p e n d i n g on t h e i r  possible  This  operationalisation  used,  1. 2.  will  the  appear  If  is  of  attribute  inconsistency  theory  innovations.  characteristics,  Finally,  (1976,  general  determinants  characteristics  ferences  (1976,  attributes  a primary q u a l i t y i f  Downs a n d Mohr a r g u e  would  then  is  relative  the  however,  the  example  This  another,  o n l y on p r i m a r y q u a l i t i e s , resolvable  an  what m i g h t  based  be  of  secondary  to  that  As  cost.  a  Thus,  "inexpensive"  is  a division  attributes.  attribute but  is  c o u l d be  income.  effect  secondary  consider  only  price  of  Downs a n d Mohr c a l l  the  they  call  dependent  instability variable,  common o p e r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n s  may a l s o  have  time of f i r s t u s e of t h e i n n o v a t i o n , simple adoption versus non-adoption  of  tapped  the  to  dif-  innovativeness w h i c h had  different  innovation,  due  been  behaviours.  and  - 49  -  3. degree of implementation of the innovation. For allows and  example, inferences  Downs to  and  Mohr  be made a b o u t  reference group behaviour"  the  possible  careful  inferences,  explication  understood. different that  Where  sets of  this  is  innovativeness will  be  so  the  point  that  the  is  any  of  of  concerns. used  discussion  that  that  type  types  shown i n S e c t i o n  three  4.14,  operationalisation  communication  the the  last  will  Whatever  variable  being  may  processes,  not.  dependent  innovativeness  be  needs  studied  is  impacted  by  c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be t a k e n t o of  research  results.  in Section  different  these  first  innovativeness  As was d i s c u s s e d  reflects  the  patterns,  but  independent v a r i a b l e s , in  that  "search  (p.709),  different  noted  addressed these  argue  three  3.4,  dimensions  This the  or  dimensions were  ensure  study  has  definition  behaviours. explicitly  of As  opera-  t i o n a l i s e d and measured. 3.8  THE INNOVATION D E C I S I O N MODEL  3.8.1  Stages i n the Diffusion  individuals potential study,  of  to  is  an  adopter  to  a  (for  a  model Rogers'  review,  of  the  is  see  decision this  Zaltman  et  a  process  is  al.,  process,  follows:  as  it  the  cumulative  Therefore, is  such model.  a p p e a l i n g because  as  from  vital  the  process  element  required.  decisions  in  The  by any  the  1973).  The  reflects  defined  by  the  decision model stages  Simon  as  (1977).  diffusion this  models  have  a stage  the  a  of  developed of  of  which  purpose  Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , s e v e r a l  t y p i c a l l y conceptualise  decision  model a r e  this  one  results  innovation.  model o f  suggest  developed which  p.165)  the  makes  been  (1983,  innovation  adopt  and h e n c e  section  Innovation Decision  by  more  The  process Rogers general  stages  in  - 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 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  2.  P e r s u a s i o n : o c c u r s when toward the i n n o v a t i o n ;  3.  D e c i s i o n : o c c u r s when t h e d e c i s i o n maker e n g a g e s i n activities t h a t l e a d t o a c h o i c e t o adopt or r e j e c t the i n n o v a t i o n ;  4.  Implementation: t o u s e ; and  5.  C o n f i r m a t i o n : 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 of 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 exposed t o c o n f l i c t i n g messages.  Figure the This  loop  refines number  of  of  the  sources, set  trial it  is  a method o f be  decision  this  potential  toward the  i n c l u d i n g a t r i a l of  the  as  (see  g a i n i n g more carried  Persuasion  out,  The  more  an  innovation  The  search  loop because i t the  and h e n c e  it  the  is  first  innovation.  c a n n o t be  as tap  a  Robert-  considered A trial  considered  he  research-  1970;  is  is  stages.  can  W h i l e some  K l o n g l a n & Coward,  about  attitude  information  information  innovation.  search  information  an  and K n o w l e d g e  gathering  innovation.  i n c l u d e d here i n the  actually  the  stage  forms  the i n n o functions;  some m o d i f i c a t i o n s .  adopter's  a separate  maker  d e c i s i o n maker p u t s  model w i t h  s e a r c h loop b e t w e e n  attitude  1971),  may n o t  a  the  o c c u r s when t h e  illustrates  reflects  his  have  son, be  3-2  addition  ers  -  a  may  to or  distinct  stage.  The  second  mentation This  as  either  definition  process latest  (Rogers  model.  not  loop,  just from  is a  considered  that is  Confirmation back  Confirmation i n the  but  for  just  IV,  use  to  of  was  Decision,  of  environment  also  the  stage  from  been  a  Finally,  a  added  augments t h e  his as  rejection,  completeness. has  imple-  innovation.  dropped  i n c l u s i o n of for  define  the  depiction  some r e a s o n  explicit  post-decision  Stage  original  necessary to  at  not  in Roger's  1971),  decision,  model  rejection,  included  & Shoemaker, It  to  adoption o r  had been  version.  behaviour second  modification  to  effects  the of  - 51  the  initial  loop  persuasion  also  reverse  3.8.2  highlights  his  initial  "sources", the  Rogers'  effects er's  i n the  model,  the  stages  teristics  are  made, from  o r by other  intervening teristics the  of  the  the  includes are  may  could  by c o g n i t i v e  dissonance  Thus,  the  while  adopter  variables.  They  are are  and b y c o m m u n i c a t i o n s  innovation  is  and  of  intended its  captured  actually  the  affected received both to  precursor  the  by  the  change  setting  This  actually  the  the  the  network  have adopt-  channel second there  over  and  set  of  are  the  charac-  time.  These  a decision  is  innovation  or  and  personal  the PCI are  actually  adopter's  personal  innovation,  i n n o v a t i o n and i t s objective  as  charac-  well  as  precursor  replace).  The  are  primary q u a l i t i e s ,  their  to  perceived  of  variables,  about  a  in after  from use  the  in  Finally,  communications  independent  One i s  message,  Because  innovation.  sources.  innovation  maker  hypothesised  source,  also  new i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d  of  are  characteristics.  they  objective characteristics  which  variables  assessing  characteristics  decision  innovation decision.  factors  of the  perceptions, caused  the  personal  characteristics  of  which  Recipient  adopters'  sets  of  network,  perceived  c h a n g e s may be  the  be o p e r a t i v e .  the Innovation D e c i s i o n  several  various  effects.  variables,  that  still  decision.  communications  recipient  w h i c h may i n f a c t  possibility  Variables Affecting In  -  by  (that  characteristics as  defined  earlier.  3.9  THE PERCEIVED CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATIONS  3.9.1  General Based on a r e v i e w o f  general  characteristics  of  a number o f  studies,  innovations,  as  Rogers  (1983) i d e n t i f i e d  perceived  by  the  five  potential  52  -  adopters.  -  These were:  Relative Advantage: t h e d e g r e e to which an innovation 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 its p r e c u r s o r . Compatibility: t h e d e g r e e to which an innovation is 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 with t h e e x i s t i n g v a l u e s , needs, a n d past e x p e r i e n c e s of potential a d o p t e r s . Complexity: t h e d e g r e e to which an innovation is p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g d i f f i c u l t to use. Observability: t h e d e g r e e to which t h e results of an innovation a r e o b s e r v a b l e to o t h e r s . Trialability: t h e d e g r e e to which an innovation may be e x p e r i m e n t e d with b e f o r e adoption.  The c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e s s substantial labels  "perceived".  ability  characteristics  of innovations,  tiveness  adoptability  perceptions  respect  of  the  From e i t h e r  teristics  apparent  by  more p e o p l e .  difference  s h o u l d a l s o be n o t e d t h a t  initially  is  obviously  dependent  used  to  intertwined,  upon  perspective,  relative Rogers'  and a p p l i c a b l e .  advantage over another, On t h e o t h e r another  the  On t h e o t h e r  innovation's  r e a d i l y than  received  i s assumed.  study  the  number  of  advantage,  F o r example,  Adopt-  i n that  an  innova-  individual's  compatibility,  classification  adopt-  i n d i v i d u a l s who  be a f u n c t i o n o f t h e  of perceived  and so charac-  i f one i n n o v a t i o n has  be a d o p t e d more q u i c k l y a n d  i f one i n d i v i d u a l  c a n , he l i k e l y  i s the point of reference:  however,  h a n d , an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  i t likely will  hand,  the  c o u l d be p r e c e d e d b y t h e q u a l i f i e r ,  t o an i n n o v a t i o n w i l l  s h o u l d be v a l i d  an  more  are  i t i s worth adopting.  with  were  have  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 .  and i n n o v a t i v e n e s s  decide that  tage  characteristics  It  T h i s was n o t done f o r e a s e o f r e a d i n g , b u t r a t h e r  innovation's  forth.  of these  perceived  ability  of these f i v e a t t r i b u t e s  s u p p o r t i n a number o f s t u d i e s .  f o r each  The  and v a l i d i t y  will  can p e r c e i v e  be more  i n t e r - i n n o v a t i o n versus  an advan-  innovative.  The  inter-adopter.  - 53  For If  purposes  the  more  of  interest  is  successful  used.  If,  others  do n o t ,  sections  of  PWS, b o t h  i n why a p a r t i c u l a r  than  however,  Each  s t u d y i n g the  another,  the  then  interest  is  then innovativeness  the  perceived  i n terms  -  of  turn,  are with  Furthermore,  3.9.2  tion  presented an  Relative  Advantage  Relative  advantage  is  perceived  p.213).  While  within  as  often  in  terms  Thus,  it  seems t o  of  t o be t h e  managerial  accomplishment  be  Information created  or  software  is  should  be  a d o p t PWS w h e r e a s  focus.  are  discussed  in  Each  for  the  are the  perceived  d i s c u s s i n g them i n  characteristic added  Image,  following  is  to  this  covered  Rogers'  in  list.  r e f o r m u l a t e d as Ease o f Use.  better  than  often  relative  the  degree  using  couched  advantage  profitability,  essentially  individuals  The r e a s o n s  d e f i n e d as  is  applicable.  perspective  i n n o v a t i o n , and t h u s  3.10.2.  are  to  its in  of  w h i c h u s i n g an i n n o v a -  precursor economic  or  innovations  is  time  an e f f e c t i v e n e s s  savings,  or  (Rogers,  1983,  social  terms,  expressed labour  and e f f i c i e n c y  most  savings.  issue.  This  c a s e w i t h r e s p e c t t o PWS u s a g e .  ranks, of  the  increased  Many i n d i v i d u a l s or  being  "advantage"  organisations  appears  is  PWS h a r d w a r e  s h o u l d be t h e  characteristic,  Complexity has been  points  adoptability  characteristics  Section  additional  of  i n why some  a c t u a l l y using the  in  type  the  characteristics of innovating ( P C I ) . fashion  reference  within have  their  Services  organisations, become  tasks.  Department  especially  dependent  Increasing (ISD)  for  on  among t h e  computer  demands support  are  professional  services being  i n the  the  on  the  which  has  made  applications,  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 development  for  ISD ( A l l o w a y &  - 54  Quillard, es",  1983).  s u c h as  forth,  have  1986, to  This power,  The u s e r  ISD's  the  power t o  of  In both  get  results  efficient,  For  those  support  closer the  whose  staff,  PWS u s e r s to  what  may f e e l  they  rather  ways  is  completing  PWS  many o f  which  alleviate a n d make  much o f the  the  less  McNurlin, analysts  feel  is  p.483).  that  social  contacts,  Furthermore,  i n t r o d u c t i o n of  workers'  and g i v e  the  the  performance  their  The  use  role  argue  tasks, other  and n o t  be  own w o r k ,  held  become  own w o r d  "job  pro-  in  that  and  more  description",  and e f f i c i e n t of  word  of  than  processing  support  that  workers  automation  provide job  hand,  discussed  in  PWS may e l i m i n a t e  organisation  (Keen,  is  & McNurlin,  more e f f e c t i v e ,  one  and l o w e r r e l a t i v e  as  ISD,  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 ,  these  On t h e  "ap-  has b e e n some d e b a t e o n how t h e  observers  of  own  shorter.  of  PWS.  filing,  Some  boring routine  fewer  Canning, 1985b), monitor  as t y p i n g ,  and so  PWS s i m p l y t o  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 " m o r e o f  variety, 1986,  are  example,  there  u s i n g the  efficient.  ISD,  by d o i n g t h e i r  part  (for  Nevertheless,  automated.  w o r k e r more  women o f f i c e  work,  (e.g.  c a n be  the  as b o t h more e f f e c t i v e  task  support worker p e r c e i v e s  to p r o v i d e such services  that  the  (Sprague  want by d o i n g t h e i r  use  than t y p e w r i t e r s ) .  average  and  of  of  they  a task  the  "packag-  generators,  developing their  may a d o p t  example  time to complete  of  report  g r o w t h o f PWS u s a g e  for  computer  a p p l i c a t i o n backlog i n the  "independent"  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 previous  generation  commence  S i m i l a r l y , some u s e r s  cases,  i n that  later  combined w i t h the  c a n become  schedule.  independent  cessing.  is  many  the h y p o t h e s i s e d c auses of the  the  they  hand,  database query languages,  now g i v e n u s e r s  p.288).  more  other  spreadsheets,  plications". one o f  On t h e  -  1981).  a greater Added  to  could  enrichment,  survey the  reported  same b o r i n g  pay"  (Sprague &  Chapter  Two,  some  many w o r k e r s '  jobs  a b i l i t y to this  are  control concerns  - 55  about  the  1987).  A l l of  attitude them. been  potentially these  towards  In  this  adverse  health  issues  could  adopting  study,  likely  and  about  of  extensive  have  cause  a  some  negative  avoidance b e l i e f s .  One o f  as  PWS u s a g e  negative  effect  individuals  the  strength of these b e l i e f s  effects the  of  goals  compared t o the  to  (Susser, on  one's  avoid  using  PWS u s a g e  of  this  "positive"  have  study  is  relative  Image Image i s  defined  c e i v e d t o enhance c a n be  as  one's  considered  to  the  p l a c e d by R o g e r s .  be  an advantage as  to  gain  social  have found t h e  effect  be  as  considered  Holloway high  (1977),  schools,  had expected result, when  he  a  of  it  developing  a d o p t i n g an  the  in  p.215).  innovations  the  emerged  as  a component  to  be  it  has  was  " u n d o u b t e d l y one o f  the  to  a d o p t an i n n o v a t i o n fact,  some  decision.  pedagogical factor  For  enough  innovation even  adopted  by  the  'status'  bureaucratic  to  example,  though  o f R e l a t i v e Advantage ( p . 6 1 ) . given to  is  researchers  enough o r d i f f e r e n t  a distinct  must be  been  it  In  a  per-  B e c a u s e Image  innovation,  adoption  d i f f u s i o n of  "consideration  an i n n o v a t i o n i s  R e l a t i v e Advantage, w h e r e  any i n d i v i d u a l  (1983,  factor  status  w o u l d be  argued that  in  almost  examining  of  i n one's s o c i a l system.  Image t o be s i g n i f i c a n t  found that that  which use  according to Rogers,  status"  separate  in  to  an a s p e c t o f  Nevertheless,  most i m p o r t a n t m o t i v a t i o n s f o r desire  degree  image o r s t a t u s  i n c l u d e d b y some r e s e a r c h e r s  the  effects  beliefs!  advantage  3.9.3  PWS  beliefs  l a b e l l e d computer  to assess the  a  -  in he  As a  category  organizations"  (p.137).  Whether where  the  Image i s  theoretical  considered separately bounds  of  f r o m R e l a t i v e Advantage d e p e n d s  "advantage"  are  set.  Evidence  exists  on  that  - 56  there  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 e n h a n c e m e n t "  acquisition, business tives  if  and managers are  McNurlin,  1986,  its  not  use,  magazines  computers  been  once  potentially  being  the  has  In  circumvent  take  fact,  the  significant  argued that of  noses  at  even  the  negative  term  image  Image  u s i n g PWS,  status  "where  symbols"  "typing".  a  execu-  personal  (Sprague  Thus,  i n c l u d e d as  the  leading  " k e y b o a r d i n g " seems  of  was  because  keyboard devices,  on an a u r a o f  effects,  in this  been  advantages  l o o k e d down t h e i r  is  with  adopters  (Rogers,  or  ideas  cy, which indicates  to  &  have  because  of  separate  per-  study.  Compatibility argued that  degree  the  that  1983,  its  t h e g r o w t h i n PWS u s a g e  others.  This  clusters"  is  experiences  This  concept  ties  operate  i n at  i n the  least  computers"  (Sprague & M c N u r l i n ,  same m a n n e r ,  1983,  (Watson,  (Hirschman, 1980).  i s one o f 1986,  p.226),  the  prima-  it to For  copes  1972).  has  been  increased example,  hypothesised causes  p.287).  Second i s  the  one may t r i g g e r  the  of  idea  where s i m i l a r i n n o v a t i o n s  and a d o p t i o n o f  s u p p o r t e d by a s t u d y o f  the  of  successfully  First,  of  comfortable  to that  i n n o v a t i o n ' s domain leads  p o t e n t i a l advantages  (Rogers,  two ways.  perceived  and needs  t o be most  a pattern which i s u s u a l l y persistent  "growing f a m i l i a r i t y with  often viewed i n the  past  P e o p l e seem  familiar.  previous experience  "technology  p.223).  an i n n o v a t i o n i s  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  seems t o  to recognise  t o which use o f  existing values,  which are  with a s i t u a t i o n sets  ability  the  consistent  with things  of  It  component t o  Compatibility  potential  of  discuss  p.287).  Compatibility  the  a PWS.  now b e g i n n i n g t o  coined to  3.9.4  of  often  ceived characteristic  as  -  are  adoption  a d o p t i o n o f home c o m p u t e r s ,  in  - 57  which  the  w i t h the  use  of  several  similar  individuals  Others,  as  was  their  work f o r  types  of  have  had  discussed some  exposure  albeit  could  lead  experiences,  innovation includes  are  (Dickerson & Gentry,  to  computers  have  been  to  the  in  highly  1983).  school  receiving  through t h i r d  values  that  the degree  perceived  both  implementing  computer  parties.  idea of  and  college.  support  Nevertheless,  u s i n g PWS b e c o m i n g  in  these  more  com-  and needs.  the the  ideas  as  t o w h i c h l e a r n i n g t o u s e and a c t u a l l y u s i n g an being  will  innovation  adopt  appears  to  learn  Casting  this  it. to  The use  perceived  o r i e n t a t i o n of the p o s i t i v e terms,  difficult  "contained" (Zaltman  u s i n g an i n n o v a t i o n a p p e a r s  vidual  an  to  reverse  in  the  et  al.,  be,  the  of  this  innovation,  characteristic  construct.  the as  Because the  i t was d e c i d e d t o u s e t h e  is  a perceived  development  points liness"  of  characteristic applications  o n w h i c h most of t h e i r  developers  products.  that for  has  (Rogers,  1983,  innovation,  and  1973, less  p.39). likely  argument more  Ease  is  Use  on  the  The  it  is  it  the is  i n the  received  lay users.  and v e n d o r s  In  simply  one is  the  indi-  easier be  it  used. the  couched  PWS.  attention  of  in  construct.  d e c i s i o n to use  fact,  of  complex  reverses  considerable  concentrate  ease  an  to  same o r i e n t a t i o n f o r t h i s  factor  This  more that  that  likely  of  p.230).  remainder of the PCI are  Ease o f Use seems t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t  the  correlated  Ease o f Use Complexity i s  It  products  may be g a i n e d t h r o u g h o n e ' s w o r k a n d e d u c a t i o n .  earlier,  time,  experiences  p a t i b l e with one's  3.9.5  high technology  d e c i s i o n t o b u y a home c o m p u t e r  E x p e r i e n c e w i t h computers Many  -  in  the  selling  "user  friend-  - 58  3.9.6  Observability Observability  innovation 1983,  are  This  of the  p. 39).  The  Tangible  results  this  justification  3.9.7  degree to which the r e s u l t s  tap  o f u s i n g an  a n d communicable t o o t h e r s  two  aspects  of  the  more  more  more  may p l a y  an  results  likely  uncertain  organisations  the  than  the  requires  important if  role  the  the  general  to  results.  some  in  is  the  results  be  1973, can  be  adopted.  Because  form o f  con-  al.,  innovation  innovation  intangible  often  r e q u i r e d i s much e a s i e r  of  (Rogers,  acqui-  justification,  adoption of  of u s i n g the  PWS.  Any  PWS a r e  both  communicable.  Trialability is  the  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 n n o v a t i o n on a l i m i t e d b a s i s  discussed tion.  earlier,  a  No m a t t e r  a p p l i c a t i o n of samples"  a trial  of  the  reversibility, bility,  of  adopting i t  increase  one's  this  the  is  he may t r y  (Rogers,  1983,  knowledge  about  are  Also the  ability  w h i c h can  be  of  concepts  relate  to  ability  in  break  the  to  its  everyday  the  notion  reverse down a  adopted p i e c e m e a l to  it  one's  larger  (Zaltman  adopter's  et  the  As  innova-  be t r i e d  diffusion.  marketing  of  p.231).  out  t h a n one w h i c h  cannot  p r o v i d e d u n s o l i c i t e d to  tied  to  if  r i s k which i n h i b i t s  principle exists  new p r o d u c t s  which  feels  c a n be t r i e d s h o u l d be more a d o p t a b l e  components these  helps  a degree of  product.  which i s  before  how g o o d an i n n o v a t i o n m i g h t b e ,  adoption carries  "free  trial  An i n n o v a t i o n t h a t  cannot.  of  to  the  the  seem l e s s  Trialability  its  that  demonstrated,  PWS w i t h i n  and  the  being visible  seems  is  characteristic  visible  as  idea  argument  or  of  d e f i n e d as  t a n g i b i l i t y or demonstrability of results (Zaltman et  measured  sition  is  perceived  p . 232).  struct  an  -  Evidence  efforts,  allow the  t r i a l a b i l i t y is  out,  where  consumer that  of  decision,  and  divisi-  innovation  into  smaller  al.,  ability  to  1973,  p.42).  return  to  All the  - 59  -  p r e - a d o p t i o n s i t u a t i o n at minimal c o s t or r i s k . expected  t o p l a y an i m p o r t a n t r o l e  recognised  this,  and t h o s e  i n the  attempting  p u t i n g o f t e n have a p o l i c y of  Again,  a d o p t i o n o f PWS.  to  foster  the  3.10  THEORY OF REASONED ACTION  3.10.1  General  formation  two  and/or  stages  and a t t i t u d e  retical  underpinnings  considerable  of  change to  attention  Cacioppo,  1981).  This  attitudes,  and  behaviours.  learning theory, theory.  Action  be  innovation attitudes  literature study.  and r e s e a r c h  Reasoned  to  of  the  Theory of  (R-A theory)  the  confirmation  suasion  quite  (for  theory  parallels It  helps  tion,  with define  is the  very  examined t o  One  theory is  specifies  Fishbein  value  the  communications  received  models  of  consistency  adoption or r e j e c t i o n  of  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  B e h a v i o u r (B)  overt  the  involve  been  results  the  per-  research  theo-  see  (1975) Petty  change,  &  beliefs,  Reasoned-Action  theory,  the  receiving  between  attitude  com-  p.15).  and A j z e n ' s  relationships  other  in  between about  has  have  theory such  as  and a t t r i b u t i o n  areas,  and  recently  1985).  applicable  linkages  research  show  1987,  is  trial  provide further  Fishbein's  Ajzen  theory,  al.,  innovation,  which  and  the  current  i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n model  the  personal  process  the  was  a d i s c u s s i o n of  h a s b e e n a p p l i e d w i t h i n MIS ( D a v i s ,  theory  growth of  decision  R-A t h e o r y has been used i n a v a r i e t y o f  R-A  Organisations  (Munro et  towards  support  s i m i l a r to  expectancy  characteristic  "immediate a v a i l a b i l i t y for examination or  o f EUC [ E n d U s e r C o m p u t i n g ] h a r d w a r e a n d s o f t w a r e "  Because  this  the  is  the It  is  because  of  i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure  perceptions  using  innovation.  (as  research  about  innovation, based  on the  d e t e r m i n e d by h i s  u s i n g the and  the  3-2).  innovaeventual  proposition  intention to  its  that  perform  - 60 -  that behaviour.  As i s further explained below, the B e h a v i o u r a l I n t e n t i o n ( B l )  in turn is a function of two factors.  The f i r s t i s the i n d i v i d u a l ' s A t t i t u d e  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  A t t i t u d e Towards t h e Behaviour  R-A theory  states  that  the a t t i t u d e towards  the behaviour,  A^, i s a  function of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s e x p e c t a t i o n that the behaviour act w i l l certain outcomes,  lead to  and a weighted e v a l u a t i o n of those outcomes. The formation  of A„ then would be determined by the following equation: A  B  = I(b.e.)  b. = the expectation of the i t h outcome e. = the evaluation of the i t h outcome l  In their early formulations, as well as i n those of other was represented  Attitude  originally  interest  ( A ) , not towards  because,  as argued by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980, p . 8 ) , the attitude towards an  Q  as the attitude  the behaviour (A^).  towards  researchers,  the object  of  The reformulation occurred  object can frequently d i f f e r from the attitude towards a particular behaviour concerning that object.  The example they c i t e  i s the potential difference  that may exist between an i n d i v i d u a l ' s attitude towards "blacks" (the object) and  his attitude  towards  " h i r i n g blacks" (the behaviour).  An employer who  d i s l i k e s blacks may nevertheless believe that h i r i n g blacks w i l l p o s i t i v e than negative r e s u l t s . be p o s i t i v e .  bring more  Thus his attitude towards h i r i n g blacks w i l l  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 i n t u i t i v e appeal as well.  This study, therefore,  centrated on the attitudes towards u s i n g PWS, not towards PWS per se.  con-  - 61  Given iour,  that  one o f  stated  is  Attitude  the major  -  formed from the  tasks  is  to  various  B e l i e f s about  i d e n t i f y what t h e  relevant  the  beliefs  behav-  are.  As  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 use the  the  free response  behaviour beliefs  in  in  procedure  that  the  is  ceived  the  of  in  o n e does  Relative beliefs  the  the  Advantage about  which  tics  are  use,  trial  the  Thus,  considered or  determine  Model,  only  however, not  will  A problem,  however,  are  with  in  to the  to  list  with  this  from  p r o b l e m was the  is  about  tend  switches  this  simple  of  of  It  form o f  with  salient obviated  the  the  Per-  be  this  as  being  study,  of  the  the  the  better  and were  the  itself.  easily  be  definition  of  couched  in  of  degree  using  its  characteris-  adopters'  redefined  terms  "the  than  perceived  potential  to  innovation  i n n o v a t i o n can  example, to  respect  w o u l d t h e n be d e f i n e d as  innovation,  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Innovating.  the  rewording  perspective the  to  For  is perceived of  defined  respect  outcomes.  purposes  from the  observation  respondents  beliefs  Characteristics  innovation the  the b e l i e f s  respondent  these  beliefs  the i n n o v a t i o n .  b e l i e f s about  for  salient  list  s t u d y , however,  defined  adopting,  needs  that  know when t h e  has  the  subject  salience.  a d o p t i n g an i n n o v a t i o n .  using  precursor".  not  Perceived of  to  assumed  Within this  R-A  actually  terms  is  relative  DOI r e s e a r c h  Nevertheless,  ceived  of  Characteristics of  outcomes  to  It  beliefs.  in  suggest  format of h a v i n g the  order  that  Beliefs  recast  they  question.  to non-salient in  methods  as  personal the  Per-  -  3.10.3  Subjective  As  d e f i n e d by A j z e n  ],  which  referents The  are  (the  second  his  j's),  and F i s h b e i n  component  beliefs.  The  MC.'s J  and combined t o  beliefs  is  office.  is  the  do w i t h  form the  NB^'s  Subjective  individual's  are  Norm ( S N )  "normative  "important others", to  then  comply"  w e i g h t e d by  shopping.  On t h e  to  finish  In  any  a task,  event,  each of h i s  referents  them.  In  this  systems  with several  I n any e v e n t ,  the  two  which  is  the  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  at  the  not t h e i r  actual  wants  expectations,  him to  h a n d , he may t h i n k h i s boss  his  referents,  his  his w i f e expects  him  work l a t e expects  so  she  him t o  can  stay  SN b y w e i g h t i n g what  w i s h e s h i m t o do b y t h e system  boss  referents:  he  desire  would  however, the  he  rest. thinks  t o go a l o n g w i t h e a c h  follow  the  stronger  i n t e g r a t i o n becomes  go late  r e a l l y w a n t s h i m t o go home a n d  formulates  referent  with  respective  s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t  The i n d i v i d u a l may b e l i e v e t h a t  individual  (MC )  the  even though the  the  salient  is  even though she  other  beliefs"  or  their  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  come home o n t i m e ,  a  it  expect,  It  is  a particular behaviour.  "motivation to  o v e r a l l SN.  F o r example,  the  respect  individual's  individual  w i f e and h i s s u p e r v i s o r . to  (1980),  about what h i s  him t o  the  p e r c e p t i o n o f what o t h e r s f o r the SN.  The f i r s t  expect  these  basis  -  Norm  f u n c t i o n o f two c o m p o n e n t s . [(NB)  62  MC.  of In  more c o m p l e x .  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).]  It  can  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  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 than the out by A j z e n and F i s h b e i n ( 1 9 8 0 ) , to  refer  iours.  to  a broad range  The s u b j e c t i v e  of  that  general  sociologists  p e r m i s s i b l e but  n o r m , on t h e o t h e r  the  subjective  norm  v i e w o f norms.  hand,  is  necessarily  of  required  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  more  As p o i n t e d  have used the concepts not  is  norms behav-  perception  - 63 -  that  an  important  particular the  behaviour.  subjective  social  other  norm,  norms t h a t  Social i n that  a particular  thus  t h e two a r e n o t  the  norms  performance,  may s e r v e  an i n d i v i d u a l  an i m p o r t a n t  less,  3.10.4  expects  other  expectation  or  as  might  one o f infer  has a p a r t i c u l a r  may a l s o  non-performance,  run contrary  of  the determinants  f r o m t h e more  a of  general  expectation.  Neverthe-  to the s o c i a l  norm, and  interchangeable.  B e h a v i o u r a l I n t e n t i o n and Behaviour  The  Behavioural  Intention  evaluation of both the a t t i t u d e  (Bl),  as  towards  mentioned  before,  the behaviour  is  the  (A„) and t h e  weighted subjective  D  norm  (SN).  The a c t u a l  Behaviour  (B)  then,  according  ( 1 9 7 5 ) 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  to  Fishbein  and A j z e n  formula:  B = B l = W-jCAg) + W (SN) 2  W^ a n d  are  the  relative  weights  given  each  component  by the  individual.  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 B e h a v i o u r a l I n t e n t i o n i n t h a t several (Ajzen  external  factors  & Fishbein,  may b e p r e v e n t e d PWS u s a g e ,  this  1980,  pp.47-51).  by others corresponds  voluntariness  that  This provides  further  usage.  may i n t e r v e n e  between One s u c h  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 factor  from implementing h i s  is  that  intention.  to the discussion e a r l i e r  With  individual respect  to  r e g a r d i n g the degree  of  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 impetus  the  the innovation.  f o r measuring the perceived v o l u n t a r i n e s s  o f PWS  - 64  3.10.5  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 Reasoned-Action Theory  Links  c a n be made b e t w e e n  R-A model. the  First,  actual  is  (the  it  to  d i f f u s i o n of  c a n be s e e n  adoption or  tion corresponds tion  rejection  the  actual  to the  to  certain  characteristics difficult, various  weightings,  reflect  the  reflect  individual  as  whether  Secondly,  the  reflect  might  norms,  in  individual's be  use  of. the  The I n n o v a t i o n D e c i s i o n summary,  potential  use  empirical questions  the of  study  of  The  as  and s o (the For  be  forth.  to  or  would  Finally,  the  and  by  be the  W's),  MC's would  referent  groups,  one's  peers.  make d e c i s i o n s  either  Finally,  the  i n the domain o f t h e easier,  The  perceived  it  MC's,  example,  management  w h i c h c o u l d be  Intention  the  whether  different  tendency  innova-  t h e Behaviour  to  e^'s,  be  more  e^'s to  could similar  innovation  compatible,  and  so  tested.  Model the  a model w h i c h  adopters.  that  i n d i v i d u a l s have had w i t h r e s p e c t  innovation to  3.10.6  of  by  the  the  Inten-  innovation decision.  i n f l u e n c e d by t h e m .  experiences  and  during which the  such  complying with  the  These are  by the  forth  influenced  or to  or r e j e c t  correspond  characteristics.  forth.  tated  so  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  perceive  In  These  more  capture  the d i f f e r e n t  innovations.  is  process  (trialable),  and  differences  W's  independently of  personal  one  the  adopt  innovation (PCl's),  evaluations  adopters'  either  b^'s).  reversible  theory  Behavioural  b a s e d on t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s  (the  u s i n g the  advantageous,  Next,  is  (DOI)  a n i n n o v a t i o n , and t h e  P e r s u a s i o n Stage of the  outcomes  of  innovations  t h e Behaviour i n t h e R - A m o d e l w o u l d  d e c i s i o n to  Attitude towards the behaviour leads  that of  innovation decision).  formed corresponds  such  -  brief  d i f f u s i o n of captures review  the above  innovations  w o u l d be  underlying decision shows  that  the  faciliprocesses  theory  being  - 65 -  developed  in  diffusion  research.  It  is  Norm,  as  is  Figure  in  adaptation  of  model  earlier.  Reasoned Thus,  the  mirrors  potential Action  the  that  of  persuasion  of  the  Subjective  should  be  explicitly  effects  model,  i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n model used i n  Reasoned  contains  the  four  Action  sets  These  include  the  characteristics,  and the  objective  precursor.  captured  within  innovating. decision  The  perceived  the  Attitude  model  model,  the  however,  interactions effects  and  SN  of  as  the  model.  It  is  this  illustrated  in  variables  as  discussed  communications  network,  his  personal  characteristics Towards  that  it  decision act  adopting or  makes  the  a  Furthermore,  it  variables.  the  as  and  (PCl's)  beliefs  deviation  recognizes  all illustrated,  innovation  innovation  major  explicitly  rejecting  both the  (Attitude)  intervening  are  of  of  Adopting  process.  as  among t h e v a r i a b l e s actually  independent  characteristics  illustrated in  Attitude  of  adopter's  The  S u b j e c t i v e Norms i n both  the  ways  3-3.  The  its  many  that  the  i n a n y DOI s t u d y . an  in  however,  highlighted  considered study  felt,  research  are about  from  Rogers'  the  influence  can  be  The  of  seen  that  hypothesised  i n c l u d i n g the  i n n o v a t i o n on b o t h  "feedback" the  and  SN  Attitude.  Attitude i s tion  of  the  sor,  as  well  One's the  an  objective as  personal  innovation,  these  other  an i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e characteristics  of  both  communications  one  has  from  characteristics, one's  variables  i n that  such  as  seeking  so  an e v e n t u a l  intervening variable  that  i n that  it  is  the  formed from  considera-  i n n o v a t i o n and i t s about  experience  behaviour, attitude  formed  is  received  previous  novelty  it  and is  so  the  innovation.  i n the  forth  domain  interact  formulated.  i n a s i m i l a r way.  precur-  As  The  of  with SN  is  discussed  -  in  Section  and  the  3.10.3,  it  motivation  beliefs  contains  to  comply  two e l e m e n t s , [(MC)^'s]  are perceptions o f what o n e ' s  a number o f w a y s , others,  or  with  normative b e l i e f s  those  referents  of  then p l a y a r o l e  the  referents'  beliefs.  expect,  The  normative  w h i c h may be f o r m e d i n  from the  behaviour.  i n the weightings  [(NB)^'s]  referents  One's  (MC's) of the  or  personal  from char-  v a r i o u s expecta-  (NB's).  tions  3.10.7  Use o f 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 which  used R-A t h e o r y .  Pavri  (1988).  Acceptance  similar  this  to  innovations examine mation  Davis Model  study.  model  the  These  First,  Technology  as  effects  include (1985)  The he  a theoretical system  Davis  (1985),  thrust  made  no  basis  of  i n the Davis'  reference  for  his  characteristics  on  were i d e n t i f i e d  Christensen  used R-A theory  (TAM).  Although  of  previous dissertations  development research  to  the  research, user  (1987),  and of  is  very  diffusion  his  goal  acceptance  of  a  of  was  to  infor-  technology.  Davis  initially  testing of  software,  package.  constructed  software.  either  rationale  for  new s y s t e m subjects  model i n the  context  of  user  acceptance software  W i t h i n TAM, D a v i s s p e c i f i c a l l y examined t h e perceived usefulness and  the  include  his  w h e r e i n p o t e n t i a l u s e r s w e r e i n t r o d u c e d t o a new  p e r c e i v e d ease o f use o f using  the  i n c l u d i n g communications r e c e i v e d  by o b s e r v a t i o n  acteristics  -  66  the  software  Although Subjective  o m i t t i n g the  (prototype)  p e r t a i n i n g to  for the  based Norm  SN was the  as  the  explicitly or  that  first  determinants  the since  time,  expectations  of  on  of  R-A theory,  Behavioural the  an a t t i t u d e  subjects  their  salient  TAM d i d  Intention. w o u l d be  " n o i n f o r m a t i o n [was]  towards  Davis' seeing  available  referents  not  a to  regarding  - 67  their  usage  model  must  expected  of  the  be  target  very  that  norms  t e c h n o l o g y must e x i s t  Davis' his  specific,  or  about  argued that  the  beliefs  t o some  of  for  acceptance  span  form  an  such  testing an  behaviour.  This  it  based  must  time  be  to  form  Intention  is  eliminated, and  thus  the  frame  can  be  a user  using  within  generic  an  an  on  two  and  form such  significant  to  reach  a  user  thus  seems  or  technology would  between  an  an  case,  the  it  is  information  (p.38). the  A t t i t u d e was  used  as  irrelevant the  Intention  as  Davis'  SN a n d  is  intention.  time the  a  model  to for  "accidental",  is  Attitude.  Behaviour  in  required  subject  has  the  formulated.  If  d e t e r m i n e d by the  A t t i t u d e and a c t u a l  He  decision  predictor  the behaviour i s whether  on  He d e c i d e d t h a t  have  Nevertheless,  based  important  not  components,  i n TAM, t h e n t h e linkage  the  organisation  software  to  intention.  intention  an  is  B e h a v i o u r a l I n t e n t i o n was  r e a s o n i n g seems o d d , as u n l e s s on  this  required  of the  context,  intention,  based as  for  If  extent.  time  s u c h as w h e t h e r t o become the  p. 36).  e l i m i n a t i n g the  the  time  (1985,  technology  rationale  consideration  system"  -  the  SN  is  Attitude only,  can  be  made  di-  rectly.  Finally,  Davis'  mation technology able  evidence  influence  the  use  of  seems o v e r l y l i m i t e d .  within  the  decision  to  d i f f u s i o n o f PWS, t h e r e f o r e , in  that  it  adheres  o n l y two p e r c e i v e d  DOI use  reject  differs  more e x p l i c i t l y t o  t i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of  As was d i s c u s s e d ,  literature or  characteristics  that new  a  number  systems.  of  there of This  is  the  infor-  consider-  characteristics study  on  the  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 the  R-A model,  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  and makes  of u s i n g the  a more  exhaus-  technology.  - 68  Christensen identify the  (1987),  any " g e n e r i c "  prescriptions  of  do  respondents  to  indicate  particular  DSS.  The to  this,  been  argued,  based  it  he what  was  Chapter  basis  of  Ajzen, a  Two,  and  used  not  very  in  the  the  belief which  beliefs  scales.  more  general  should provide greater  approach of external  followed  asked of  use  of  Thus,  to  a  correthese as  identifying  validity  the  using  which  The  to  elicitation  approach very technology s p e c i f i c . the  he  outcomes  specific  Davis'  attempt  Rather,  Attitude.  b e l i e v e d w o u l d be  items  did  p r e l i m i n a r y survey  fourteen  individual  believed  o n DOI t h e o r y  and  they  makes t h i s  is  the  in  conducted  result  the  particular beliefs  as  Fishbein  To  closely  discussed  beliefs  technique.  spond  as  -  has  beliefs  the  current  study.  Finally, way in  as  (1988)  Christensen.  Pavri's  Davis  Pavri  was  and C h r i s t e n s e n .  to the b e l i e f s  scale.  One  study  Olson  and  systems  Ives  identified specific  that  he  Rather,  which  (1986),  d i d not he  i n d i r e c t l y used  who  C h a p t e r Two,  satisfaction" this  is  analysis  indicated  investigated  reflects  R-A theory.  was  a curious that  it  directly  synthesised  d e v e l o p m e n t on s y s t e m u s a g e .  information  beliefs,  much i n t h e  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 ,  approach  final  also  did  akin  the  have  an  effect case,  Attitude.  assumption,  difference as  Attitude,  A t t i t u d e by a d d i n g t h e  R-A Theory  In t h i s to  measure  the  of  on  that  user  of  While,  Baroudi,  involvement  as  the  usage,  did  scores  they postulated that  nevertheless, effect  was  same  "user  discussed  results  which  of  they  in  in path  claim  - 69  The u s e o f R - A t h e o r y current  approach.  determine beliefs, theory,  i n these previous  The major  the appropriate or  perceived  this  -  difference  belief  studies  in this  structure.  characteristics  provides v a l i d i t y to the  study  i s the use of theory  By t a p p i n g as  o f innovating,  study should provide a stronger  basis  a l l of  the  to  relevant  identified  f o r the study of  i n DOI  disparate  technologies.  S E C T I O N  3.11  B:  T H E R E S E A R C H  M O D E L  GENERAL  The  i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n model  general.  It  hypothesised including Adopter,  specifies  four  to  on t h e  the  impact  Precursor.  general  Communications  and t h e  Objective  These  operate  (ID Model) of  sets  innovation  decision  Characteristics  3-3  independent  of  clearly  variables  the  are  Intention), of  Innovation  variables,  very  that  Characteristics  both  two i n t e r v e n i n g  is  (Behavioural  and Personal  Network  through  i n Figure  the  the  and i t s  Subjective  Norm a n d t h e A t t i t u d e Towards Adopting.  It  i s obvious  oped f o r each whole  model  tion. to  set of variables  is  a project  The i n i t i a l  have  a  major  Innovativeness. appear (SN) in  from t h e b r e a d t h  that  impact Because  attempting  much b e y o n d  t h e scope  s h o u l d be t o on t h e of  actual  their  role  identify  of  s u c h an i m p a c t .  usage  of  the  Furthermore,  innovation  (see  c o u l d be  o f one p a r t i c u l a r those  Behaviour, in  that  devel-  to validate or investigate  the  variables  which  decision  t h e A t t i t u d e Towards A d o p t i n g ( A t t i t u d e ) ,  c o u l d have terms  thrust  that  of the propositions  in  investiga-  which  this  appear  study  process,  it  is  would  a n d t h e S u b j e c t i v e Norm  Innovativeness h a s b e e n Section  the  3.4).  It  defined  may  also,  - 70  therefore, as  be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d  discussed i n Sections  the  impact  has  on  that  each  3.6  of  by t h e  and 3 . 1 0 . 4 .  these  I n n o v a t i v e n e s s , as  -  three  Thus,  factors,  illustrated  F o c u s s i n g on t h e s e v a r i a b l e s  degree  in  of  the  focus  (SN,  the  Voluntariness of of  this  Attitude,  Research  allows i n v e s t i g a t i o n of  study i s  on  Voluntariness),  Model  the  usage,  in  Figure  research  3-4.  questions  as  o u t l i n e d i n C h a p t e r One.  It  s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t  research  design.  theoretical. construct  First,  reflecting  example, tion.  This  Today,  for  several  I n n o v a t i v e n e s s as  defined  for  most  uses  functions  on  one  of  the  based PWS.  respect  both  on t i m e o f  first  use  to  effects  will  m e d i a t e d by o t h e r  of  variable  the  This would  f o r the  not  only  is  a  respondent would  be  the  actual  to  complex  and p r e s e n t . use of long  the  innova-  aspect of  past. Second,  functions  each  For  since  obviously stretch  Implementation I n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s Again,  and  different  for  PWS.  pragmatic  i s not p o s s i b l e .  one  on t h e  both  have  e l i c i t i n g many i n t e n t i o n s ,  that  the  of  Innova-  the  various  the  bounds  based on the  number  i n d i c a t e an i n t e n t i o n  difficult,  but  any  answer  inaccurate.  in this  variables. of  number  the  first  this  l i k e l y be q u i t e  i n f l u e n c e d by o t h e r  the  included i n  past  for  Third,  this  on  not  research  measure  Of p r i m a r y i n t e r e s t  the  based  An i n t e n t i o n  o f h o u r s one u s e s t h e PWS.  would also  in this  behaviour,  respondents,  c o u l d use  practicality.  that  types  reasons,  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  tiveness would r e q u i r e  with  done  various  Innovativeness i s  adopter  of  was  Behavioural Intention i s  Adoptive Innovativeness i s  Therefore, Use  the  study  The p r i m a r y r o l e o f  Subjective  variables  is  Norm  and  ( A j z e n .& F i s h b e i n ,  Behaviour, and how i t Intention i s  Attitude 1980,  on  p.59).  to  illustrate  Behaviour may If  is  there  were  be no  -  variables then  which intervened  intention  Thus,  once  71 -  an a t t i t u d e  c o u l d be d r o p p e d from t h e model w i t h o u t  the a b i l i t y the  o f t h e SN a n d A t t i t u d e t o p r e d i c t  strength  of  strength  a n d number  Intention-Behaviour of other  which would intervene  this  is  research by  reduced. be  of  value  "it  into  is  attempting  to  again  reasons,  it  was  m o d e l was n e i t h e r  future  behaviour the  role  considered  of  information.  is  on the  affected  One o f t h e most  by  the  signifi-  included  the  of  [them]  in  Intention  as  close  Rather,  research  in  behaviour,  1980, p . 4 7 ) .  is related  of  and t h e B e h a v i o u r i n  behaviour.  as  this  model.  study  is  and t h e r e f o r e  to  possible  In this we a r e  to  study,  the  we a r e  attempting  to  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 .  Intention  that  practical  i n turn  to predict  t o measure  a loss  formed,  an I n t e n t i o n  role  (Ajzen & Fishbein,  predict  reduces  is  the  are used  important  how c u r r e n t  which  between  which  account,  intentions  observation"  determine This  it  Finally,  behavioral not  Voluntariness,  taking  link,  norm w e r e  B e h a v i o u r depends  intervening variables.  cant v a r i a b l e s  Thus,  and s u b j e c t i v e  in  inclusion  nor necessary,  of  the  model.  For a l l of  Behavioural  these  Intention  a n d i t was t h e r e f o r e  in  the  both  the  omitted.  3 . 1 2 THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS ADOPTING 3.12.1  General  Although Subjective research  been  example, Ostlund  research  model  developed  Norm a n d A t t i t u d e T o w a r d s  for focussing  Perceived have  the  to  have  i n two d i f f e r e n t (1974)  Adopting,  p r i m a r i l y on A t t i t u d e .  Characteristics found  for this  discovered  of Innovating a  significant  studies that  79% o f a d o p t i o n d e c i s i o n s . i n  (PCI), impact  study  there This  is  includes  support  in  i s because s e v e r a l  from which A t t i t u d e i s on  on t h e a d o p t i o n  adoption of  new consumer  a n d 68% i n t h e o t h e r .  of the formed,  decisions.  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  one s t u d y ,  previous  For  products, classify  Next, Holloway  -  (1977)  found that  bureaucratic Bolton in  (a  homes,  i n a t e between a d o p t e r s PCI have been  vations,  because  strategic focus  found to  previous  a  Finally,  study of the adoption of v i d e o t e x t  technology  Relative  individual  have  of  technique).  and n o n - a d o p t e r s  and  Advantage  and c o n t e x t u a l  had  Compatibility  variables  of the technology.  a significant  they form the b a s i s  to  discrim-  Therefore,  because  i n f l u e n c e on a d o p t i o n o f  o f Attitude, and because  inno-  Attitude i s  in a  the primary  research.  summary, o n e ' s  significant the  other  pedagogical  and n o n - a d o p t e r s  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 m o d e l became  of t h i s  In  school  found that  more p o w e r t h a n s e v e r a l  the  high  in a longitudinal  individual's  -  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  innovation  (1981),  72  effect  on  A t t i t u d e towards A d o p t i n g a PWS i s one's  discussion,  innovativeness with  this  may a p p e a r  to  be  respect  expected  to  a truism,  to  have  PWS u s a g e .  yet  there  a  After  are  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  r e q u i r e d t o do s o i n o n e ' s  On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f one h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y  negative that  a t t i t u d e about  one  would  hypothesised  HI :  3.12.2  One's attitude innovativeness  find  another  line  of  work.  it  is  Therefore,  likely it  is  towards using with r e s p e c t to  PWS will influence PWS u s a g e .  evaluating  and  one'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 an I n n o v a t i o n discussed  summing  the  various  however,  of  the  to  y e t were c o m p e l l e d t o use one,  being  that:  was  but  PWS u s a g e ,  attempt  As  se,  job.  u s i n g t h e PWS, s u c h as  many  this  rather  formation  beliefs  research  the of  earlier,  the  about  was  relative  one's  not  a d o p t i n g the only to  importance  Attitude.  Attitude  This  of  is  by  innovation.  assess the  formed  the  effect  individual  assessment  can  A primary goal, of  beliefs, be  made  Attitude or by  PCI,  per in  casting  -  Attitude  as  then  analysing  by  chapter.  a  It  latent,  can  -  unobserved v a r i a b l e  it  using  also  this  73  be  formed  statistical  a s s e s s e d by  techniques  regressing  Again,  3.12.3  E v a l u a t i o n o f the Perceived C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  precision simply  and  by  Ajzen  including  3.10.2).  if  the  for  to  integrate  of  oppositely  for  those  3.12.4  the  the  for  be  each  beliefs  estimated  belief,  This  are  First,  either a  all  measure all  evaluation  term  as  mea-  that  rather  is  than  discussion in  or  all  highly  can  this  by  i n negative  e v a l u a t i o n term w i t h i n t h i s  more  be  Section  advisable  negative,  or  the  with  in  either  Thus,  s t u d y was n o t  it  the  reduces  was  serve  reorientation  simply reversing This  the  correlated  couched  study,  terms.  make.  by  serves  e v a l u a t i o n t e r m seems o n l y t o  Within  might  with  F i s h b e i n and A j z e n do a l l o w  positive  accomplished  couched  next  e v a l u a t i o n term  (see  beliefs  beliefs. is  and  the  PCI on Attitude  can  p.227).  the use of the  beliefs  which  of  virtually  terms,  stated  term  reasons.  are  oppositely stated  that  use of the  each  produce  because  items  tribution  terms  will  p o s i t i v e or negative  attitudes  (1975,  two i m p o r t a n t  alone  Thus,  Attitude.  to  PCI,  in  i t must b e q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r d o i n g s o i s  evaluation  terms  that  alone  various  used.  evaluation  weights  Nevertheless,  even n e c e s s a r y  belief  an  considering beliefs  to provide r e l a t i v e  that  argue  the  described  the  sured.  Fishbein  t e c h n i q u e was a l s o  from  scales  the  con-  concluded  that  necessary.  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 Of Adopting PWS While  delineated It  is  in  one's  the  effects  above,  expected,  their  of  the  relative effects  nevertheless,  attitude  various perceptions  towards  that  adopting  have  not  of been  u s i n g a PWS h a v e explicitly  R e l a t i v e Advantage w i l l the  PWS.  Without t h i s  been  discussed.  p l a y a major perception,  role it  is  - 74  unlikely  that  an i n d i v i d u a l  t i v e the other perceptions  H2:  would decide might be.  are  about  expected  there  has  appears it  the to  been  as  if  negative  have  adopt  Thus, the  H3:  the  this  expected  effects least  some n e g a t i v e  a PWS, no m a t t e r  of  greater attitude  This  termed  is  due t o  slowed the  Computer A v o i d a n c e , the  PWS u s a g e ,  fact  for  diffusion  effect,  the  of  that  while  most p a r t  PWS.  it  Therefore  that:  Computer any other  A v o i d a n c e will h a v e a contribution less than PCI on one's attitude towards adopting PWS.  S U B J E C T I V E NORMS At  the  social  .level,  behaviour  is  often  influenced  by  T h e s e norms a r e g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o be a n a l o g o u s t o h a b i t s which  are  customary  Similarly, behaviour  at is  the the  one  thinks  might senior  respect  influence  that  1975).  ways  level,  Norm,  as  of  one  behaviour of  the  one  to  PWS u s a g e ,  to  do,  and so  several  there  behaviour.  of  forth. these  in  (Watson,  potential  As was p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d ,  expect  social  1972,  p.614).  determinants  Within  referents  SN i s  several  Action  which  are  expectations.  potential  include one's MIS r e s e a r c h , have been  of  formed from  c a l l e d Normative B e l i e f s ,  are  These  the  norms.  individuals,  d e f i n e d i n the Theory of Reasoned  m o t i v a t i o n t o comply w i t h these  one's  management,  evidence  expected  individual  others  " w e i g h t e d " by o n e ' s  With  and  Subjective  (Fishbein & Ajzen, what  posi-  f o l l o w i n g c a n be h y p o t h e s i s e d :  PWS u s a g e ,  p u b l i c i t y about not  how  t o h a v e t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t  effect.  p u b l i c i t y has  is hypothesised  3.13  to  Relative advantage will have a contribution than any other P C I in t h e f o r m a t i o n of one's towards adopting a PWS.  While R e l a t i v e Advantage i s beliefs  -  "referents"  co-workers, there  found to  is  who  superiors, considerable  i n f l u e n c e use  of  -  Information efforts.  For  management 1981;  Systems,  example,  support"  Markus,  motivate  or  to  peer,  of  subsumed w i t h i n  be  seen  such spite  will  this,  significant  effect  of the  hypothesised  the  can e x i s t  based  be  a  IS  been  see  linked  a n d Warshaw  individuals'  (1989)  result  research,  to  "senior  Ginzberg,  who a t t e m p t s success  of  In  any  it  c a n be  to  the  event, the  "surprising".  IS  IS  the would can  expected  use  found that use  to  T h i s p e r s o n c o u l d be  PWS i n a n o r g a n i s a t i o n  respect  intentions  1985;  s h o u l d use  implementation", with  been  eventual  leader.  others  implementation  has  someone  to  i n t r o d u c t i o n of  "IS  IS  Doll,  1983).  opinion that  of  success  "champion",  of  operative  Bagozzi  l a r g e r body o f  a l t h o u g h R - A T h e o r y does a n d Attitude, p r e v i o u s  SN  (e.g.  Ryan, the  as on o n e ' s typically,  on whether  or negative. be  for  viewpoints  individuals  They found t h e  DSS s h o w e d t h a t  in that,  success  of  the  that  PWS. had  SN  a p a r t i c u l a r word I n any e v e n t ,  b o t h w i t h i n and e x t e r n a l  In no  pro-  given  to MIS, i t  the is  that:  Finally,  as w e l l  on  the  The SN will influence one's innovativeness with respect to PWS usage.  H4:  between  type  As t h e  SN.  Davis,  c e s s i n g package. results  other  also  of  also  a p a r t i c u l a r form of  influences of  the  in  Curley & Gremillion,  these various  be  as  various  has  -  nostrum  presence  (e.g. or  factor  some  cooperate  supervisor,  expectations  a  popular  The  implementation e f f o r t s a  a  (for  1981).  others  be  75  If  communicated  1982).  Within  components  of  not  research  their this  SN h a d a d i r e c t  along  might expect  own p e r c e p t i o n s were the with  case,  their  has  1987).  any  interaction  shown t h a t  M I S , one r e c e n t  Attitude ( C h r i s t e n s e n , others  postulate  study of  effect  these  the  on o n e ' s  This effect  Intention,  c a n be  or r e j e c t ,  of  i n n o v a t i o n were  then t h e i r  expectations  perceptions (or  beliefs)  effects  adoption of  one t o a d o p t , u s i n g the  effects  expected  an i n n o v a t i o n positive  would a l s o that  one  likely should  -  adopt  the  innovation.  one's  own  perceptions,  hypothesised  and  -  communicated hence  one's  As h a s  Attitude.  influence  one's  attitude  It  towards  been d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r ,  then  can,  adopting  in constructing  w i t h r e s p e c t t o PWS u s a g e i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s , should does  be  considered.  not  mediate "other  correlate  between factors"  It  is  l i k e l y use  other  the  likely  to  it  influence  therefore,  be  the  use  sition  towards u s i n g i t ,  As  the  Voluntariness tiveness with  discussed  it  dissonance, perceiving  as d i s c u s s e d the  PWS  in  have  that It  that  use  Intention  factors  in this  may  category  of  on I n n o v a t i v e n e s s  in  they  the  PWS  u s e t o be v o l u n t a r y .  In  a PWS i s ,  i n terms  of  PWS. 3.6,  terms.  is  one's  also  example,  use  less  one's  usage  d e f i n e d i n terms s t a t e or  of  predispo-  innova-  have the  could result The  the  a mental  to  could  For  must  that:  related usage.  Voluntariness  i n Section  other  is  effects  their  c a n be h y p o t h e s i s e d  positive  Behavioural  because Innovativeness  and not  o n e ' s A t t i t u d e towards u s i n g the  and  who p e r c e i v e  is negatively r e s p e c t to PWS  earlier,  innovativeness  falls.  individuals  innovation,  the  behaviour.  more t h a n t h o s e who p e r c e i v e  actual  H6:  that  behaviour,  Voluntariness w i l l  Consequently,  a model o f  degree of V o l u n t a r i n e s s of  more v o l u n t a r y o n e ' s u s a g e o f  be.  of  that  First,  words, the  with  Voluntariness  the  indicates  i n t e n t i o n and a c t u a l  that  ways.  R-A Theory  perfectly  expected  different  is  could  VOLUNTARINESS OF PWS USAGE  3.14  will  perceptions  that:  S N will PWS.  H5:  These  76  effects  a direct  effects  of  effect  innovation  i n even c o m p u l s o r y of  on  Voluntariness  users would  -  operate also  i n this  instance  be a r g u e d  that  -  77  through mental  some  t h o s e who must u s e i t .  of  processes.  the greatest  advantages  Rational organisations  i d u a l s t o u s e PWS i f t h e r e w e r e n o b e n e f i t s their  job.  support save  F o r example,  staff  more  many b o r i n g  efficient repetitions  of  could  develop  a  thereof),  positive other  can a f f e c t  nance will  and " f o r c e d " eventually  of  PCI.  Relative  In this  attitude  Thus,  because  learning,  develop  is hypothesised  view  one's  compelled behaviour.  n o t compel  it  positive  indiv-  certainly  could  could  as r e t y p i n g w h o l e  docu-  A f t e r u s i n g t h e PWS, t h e s e  users  such  Advantage.  situation, the  The  expected  of both that  towards  same  Voluntariness,  experience  of the e f f e c t s  attitudes  make  It  through  c a n be  to  to the i n d i v i d u a l s i n c a r r y i n g out  t h e same t a s k ,  t o make s i m p l e c o r r e c t i o n s .  for the  likely  i t can  accrue  t h a n t h e y w e r e when u s i n g t y p e w r i t e r s .  i n order  hold  would  hand,  o f PWS u s a g e  u s e o f PWS f o r w o r d p r o c e s s i n g  ments  likely  On t h e o t h e r  arguments (or  lack  one g a i n s innovation  even  from disso-  compulsory  PWS u s a g e .  users  Therefore,  it  that:  H7: Voluntariness will be negatively related to one's attitude towards using PWS. 3.15  SUMMARY - THE RESEARCH MODEL The R e s e a r c h  major  components  Innovativeness.  Model  is  illustrated  of  interest,  It  shows  Subjective  U s e , and Implementation,  Attitude,  Subjective  Finally, to  effects  identified  to  the  by Rogers,  as  with  of  Subjective  indicates formation  3-4.  Norm  It  its  various variable,  The model a l s o and  Voluntariness  those b e l i e f s ,  or PCl's,  of  These  namely R e l a t i v e  includes  Voluntariness,  t h e dependent  Norm, a n d V o l u n t a r i n e s s .  t h e model a l s o  contribute  Norm,  Innovativeness,  Adoption,  hypothesised  i n Figure  Attitude. Advantage,  four  A t t i t u d e , and dimensions influenced illustrates on  which are  include  the  the  of by the  Attitude. expected five  PCI  C o m p a t i b i l i t y , Ease of Use,  -  and  Observability, F i g u r e 3-4, Rogers'  PCI,  the  One i s is  certain  and  Attitude.  other  races  i n a p e r s o n who i s  For  analysis  in  Figure  technique  indicated been  in  added  to  unobserved v a r i a b l e  3-4  are  the  P C I c a n be v i e w e d  product of  the  one  would  indicating that  expect  As w i l l  be  certain discussed  oriented  from  Attitude  to  the  person  beliefs  about  i n Chapter  Attitude  and t h e v a r i o u s P C I w i l l  serve  will as  be its  cast  5,  and hence  PCI.  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 , as 1984).  also  the  t o be t a k e n when a n a l y s i n g t h e d a t a ,  & Sorbom,  various  g i v e n a p a r t i c u l a r A t t i t u d e , one w o u l d  a racist.  t o be u s e d i s  (Joreskog  LISREL  v i e w A t t i t u d e as  example,  the primary perspective  arrows  A t t i t u d e and t h e  corresponding perceptions  that  is  to  that,  holds  in  earlier,  Image a n d Computer Avoidance h a v e  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  Another perspective  expect to observe  the  discussed  listing.  f r o m two p e r s p e c t i v e s .  this  -  As  Trialability.  two f u r t h e r  Conceptually,  PCI.  78  The  data  implemented  as  a  latent,  "indicators".  SECTION C: RESEARCH DESIGN 3.16  GENERAL Several  the  detail  definitions  they  question.  present,  of  or w i t h  According to  perspectives  "research  from which to  Emory  design"  exist,  which perspective (1980),  there  v i e w any g i v e n s t u d y .  are  most  they at  of which d i f f e r  view the least  research  2. 3. 4.  in  seven  different  These i n c l u d e the  following  (p.84): 1.  in  the degree to which the research f o c u s e s on a predetermined o b j e c t i v e - exploratory or focussed; t h e s c o p e ( b r e a d t h and d e p t h ) o f t h e s t u d y - c a s e o r s t a t i s t i c a l study; the r e s e a r c h environment - f i e l d , l a b o r a t o r y or s i m u l a t i o n ; the time dimension - c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l or l o n g i t u d i n a l ;  - 79  t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n mode o f d a t a c o l l e c t i o n - o b s e r v a t i o n a l or survey; the degree of r e s e a r c h e r c o n t r o l of the v a r i a b l e s under s t u d y low (ex p o s t f a c t o ) o r h i g h ( e x p e r i m e n t a l ) ; o b j e c t i v e of research - d e s c r i p t i v e or causal a n a l y s i s .  5. 6. 7.  The function examine the  particular  design  which  of  of  study.  the  the  aims  effects  of  study  whose  operational  aims  validity  possible.  cal ,  as  ex p o s t  particular  the  subjects.  usage the  chosen This  forces  was  behaviour,  The which design  focus  This  study.  This,  to  of  for  this  the  with  use of above,  components  t o measure  them.  as  next  The n e x t  chapter  much  a  One  of  statisti-  independent v a r i a b l e s  of  a survey.  are  through asking measuring  Finally,  and norms  the  external  a field,  data is  a  PWS  because  affect  current  cross-sectional.  earlier,  i n the  model,  to  influence  a l e v e l of  difficulty  F i g u r e 3-4).  research  to  analysis.  relevant  attitudes  discussed  step  very  c a n be c l a s s i f i e d as  conduct  the  conduct  s t u d y was  PWS ( s e e  i n the  it  causal  extreme  how c u r r e n t  the  Thus,  i n that  the  is  hypothesised  decision to  c o l l e c t i n g the  study,  are  conduct  decision to  determine  study  s t u d y was m o t i v a t e d b y a d e s i r e which  Furthermore,  l e d to the  any  was t o m a i n t a i n as h i g h  led to  combined  one's  described  various  ments  research  to  the time dimension of the  influence as  is  o n l y method o f  objectively, intent  objective  f o r the  facto  attitudinal,  the  the  is  a d o p t i o n a n d u s e o f PWS i n o r g a n i s a t i o n s .  focussed  the  -  on  Given the  s t u d y was  and t o  describes  is  to  develop  these  those  variables  chosen  research  operationalise survey  activities.  instru-  FIGURE 3-1:  DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS (ROGERS,  1083)  - 81  -  KNOWLEDGE Info Search  r  \ PERSUASION  i  i  ADOPTION  FIGURE 3-2:  REJECTION  STAGES OF THE INNOVATION DECISION PROCESS  . (ADAPTED FROM ROGERS,  1983)  CO  ONS  PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTER  OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATION  SUBJECTIVE NORM  I  ATTITUDE TOWARDS ADOPTING  1 T  BEHAVIOURAL] INTENTION  (INNOVATION DECISION)  OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF PRECURSOR  FIGURE 3 - 3 : INNOVATION DECISION MODEL (ADAPTED FROM FISHBEIN Sc AJZEN,  1975)  BEHAVIOUR (ADOPTION/REJECTION)  co  F I G U R E  3-4:  R E S E A R C H  M O D E L  - 84  -  C H A P T E R FOUR INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT  Let  observation  Survey  with  mankind  extensive  view,  C h i n a to  Peru.  from  Johnson,  VANITY  OF  HUMAN  WISHES  SECTION A - INTRODUCTION 4.1  GENERAL The  essential  ingredient  instrument.  The  to  evaluate,  identify,  collect  the  reliability  data. and  evaluation of,  p.191).  to  which The  steps  any  key  validity.  survey  is  in operationalising this  and s e l e c t  The  field  the  data  study,  collection  therefore,  were  appropriate e x i s t i n g survey instruments  selection These  criteria  became  the  for  any  basis  of  instrument the  search  to  are  its  for,  and  e x i s t i n g instruments.  Reliability degree  first  in  is  the  the  observed  accepted  research project.  degree  level  to  which  score of  a measure  reflects  the  reliability  is  true  depends  F o r e x a m p l e , N u n n a l l y a r g u e d as  free  of  score on  error,  or  (Nunnally,  the  purpose  the 1978,  of  the  follows:  W h a t a s a t i s f a c t o r y l e v e l of r e l i a b i l i t y is d e p e n d s o n h o w a m e a s u r e is b e i n g u s e d . In t h e e a r l y s t a g e s o f r e s e a r c h o n p r e d i c t o r tests o r h y p o t h e s i z e d m e a s u r e s of a c o n s t r u c t , one s a v e s time a n d e n e r g y by working with instruments that have only modest reliability, for w h i c h p u r p o s e reliabilities of .60 o r .50 will s u f f i c e ... For basic research, it c a n b e a r g u e d t h a t i n c r e a s i n g r e l i a b i l i t i e s b e y o n d .80 is o f t e n w a s t e f u l ... To obtain a higher reliability ... strenuous efforts at s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n in a d d i t i o n to i n c r e a s i n g t h e n u m b e r of items m i g h t be required. Thus the more reliable test might be e x c e s s i v e l y time c o n s u m i n g to a d m i n i s t e r and s c o r e . ( 1 9 6 7 , p. 226)  Determination of b a s e d on N u n n a l l y ' s in  the  "earlier"  the  appropriate level of  suggestions.  stages  of  First,  research,  in  it  reliability  was  that  for this  considered that it  extends  s t u d y was  the  theory  study  from  is  other  - 85  domains  into  determining Work  MIS, r e s e a r c h . how w e l l  Stations  these  (PWS),  and  perceived characteristics the  PWS.  range,  These  somewhat  common t a r g e t  higher  of  its  intent  " i m p o r t e d " models attempting  of  to  argued  i n determining target resources  nothing  about  number  of  constructs ity.  the  In  error  the  of  items  of  basis  measurement"  of  increasing it  the the  contains.  c a n become addition to  rather  lengthy  ceived  study  than  N u n n a l l y ' s comments  was  previous  characteristics  constructs. s t r i v i n g to  potentially attempting DOI of  achieve  studies,  set  decision to  not  in  as  of  adopt  the  .70  h i g h as  the  of  a  they  by  a  therefore  scale  to  measuring  their  somewhat  tests  of  being  interest  all  was . d e a l i n g  several  items  the  one o f  and  and  complex reliabil-  excessively demands  on  attention.  comprehensive  several  per-  complex  i n any measurement  r e l i a b i l i t y , which  the  theoretical  with  us  the  increase  levels  holistic  "tells  multi-item  a l s o make s i g n i f i c a n t  addressing it  is  based  r e l i a b i l i t y of  Furthermore,  these  more  is  observed score and  scales  about  take  innovating,  h i g h degrees  scale  i n t u r n c o u l d make  any  l o n g and u n w i e l d y .  For a l l these reasons, target  to  of  reducing  A l l of these could require  instrument excessively  the  large  increase  i n achieving higher  thus  approach  but  instrument.  Therefore,  the  respondents,  a single  reliability  a d m i n i s t e r and s c o r e ,  the  the  a  Personal  r e l i a b i l i t y levels  (p.157),  chosen  time consuming t o  Because  of  of  reliabilities  r e q u i r e d to  As p o i n t e d o u t b y C r o n b a c h ( 1 9 7 0 ) ,  methods  influence  accepting  scales.  basic  which  nature,  .80.  consideration  s h o u l d be  in  e x p l a i n usage  determine  for  exploratory  t h a n N u n n a l l y ' s minimum l e v e l ,  on N u n n a l l y ' s o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e  scales  is  help  i n n o v a t i n g (PCI)  observations  of  A second  Much  -  r e l i a b i l i t y for  a r e l i a b i l i t y coefficient the  final'scales.  of  .70  Nevertheless,  to  .80 was s e t  as  it  was - c o n s i d e r e d  - 86 -  that  t h i s was a l o w e r b o u n d a n d t h a t  l e v e l s of r e l i a b i l i t y i n the  final  efforts  s h o u l d be made t o  achieve  study i f p o s s i b l e w i t h i n the  higher  constraints  of  d e v e l o p m e n t t i m e and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n e a s e .  The  second  validity,  or  construct  that  check  on  primary  the  criterion  degree  it  to  which  purports  construct  to  validity  can  h i s t o r y to  determine  were  closely  theory,  on  higher.  Secondly,  existing  validated  validity  themselves.  to  investigate  dence  of  1959).  a check  validity  scales  should not c o r r e l a t e  relate  highly  validity. validated  In  at  considerations  there  measuring a  scale's  made t o  see  the  those  items. validity  a  is  a  the  causal same  scale's  and e v i d e n c e  which  were  potential the  that  are  construct theoretical  1979,  p.59).  examining the  items  These  the  Campbell,  if  is  If  validity  would  tests  t h a t were  must be  of  taken  or  very  similar  significant development convergent into  is  level,  history,  i n c l u d e whether  be any  some  evi-  ( C a m p b e l l and F i s k e , constructs different  divergent  constructs which its  and d i v e r g e n t  account  they  conducted  d e v e l o p e d t o measure This  on  obviously gaining  were p r e s e n t  link.  scale's  items were based  tests  A  created.  d e v e l o p e d t o measure c e r t a i n t h e o r e t i c a l  statistically  summary,  scales,  of  measures  somewhat, by  systematically with scales  unless, scales  and  the  with  and d i v e r g e n t  In general,  Secondly,  (Cook  how i n d i v i d u a l  c a n be  instrument  actually  done  then  an  C h e c k s c a n a l s o be made on t h e  convergent  constructs,  scale  be  instruments,  the  a  assessing  measure  development based  in  should  is  link  validity.  convergent to  validity  when a s s e s s i n g  cor-  previous are  all  or d e v e l o p i n g  scales.  The v a r i a b l e s b e i n g i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h e s t u d y grouped n a t u r a l l y i n t o what are  e s s e n t i a l l y three (1)  separate  subject  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  areas: of i n n o v a t i n g ,  -  (2)  the  subjective  (3)  the  a c t u a l use o r n o n - u s e  Therefore, on  these  three  perceived the  the  norms a b o u t u s i n g PWS, and  search  areas.  for,  Each  characteristics  s c a l e s t o measure  -  8 7  and development  will  of  the  o f t h e PWS.  be  of,  discussed  innovating in  the  instruments  in  turn,  next  remaining variables w i l l  beginning with  section.  the  Discussion  of  follow.  SECTION B: T H E PERCEIVED C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S  4.2  concentrated  OF USING T H E PWS  PERCEIVED CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATING As  ing  has  (PCI)  been are  •innovations. (Rogers, Rogers'  as  a  It  a  all  be b a s e d  literature  instruments  used  factor  its  five  lacking  in  in  of  the  and h a s  therefore,  on i n s t r u m e n t s  has  a  basis  that  used  used  measure  the  reliability,  the  for five  innovat-  a distinct  i n previous very  their PCl'S,  the  widely  Since  then,  adopted  among  l e v e l of  an i n s t r u m e n t t o measure  perceptions  and a l s o  been  achieved  indicated that  as  perceived  innovation decision.  categories,  and w r i t e r s ,  search  the  of  ago  actually to  taxonomy  characteristics  were h i g h l i g h t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s  categories  which  perceived  of  major  with  the  characteristics  was c o n s i d e r e d ,  five  identified  earlier,  on R o g e r s  latter  researchers  likely  however,  often  The  taxonomy,  validity.  used  based  1962)  diffusion  could  described  studies.  few s t u d i e s research. it  were  validity  very of  the  PCI  Surprisingly, have  For  was  face  explicitly  those  discovered suspect. many o f  studies that  They the  the were  items  in  t h e v a r i o u s s c a l e s was d o u b t f u l .  Among t h e who  first  examined the  five  to  e x p l i c i t l y use  PCl's  for  Rogers'  a variety  of  taxonomy  new c o n s u m e r  was  Ostlund  goods,  (1969),  including  a  - 88  sixth  characteristic,  o n l y two i t e m s reported. cently  Work o n  few i t e m s  for  each  instrument cients from  per perceived  three  essentially  for  the  Because  of  these  neither  Ostlund's  (Holloway, studies  within  this  analysis  study  instrument,  fact  appeared  that  date  a check  that  validated sidered  on the  instruments,  that  most  levels,  .30. four  from  this  to  be  of  it,  five the  coeffi-  coefficients  .80.  was  He  of  ALPHA  three  it  Of  these,  replications. concluded  c o u l d be  that  adopted  project.  t a x o n o m y was  also  examined  o p e r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n of inadequate  which  same  ought  in  to  construct.  construct  validity  particular  current  in  detail  that  have  the  constructs  subsequent  l o a d e d on  factor  different  Therefore,  because  of  the  instrument  some o f could  not  there  items,' be  it  adopted  project.  exhaustiveness  instruments  with  above  the  extension  current  items  the  Rogers'  technology.  Of 18 ALPHA were  re-  a n d t h e n d e c i d e d t o d e v e l o p h i s own i n s t r u m e n t  the  with  more  H o l l o w a y had conducted a c o n s i d e r e d r e v i e w of  appeared  w i t h o u t m o d i f i c a t i o n f o r the  As  Bolton's  Nevertheless,  within  problems  concluded  case,  out  videotext  used  coefficients  psychometric properties  Compatibility,  nor  several  loaded  t o be  again  study. still  of  carried  low r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s ,  In t h i s  his  was  desired  only  study which used Rogers'  revealed  in  survey,  PCI,  on t h e P C I t o t h a t for  the  the  a low of  m o d i f i c a t i o n f o r the  1977).  explicitly  PCl's  same  rather  without extensive  One o t h e r  of  below the to  however,  and e v e n t u a l l y had a p p r o x i m a t e l y  however,  .85,  study,  w i t h no r e l i a b i l i t y  instrument  scales,  Once a g a i n ,  replications  were  in his  who e x a m i n e d p e r c e p t i o n s  Ostlund's  scale.  remained  Ostlund's  ranging from a h i g h of  three  was  to  The s c a l e s  characteristic,  extending  by B o l t o n ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,  added a items  perceived risk.  -  of  office  was  designed  to  the  literature  contacted measure  the  search  directly.  for It  P C I w o u l d be  existing was  con-  known  to  - 89  this  group.  explicitly  It set  was out  w e r e known t o t h e uiry,  and t h a t  the  the  have  tempted  not  to  the  been  the  two  an  the  directly  theoretical  An  of  examination  the  on  of  as  items  emerge  or  used  in  other  to  of  measure  First,  this  literature attitudes  similar topologies.  as  .93  about  of  Once  again,  constructs  two  was  of  allegedly  by p o t e n t i a l  not  Trial-  independent  adopters"  d i d not  help  factor of  at the  all.  instrument  obtained  instruments  were  computers,  in.Chapter  3,  for  (p.8).  determine  f i n d i n g was  Once  using microcomputers.  using  how-  between  respectively.  As d i s c u s s e d  characteristics  clearly discriminate  and . 8 6  towards  at-  authors  were  few  had  factors.  figures  very  they  A second i n t e r e s t i n g  was an a r t i f a c t  (p.l),  The  instrument  a  1987).  innovative-  classification the  inq-  developers  and  Thus,  separate  concept  its  had  Rogers  "troublesome"  perceived  "those  the  emerge  reliability  C o m p a t i b i l i t y , ' w i t h ALPHA's of  attempted  a result  (p.2).  Rogers'  as  that  a single  attitudes  MIS  that  was t h e more l i k e l y .  or a r e f l e c t i o n of  the  as  which  d e f i n e d by  classification.  results.  process  Within  as  had been  the  Rogers'  this  high  date  measure  the  Advantage d i d not  however,  studies  instrument,  investigated"  must be q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r  hand,  latter  items w r i t t e n " d i d not  treated the  this  PCI t o  to  attributes"  which of the hypotheses Relative  characteristics  disappointing in  analysis  either  are  few  among i n n o v a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  instrument  were  characteristics  that  of  and O b s e r v a b i l i t y d i d n o t  considered that  very  Nevertheless,  of  systematically  • s u p p o r t e d by f a c t o r ability  1987).  development  based  results  five  that  d e v e l o p e d i n s t r u m e n t was i d e n t i f i e d ( H u r t & H u b b a r d ,  measurement  create  however,  the  group ( R i c e ,  "relationships  microcomputers, ever,  measure  d i s c u s s i n g the  argued that  ness  to  one r e c e n t l y  In  discovered,  -  again,  development On t h e  other  Complexity  identified  based  however,  it  which  on R o g e r s ' Davis  and  or  (1985),  -  without ogy  citing  Acceptance  model. and  Two o f  "perceived  Rogers  or  Model the  other  (TAM),  which  use",  -  DOI s t u d i e s ,  constructs  ease of  90  in  recently  many  aspects  within Davis'  is  model  w h i c h he d e f i n e d as  has  developed  quite  are  a Technol-  similar  "perceived  follows  to  a DOI  usefulness"  (p.82):  Perceived Usefulness: The degree to which an individual believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance. Perceived Ease of Use: The degree to which an individual believes that using a particular system would be free of physical and mental effort. The relative ceived  similarity  between  advantage"  of  ease  ment  used  draw  on  search  of  or  use"  along  Davis.  a  work.  DOI l i n e  scales  (relative  advantage)  ability, it  with  was  within  and t h e  In  Relative  spite  it  the the  the  in  was  appropriate levels  two  to  also  those  for  instruable  for  that  no  an  constructs of  reli-  DOI m o d e l , usable  research.  promise  concluded that  by  usefulness  level  w i t h i n the  to re-  undertook  these  this  of  provided  instrument,  He t h e r e f o r e  Given  any  "per-  paucity  existed  scales  his  s h o u l d be  relative  usage  "perceived  between  Therefore,  the  each.  constructs  and  Ease of Use,  to  an  for  is  the  d e v e l o p e d b y D a v i s s h o u l d be d i r e c t l y  proposed  a v a l i d a t i o n process  of  (complexity).  .90  it  and  DOI c o n s t r u c t s  computer  for  resulting  scales  relative  and  was  of  two  reliability  of.  as  complexity".  to  search  ease of use  excess  the  Advantage  a  usefulness"  obvious,  evidence  respect  process  in  of  of  these  desired  similarity  context  Compatibility, through  or  considered, that the  with  the  development  reliabilities  measure  after  is  "perceived  Furthermore,  He c o n c l u d e d ,  instrument  to  "perceived  DOI m o d e l  and D O l ' s  validated  with  the  developed  Davis'  Davis'  they  ensure  of of  the  Davis  Hurt's  c o u l d not  that  they  fit  and  scales  for,  Hubbard's  be u s e d w i t h o u t w i t h i n the  measuring to  measure  also  context  going of  the  91  -  current research. identified  to  -  Furthermore, no existing v a l i d and r e l i a b l e scales had been  measure  or  Observability  Therefore,  Trialability.  it  was  concluded that a new scale had to be developed for the purposes of the current research.  4.3  INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS  To  provide as high a l e v e l of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y as possible for  the new instrument, was carried out.  a three "stage",  six step instrument development process  The following b r i e f l y describes  explanations for each stage are given in later  the stages, while detailed  sections:  STAGE I : ITEM CREATION  Step 1:  As many items as possible were i d e n t i f i e d from existing scales that f i t the construct definitions of the current study.  Step 2:  So that the item pools would contain as many " q u a l i t y " items as possible, additional items were generated as necessary based on the theoretical  constructs.  STAGE I I : SCALE DEVELOPMENT  Step 3 :  Items were were sorted  into categories by a panel of judges.  This procedure w i l l be discussed in d e t a i l below, but the aim was  to  have  categories,  the based  judges  first  on the  sort  the  similarities  items  into  and differences  items, and then to define the underlying constructs by out,  each the  category of  items.  items, were  Once this  examined  to  see  separate  represented  procedure was how they  among  carried  grouped,  and  whether any tended to be categorised  d i f f e r e n t l y by different  judges.  made  This  allowed  checks  to  be  for  any  ambiguous  - 92 -  items, any  which  scale  categories  would  based  detract  from  them.  The  on  p r o v i d e d by the  were a check  on  the  the  definitions  judges  construct  internal  after  cohesiveness of  the  the s o r t i n g  validity  o f the  of  various procedure  items  and  item  groupings.  Step 4:  A second panel o f judges was definitions  and  then  asked  based on the d e f i n i t i o n s . tic  items was  first  p r o v i d e d w i t h the  to s o r t  the  items  into  construct categories  Again, an examination f o r problema-  made t o attempt  to e l i m i n a t e any  inappropriately  worded and ambiguous items.  STAGE IV: SCALE TESTING Step 5:  Pre-Pilot. of  20  instrument was  respondents  for  Seventeen  usable  items. analysis initial  The  of  the  actual  indication  of  a  distributed  further  check  t o a s m a l l sample  for  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were  responses the  was  any  r e t u r n e d and  conducted  reliability  of  problematic  the  t o get  an  scales.  an an  Items  which d i d not c o n t r i b u t e t o the r e l i a b i l i t y o f the s c a l e s were then c u l l e d p r i o r t o the p i l o t  Step 6:  Pilot  Test.  A  "full  scale"  test.  pilot  test  was  conducted.  Ques-  t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d t o 80 i n d i v i d u a l s , w i t h 66 r e t u r n e d for  analysis.  This  larger  number  of  subjects  allowed  the  various s t a t i s t i c a l  t e s t s t o be completed w i t h higher l e v e l s of  confidence  the  survey.  so t h a t  scales  could  be  refined  f o r the  final  -  4.4  93  -  INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT - STAGE I: STEP 1 AND STEP 2 .  As a f i r s t  paragraph  4.2  step, a l l t h e items i d e n t i f i e d were  sorted  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) which erated  an i n i t i a l  item  according  they  t o the v a r i o u s  were o r i g i n a l l y  pool  i n \ t h e instruments  f o r each  intended  discussed i n  constructs  (perceived  t o address.  of the perceived  This  characteristics, i n -  c l u d i n g the " s t a t u s c o n f e r r i n g " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c as d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r 3.  Based  on t h e c o n s t r u c t  definitions,  particular  f a c t o r s f o r those  out,  item  each  Due be  t o the d i f f e r e n t  examined  i n organisations monetary  (1981),  benefit  intended  s t u d i e s where a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s had been c a r r i e d for i t s applicability  study  likely  i n Chapter  and on the l o a d i n g o f the items on  goals o f t h e o r i g i n a l  inappropriate f o r this  PWS or  was  gen-  to users.  involve Therefore,  research.  s t u d i e s , some items were judged to  because o f t h e i r  would  i n the c u r r e n t  little  focus.  F o r example, use o f  personal  the f o l l o w i n g  t o measure t h e economic aspects  out-of-pocket item  from  cost Bolton  o f u s i n g an i n n o v a t i o n , was  dropped from t h e item p o o l :  C h a n n e l 2000 [ t h e i n n o v a t i o n ]  w o u l d p r o b a b l y c o s t a lot of m o n e y .  Once t h i s was done f o r a l l items, carried too  out t o address those  few items,  would  require  similarity post  perceived  o r where i t was f e l t  been addressed.  I t was c o n s i d e r e d  approximately  o f the eventual  Step 2, the c r e a t i o n o f new items, characteristics  t h a t a l l aspects  f o r each s c a l e .  s c a l e s t o those  which had p o t e n t i a l l y  o f the c o n s t r u c t had not  t h a t the instrument  10 items  f o r the i n i t i a l  levels.  tests,  T h i s was based on the  developed by Davis,  and on h i s ex  c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t e n items per s c a l e were r e q u i r e d t o achieve  reliability  was  the d e s i r e d  - 94  All  items  elements  of  Fishbein, (using  a  context  1980).  for  terms  d i d not  the  defined  the  have  to  at  which  current  eventual  the  that  Theory  include  ( i n one's  be  ensure  in  elements  target  of  to  the  the  they of  job),  Reasoned  actual  behaviour  is  and a t i m e  research,  it  was  e x p l i c i t l y defined, questionnaire  reflected  Action  behaviour  felt the  use  a  or  general  created  scale  non-use  was of  development  to r e f l e c t  this  the  following  number o f  for  a listing  of  items  also the  required  PWS t o  process.  interest  (the  PWS),  (now a n d i n t o  that  the  general  w o u l d make t h e s e  items  be  to  measure  voluntary,  Therefore,  construct.  Once t h i s  i n each o f  by c a t e g o r y )  Voluntariness: Image: R e l a t i v e Advantage: Compatibility: Ease of Use: Observability: Trialability:  latter  a the  two  instructions  elements  the  implicit  this  an  respondents  scale  was  additional  seven categories  item  of  146  (see  excessively  were f e l t  7.  For example,  pool  remained  Appendix 1  items:  appeared  w h i c h w o u l d l o a d o n more  under R e l a t i v e Advantage the f o l l o w i n g  to d e a l w i t h the aspect of  U s i n g t h e PWS e n a b l e s  was  6 8 26 30 24 21 31  r e d u n d a n t , o r p o t e n t i a l l y ambiguous ( i . e .  t h a n one f a c t o r ) .  felt  included' i n  had been completed t h e r e  for a t o t a l  .  whether  These items were then r e e v a l u a t e d t o e l i m i n a t e those which  all  various (Ajzen &  of  directed frame  as  the  items.  Because their  as  behaviour  completing the  in a l l  examined  These the  the  In  elements  also  behaviour  PWS),  future).  for  were  -  items  "saving time":  me t o a c c o m p l i s h t a s k s  more  quickly.  - 95 -  10.  Using the PWS activities.  reduces the time I spend on unproductive  11.  Using the PWS  saves me time.  24.  As, a result of using the PWS, my work.  I am more timely in completing  Based on the redundancy of these items, i t was decided to drop #10 #11  and  from the item pool.  Examples of p o t e n t i a l l y ambiguous items included the following from the C o m p a t i b i l i t y pool:  7. 14. For  I r e a l l y heed a t o o l l i k e the PWS.. Using a PWS would help me a lot with my work.  each  of the  above  items,  aspect of R e l a t i v e Advantage.  i t was  felt  that  they  also  captured  an  In fact, an examination of the various scales  which had been used i n previous research, and factor loadings of items within. them, indicated that much of the measure  Compatibility  may  be  in  factorial  complexity of items designed to  i t s original  definition.  Rogers  (1983)  defined C o m p a t i b i l i t y as follows:  T h e  d e g r e e  t o  w h i c h  t h e  t h e e x i s t i n g v a l u e s ,  a  d  The  o  p  t  e  i n n o v a t i o n  i s  p e r c e i v e d a s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a n d needs o f t h e p o t e n t i a l  p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s ,  r (p.223).  inclusion  of  "needs"  as  highlighted  above  i s considered to be  source, of confounding with R e l a t i v e Advantage, as there certainly can be  a no  advantage to an innovation that does not reflect the needs of the potential adopter.  For that reason i t was. decided to eliminate any reference to "needs"  in derivation of items to measure C o m p a t i b i l i t y .  - 96  This  process  i n A p p e n d i x 2)  of  culling  left  the  i n each item p o o l ,  goals  construct  Step of  3,  As w i l l  (as  specified  items:  STEPS 3 AND 4  be  from the  total  these  labels  or  items  were  ambiguous  different  groupings  item p o o l , increased.  although  The  domain  case  of c o n s t r u c t  method o f Davis  of  general  his  the  (1985),  those  various  of the those  were  4  items  particular  into  assess  and t o of  construct  which they  assessment  was  themselves  made o f  constructs.  similar  sort  to  a c c o m p l i s h e d by h a v i n g  the  of the to  that  items  the  Problematic  By e l i m i n a t i n g t h e s e  were  the  attempt  w h i c h were c o n s i s t e n t l y  asked to  put  into  items  from  scales of  would  Step  3,  according to  a  .  categories  interested  constructs.  to  because  internal consistency  of. Step  judges  an  original  judges.  the  aims  who was  developed,  a i m was  Then,  definitions.  sorting  twofold:  problematic  first  pool.  i d e n t i f i e d as  by t h e  being  may be the  were  to the various categories  was h o p e d t h a t  The  in this  given set  by  it  which  item  with  above,  scales  shown b e l o w ,  a s s i g n t h e i r own l a b e l s  created  discussed  various  items  congruity of  out  as  the  any p a r t i c u l a r  ambiguity. judges  of  validity  identify  be  94  items  General The  the  number o f  6 8 18 16 18 14' 14  INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT - STAGE I I :  4.5.1  had  following  f o r a t o t a l of  Voluntariness: Image: R e l a t i v e Advantage: Compatibility: Ease of Use: Observability: Trialability:  4.5  -  in  Thus,  is  s i m i l a r to  assessing his  judges  the  that  coverage  were  asked  carried of to  the sort  -  items  within  then able  constructs.  t o assess  procedure was the  various  given;  comparing  the categories  the domain coverage.  a second step,  In Davis'  research,  4  Step  differed,  attempt  was  3, where  the. judges  provided  with  g i v e n no i d e a as t o what the u n d e r l y i n g the items  they  were  label  f o r the c o n s t r u c t s ,  was.  It  Davis',  is felt  that  then  again these  without  well  rounds  d e f i n i t i o n s were  the items w i t h i n  con-  procedure was the i n c l u s i o n of Step only  the t o t a l  constructs  asked  was  The procedure  two separate  i n that  made t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e  The major d i f f e r e n c e w i t h D a v i s '  sorting  Davis  the c a t e g o r i s a t i o n  had been provided.  procedure  structs.  were  case,  however, i n that  i s s i m i l a r to Davis'  however, no  developed,  c a r r i e d out a f t e r the judges had r a t e d how  items f i t the d e f i n i t i o n s t h a t  used i n the c u r r e n t were used.  By  -  97  item  pool,  might be.  to provide  their  and were  Secondly, a f t e r  own  definition  knowing what the r e s e a r c h e r ' s  procedures  are somewhat  more  rigourous  or  intent than  i n t h a t i t attempted t o v e r i f y the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the s c a l e s i n  a significantly  d i f f e r e n t way.  This  increased  the degree of confidence  which  c o u l d be assumed f o r the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of t h e . s c a l e s .  A second  i n d i c a t o r of c o n s t r u c t  convergence and divergence procedure.  I f an  Item  then i t was c o n s i d e r e d related  construct,  of the c a t e g o r i e s  were  and d i s c r i m i n a n t  within  a p a r t i c u l a r group,  created  with  the others.  by the v a r i o u s  Secondly, i n  judges, the l a b e l s  i n them, were f a i r l y  c o n s i s t e n t , then  c o u l d a l s o be s a i d t o demonstrate convergent  As might be expected, the process  f o r the s c a l e s • r e q u i r e d  two rounds, w i t h  by examining the  and the items w i t h i n each s o r t i n g  validity  to them, and the items Included  discriminant v a l i d i t y .  items  provided  t h a t the item demonstrated convergent v a l i d i t y w i t h the  s c a l e s based on these c a t e g o r i e s and  was  c o n s i s t e n t l y placed  Step 3, i f the number of c a t e g o r i e s assigned  validity  that  the procedures of STAGE  Step 3 and Step 4 i n c l u d e d i n each round.  of r e f i n i n g the II be c a r r i e d i n  - 98 -  It  should  trating  be noted  convergent  trait-multimethod Using t h i s are  within  (MTMM) matrix  and  further  the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s  tested.  item w i t h o t h e r  of  times  validity,  different  Campbell and F i s k e suggest scale  highly  with  than  half  and F i s k e  item-item  illus-  (1959).  correlations  than zero and l a r g e enough t o the c o r r e l a t i o n o f  i s compared t o the number  the items  in a  t h a t i f an item c o r r e l a t e s  i n more  of  i n the v a r i o u s s c a l e s  For discriminant v a l i d i t y ,  more  method  the use o f the m u l t i -  by Campbell  items w i t h i n i t s i n t e n d e d s c a l e  i t correlates  a separate  i s with  o f the items  F o r convergent  investigation.  an  one a d d i t i o n a l  as developed  a s c a l e must be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  warrant  in  point that  and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y  approach,  compared  at t h i s  separate  scale.  more h i g h l y w i t h  o f the p o t e n t i a l  items  correlations,  then  t h e r e i s a problem w i t h d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y .  Because o f t h e nature o f the c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h , i t was f e l t t h a t t h e MTMM approach was n e i t h e r v e r y necessary the  only  feasible  research, t h i s claimed within offer  method  nor v e r y  of gathering  data  feasible. was  the multimethod  an instrument, different  enough  this  data  technique  collection,  approaches  involve self-reporting.  were not employed w i t h i n t h i s  Secondly,  vary  this  the  type  of  item  i s not c o n s i d e r e d to label.  enough from  Thus, multimethods of data  It i s  surveys, i n collection  study.  c a u s a l linkages among the  as w e l l as chance p o t e n t i a l  expected  t h a t many  items  scale.  The  definitive  only  In  some s t u d i e s have  the multimethod  because there are some h y p o t h e s i s e d  various constructs ( t r a i t s ) ,  Although  technique  t o warrant  as d i s c u s s e d ,  reporting".  by v a r y i n g  a l s o d o u b t f u l whether even i n t e r v i e w techniques t h a t they a l s o  "self  i n v o l v e d use o f survey instruments.  t o be u s i n g  First,  would  correlate method  to  h i g h l y with show  correlations,  items  discriminant  from  a  i t was  separate  validity  among  - 99  constructs various would they  using  traits  then were  a  multitrait  would  (perceived characteristics)  examine  how t h e  manipulated,  "constant"  matrix  -  also  subjects'  and w h e t h e r  changed.  For  be  to  while holding others  perceptions perceptions  eight  experimentally  of of  constructs,  these any  a  and  concomitant  data  collection.  It  was  m e t h o d was c h o s e n t o e x a m i n e c o n s t r u c t data c o l l e c t i o n , was  validity. examines  is  the  of  the  scale  is  by  first  two  those  reason  It  changed traits  as  held  examination  of  number o f m a n i p u l a t i o n s t h a t .the  "sorting"  d i d not r e q u i r e  extensive  the v a l i d i t y of  more  i t e m s b e f o r e any d a t a  techniques  a sub-technique  correlations. valid,  and  thus  the  of  the  to  examine  construct  MTMM m e t h o d ,  i n that  T h i s a p p r o a c h makes t h e a s s u m p t i o n the  construct  subtracting  correlation,  correlation  validity item  score  of  the  of  the  item.  from  the  item  T h i s m e a s u r e was u s e d t o  c u r r e n t development p r o c e s s ,  as w i l l  that  with  the  T h i s measure  scale,  to  avoid  and t h e n b y c a l c u l a t i n g t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e  scale score.  it  examine t h e  is a  item  validity  be d i s c u s s e d b e l o w i n  5.10.  The analysis  second has  i d e n t i f y the hypotheses  ity.  item-scale  items w i t h i n the  the  describes  essentially  corrected  Section  is  validity.  established  an i n d i c a t o r o f t h e  calculated spurious  (1978)  One i s  overall  scale  and  this  of  One  collected.  Kerlinger  the  and i n f a c t  for  constant.  traits  rigorous  d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y would have r e q u i r e d an e x c e s s i v e  manipulate  two  basic  factors  about  first  method  discussed purposes:  by "to  explore  is  relations  among v a r i a b l e s "  purpose which c o n t r i b u t e s the  items  to  the  factor  variable  presumably u n d e r l y i n g the the  the  One e x a m i n e s  Kerlinger  analysis. areas  variables;  (Kerlinger,  examination of  l o a d i n g on a p a r t i c u l a r  factor,  in  Factor order  and . . .  1978,  to  p.590).  to test It  construct  valid-  and t h e n  infers  -  the meaning of either  the  factor.  variables  are  at  An  to  existence  search  for  of  "factor  analysis  constructs,  constructs  in  c a n be  o r i f no  a group of  used  credible  interesting  p.289).  argument,  Fornell.  about t h e  issue,  " (1967,  -  As a r g u e d b y N u n n a l l y ,  to t e s t hypotheses  hypotheses  100  however,  As he p o i n t s  against  using  factor  analysis  is  provided  by  out:  "in traditional exploratory factor analysis, both factor loadings and factor scores are indeterminate; factor loadings can be rotated in numerous ways and the solution is therefore said to be 'nonunique' .... In other words, many different models may f i t the data equally well" (1983, pp 444-445). Therefore, in  strong  a  he  argues,  priori  notions,  The  constructs  of  and  have  explicated  Cook's the  been  This  contrasts  items  interest  and C a m p b e l l ' s  construct's  data  are  based  prior  to  to  the  method o f analysis.  procedure  research.  the  technique.  analysis  is  have  r e q u i r e d 800-900  reasons,  a "good r u l e  within  factor  any  the  of  that  a method o f  one  rather  p.258)  the  p.594)  suggests  For  an  item pool  for  a proper a n a l y s i s .  and aims  responses  of  the  This  after  point  of  current  o n how  they  which  have  argued  properly  subjects  80-90  items  T h i s was  a n a l y s i s was n o t u s e d i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e  the  development  ten  study.  fit  validity.  argued t h a t  required to  that  follows  based  instrument  (1978,  context  also  pragmatic  research  developed t o  than tested  number o f  respondents  research.  prior  constructs  the  thumb".  be  grounded  this  items.  items  of  very  in  be  ensuring construct  N u n n a l l y (1978,  basis  to  body of  of  inferring underlying  was t h e  ought  approach  development  suggestion  Filially,  was  Kerlinger  item  infeasible  in fact,  the  on a s u b s t a n t i a l  -  This,  this  with  s h o u l d be p l a n n e d f o r ,  been c o n s t r u c t e d .  factor  p.64)  where p o s s i b l e  fits  c o n c e p t u a l m e a n i n g as  v a l i d i t y of measures  against  which  (1979,  "group" i n factor  in  analysis  For  for  this  use each  would  considered all  scales.  these  -  4.5.2  -  Inter-Rater R e l i a b i l i t y To a s s e s s  different two Thus,  for  tions,  the  taken  example,  ment m e a s u r e  made.  w e r e made.  were  and f o r  measures  r e l i a b i l i t y of  measures  measures  the  101  for  five  for  as  a  of  measure group  the  each  p a i r of of  there  judges  r e l i a b i l i t y of  each  the  three  sorting  step,  categorising  the  items.  computa-  T h e r e was a s e p a r a t e d i s t r i b u t i o n of  the  agreevarious  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e was  overall correct  round.  judges,  were s i x d i f f e r e n t p a i r s or  were t e n p a i r s .  assessed  i n each in  agreement  and b y e x a m i n i n g t h e  the  for  s o r t i n g c o n d u c t e d by t h e  level  there  each p a i r ,  The f i n a l  For  four judges  judges  an a s s e s s m e n t  judges  of  the  "placement"  Each measure  is  described  of  items  more  by  fully  below.  The f i r s t  a n d most b a s i c  measure  ment o n i t e m c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n as  follows:  p  that  o  some o f  thus  takes  of  judges.  a n d more s o p h i s t i c a t e d m e a s u r e o f t h e  the the  the  by  will  Kappa)  T h i s was  agreement  Pe,  i s d e f i n e d as  same c o n s t r u c t .  Thus,  agreement  which  be s i m p l y due t o  marginal p r o b a b i l i t y that  same i t e m i n t h e  _ j.  (Cohen's  raw • p r o p o r t i o n o f  joint  e  Cohen  agreement  the  p  pair  agree-  calculated  _ Number of items classified identically . Total Number of items to be classified  developed  that  account  each  s i m p l e raw p r o p o r t i o n o f  '  A second, was  was t h e  both  considers  chance  and  between  (Cohen,  adjusts judges  it  the  [ N i ( J u d g e 1 ) * N i ( J u d g e 2)1 [ T o t a l number o f i t e m s c l a s s i f i e d ]  2  likelihood  1960). by  taking  would randomly  the measure o f "chance  follows:  judges,  Kappa into place  agreement",  - 102 -  w h e r e N i i s t h e number o f i t e m s  The m e a s u r e agreement,  of  chance  assigned to construct  agreement  i s used to adjust  " i " by each  judge.  t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f raw  a n d t h u s K a p p a i s c a l c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s :  - Pe Kappa -- Po T _ u  P  The f o l l o w i n g classification  is  E  an example o f ' t h i s  scheme w i t h  20  Construct  1  A  B  Total  A  7  3  10  B  1  9  10  8  12  20  Total  In  the above  columns, twelve  it  example,  c a n be s e e n  i n construct  in  agreement  with  in  construct  B.  agreement  with  B.  Judge  2,  Of t h e  the of  agreement  total  1 placed  12  items  items  2 as b e i n g  c a n be  number o f i t e m s  about  items  20 i t e m s .  eight  placed  p l a c e d by Judge i n that  A.  can be c a r r i e d o u t f o r Judge  number o f  classified  items  By e x a m i n i n g t h e  i n construct  i n construct  which  calculated as f o l l o w s :  1 i n construct  construct,  but three  A , and  A, seven  b u t t h e e i g h t h was c l a s s i f i e d b y J u d g e  b y J u d g e 2 as b e i n g i n c o n s t r u c t analysis  judge  Of t h e e i g h t  Judge  Judge  each  that  f o r a s i m p l e two c o n s t r u c t  items.  JUDGE  JUDGE 2  procedure  were  2 as B,  were being  nine  in  classified  L i k e w i s e , b y e x a m i n i n g t h e r o w s , t h e same 2.  The s c o r e s  the judges  agreed.  on t h e d i a g o n a l Thus,  b y summing t h e d i a g o n a l  indicate  t h e raw p r o p o r t i o n and d i v i d i n g  by t h e  -  103  -  P . - ^ - . . O .  below  The " c h a n c e agreement" s c o r e where: N (Judge N? ( J u d g e (Judge Ng ( J u d g e  .  Therefore,  Finally,  .80 !  P e  were  the  examined  overall  level  g r e a t e r than  Kappa's for  v a l i d i t y of  s i m p l y t o see  of  the  the  items  was  being  each  i t e m was  i n c l u d e d i n the  which  judges  placed  within  items  the  percentage of  degree  of  inter-judge  Secondly,  scales  placement  of  construct  validity,  items  with  each  sorting  the  "target" pool  (Jarvenpaa,  the this  For  their  placed  can  taken  of  intended  i n the  across  categories them  be  the  research.  The  a high potential  other  overall  construct, w h i c h must  a  high to  scores  scheme  judges  words,  a  f o r good r e l i a b i l i t y  is for  because under-  frequency  with  construct.  The  the have  degree  have  and  method  a particular  theoretical  panel  considered  In  the  the  1987).  measure  target  w h i c h have be  scores  Kappa,  classification  construct.  e x p l i c i t l y to  can  the  a n d an a s s e s s m e n t made o f  classification.  for  round,  i t e m s w e r e c l a s s i f i e d by t h e p a n e l o f  items  within  follows:  n  r e l i a b i l i t y of  within  on  item  as  , -60  judges,  developed  agreement  based  calculated  acceptable  measurement  higher  illustrated  :  within  of  the  both  r o u n d as  a  as  _ ..  =  0  were c o n s i d e r e d  each  construct,  - .50 . .5  pairs  on  how many o f t h e  lying  10) 20  calculated  agreement  A t h i r d measure the  were  a l l possible  of .65  + (12 * 20 *  v a l u e f o r K a p p a w o u l d be  Po - Pe Kappa = ! . =  Once  w o u l d be c a l c u l a t e d  1) =8 2) = 10 ' 1) = 12 2) = 10  _ (8 * 10) 20 * 20 the  (Pe)  higher  occurred.  of  high  the  "correct" degree  scores.  of  • -  As an e x a m p l e o f how t h i s of  three  With  theoretical  a panel  times  10  of  items)  ACTUAL m a t r i x  judges,  with  a  of  item  none o f t h e  -  :  c o u l d be u s e d , ten  items  theoretical  c a n be made w i t h i n  each  of  construct.  40  case  each.construct.  placements  (4  judges  Thus a THEORETICAL v e r s u s  created  column where judges  consider the simple  developed for  total  p l a c e m e n t s , c o u l d be  ACTUAL ' N o t A p p l i c a b l e ' fit  measure  constructs  four  104  as  follows  could place  ( i n c l u d i n g an  items which they  felt  categories):  ACTUAL Constructs  THEORETICAL  •A  B  A  .36  2  B  12  24  C  0  0 .  I t e m P l a c e m e n t s : 120  Examination of that 40  with  a theoretical  placements  overall  "hit  acceptable shows  how  per  level. the  were w i t h i n the the  Construct are  not  target. A, which  maximum o f a  80%.  created  to  For example,  40.  . 90  4  • 0  40  60  0  40  100  100  120  more tap  the  might  d i a g o n a l of  of  100  "hits"  must  be  importantly, the  but  indicate  case, that  from  the  % Hits  i n Row B , 12  the  of items  items  the  80%  above m a t r i x  were  achieved,  whether  of  constructs  are  a l l 40  item  only 24/40, placements  underlying for  an  is  an  each  row  actually placements  o r 60%, were  these  at  for  this  examination  created  shows  (three constructs  made  particular  that  the  placements  Row C a b o v e shows t h a t  latter  enough  Total  '.-Overall " h i t " r a t i o :  target  total  construct,  In  differentiated  : 1  A judgement  S e c o n d l y , ' and  target  1  actual-theoretical  of  items  ' N/A  40  Hits:  construct),  ratio"  being c l a s s i f i e d .  within  the  :•  C  were  made  in  placements  Construct  A.  This  105  -  w o u l d l e a d one about  accepting  diagonal Actual  any  confidence  scale  based  indicates  constructs  themselves  based  might  be  i n the  how  on  in a scale  procedure  Finally,  factorially  complex  columns  considered  with  to  be  procedure.  more  There  placement,  are  but  a qualitative  matrix  can  high  to  of  off-  might  be.  entries  Likewise,  must  than  guidelines used  construct  the  in  the  so any c o n s i s t e n t  It  analysis  be  any  ambiguous.  ambiguous,  hesitant  examination of  number  examined.  no e s t a b l i s h e d  the  a  too  o f f - d i a g o n a l s m i g h t be  is  b a s e d on Row C , b u t be  o n Row B .  i t e m m i s - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d be  this  of  have  entries  off-diagonal  of  to  -  a  be  items pattern  emphasised  rigourous  any  that  quantitative  for determining "good"  highlight  the  levels  p o s s i b l e , problem  areas.  4.5.3  Sorting Procedures Each of  the  items  were hand p r i n t e d o n t o  card  c o n t a i n i n g o n l y one  were  printed  as  item.  similarly  as  C a r e was  categories from  the  and l a b e l l e d t h e other  anyone p r i o r  Prior  to the  to  instructions prior  to  judges.  were the  researcher  sorting  the  (Appendix 3).  the  first  prehensibility. the  Judges  The  instructions, allowed to procedure.  sorting aim o f  but  ask  as  also  were  index cards,  taken  to  The  cards  were  judges.  categories  inch  also  possible.  random o r d e r f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e  3X5  of  the  all  Each judge s o r t e d the c a r d s  into  i n d e p e n d e n t l y and to  discuss  the  judges  were  read  procedure  all  a  separately  ensure  their  written instructions  standard  to  ensure  many q u e s t i o n s  that as  no  comprehensiveness was n o t  points  necessary  to  only to  were  left  ensure  with  judges.  set  The i n s t r u c t i o n s w e r e t e s t e d w i t h a s e p a r a t e round to  items into  not  then  f i n i s h i n g the procedure w i t h  cards,  that  each  shuffled  items  asked  ensure  with  of  judge  and com-  standardise out.  they  Judges  understood  -  Before  c a r r y i n g out  each  judge  this  case ten  Some o f asked  on t e n  the  to  sample  statements  items  sort  the  106  -  categorisation  items  procedure,  unrelated to  the  were w r i t t e n about  "test"  cards,  of  an a u t o m o b i l e .  t o be  the  clarified.  be grouped t o g e t h e r . and  l a b e l l e d the  guous  cards  items  items  ensure  based  judges  cases,  helpful  4.6 4.6.1  on  the  to  them  that  i n categories  cued the all  categories,  and r e s o r t  was done t o the  Furthermore,  an  the  the to  after  create  judges  best  reported  the  judges was  reflected  that  for  the  to  to  In  were  had  point  could  able  just  obvious out  that  nevertheless ten  take  items,  the  ambi-  construct  categories.  This  idea of  attempting to  sort  each  category,  underlying  ambiguous o r u n c l e a r they  they  had s o r t e d the  then  different  construct  able  construct  understood the  be more a w a r e o f  judges  was  same  researcher  underlying  which  the  Judges  i n s t r u c t i o n s became  researcher  r e f l e c t i n g opposite viewpoints of  study.  ambiguous.  instructions  and were items  by  various aspects  Any m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s r e s u l t i n g from t h e the  done  the  following  example,  was  of  received.  For  trial  constructs  were d e l i b e r a t e l y c o n s t r u c t e d  the  a  found the  and t o  construct. items.  trial  sort  It  In to  place also  virtually be.a  very  exercise.  STEP THREE - ROUND ONE Judges The j u d g e s  Management  at  be  f o r the the  panel  to  used,  including  U n i v e r s i t y of  unbiased,  F a c u l t y support  initial  it  Calgary.  s h o u l d be  a professor, staff.  round of Step  fairly  lecturer,  3 were drawn from t h e F a c u l t y  It  was  felt  diverse.  graduate  that Thus,  student,  i n order four  for  judges  a n d a member o f  of the  were the  -  4.6.2  107  -  Results The  results  of  the  l a b e l s ' i n A p p e n d i x 6. constructs,  first  Of t h e  and t h e o t h e r  sorting  round  four judges,  are  Furthermore,  there  judges,  and t h u s t h e  results  in  Appendix 5,  with  two i d e n t i f i e d s e v e n c a t e g o r i e s ,  two i d e n t i f i e d s i x .  seven.  shown  a p p e a r e d t o be  or  The t h e o r e t i c a l number h a d b e e n  a high  c o u l d be p r e s e n t e d  l e v e l of  agreement  i n a factor  among  the  matrix format,  and  analysed i n such a f a s h i o n .  As  shown i n A p p e n d i x 8,  w i t h i n the target reveals  than  constructs  two s i g n i f i c a n t  categories.  Table  a scattering  of  it  c a n be  target  for  any p o t e n t i a l i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y  assembled ture" only  together  to  six  1-6,  categories from t h e  and  labelled  consistently labels  and  discuss  the  sorts,  created  or  respectively. there  In  could  i n t o two s e p a r a t e  in  discussion fact  ones.  those  that  judges  the  items  be  procedure In  items entries  who h a d o n l y  not  items  within  This augured . w e l l  the  four  examining the  seen  out  to of  the  the these  The  other  items  (1-6  were struc-  creation  from Appendix 5 ,  PWS.  of  Judge  with  items  judges  and 8 2 - 9 4 ) ,  B  had with  o f V o l u n t a r i n e s s and T r i a l a b i l i t y  categories,  two g r o u p i n g s  judges  "factor  82-94 were grouped t o g e t h e r  constructs of  six  rather  placed  p o i n t a d d r e s s e d was t h e  As c a n ' b e  two c a t e g o r i e s  the  first  barriers"  r e f l e c t i n g the t h e o r e t i c a l  of  measurements.  results.  the  i n that  "access  seen  labelling  b y two j u d g e s .  others  reflect  t e n d e d t o be g r o u p e d t o g e t h e r .  sorting  r e s u l t i n g from the  differed  that  the  o v e r a l l placement  t h e o f f - d i a g o n a l s showed c l u s t e r i n g ,  the  Following  still  initial  E x a m i n a t i o n of the o f f - d i a g o n a l  which  because  items,  constructs  the  was 78%.  clusters,  Nevertheless,  1,  and  Judge  separated  B quickly  her  original  agreed group  -  Judge category items, also  P  also  called  as w e l l grouped  Thus,  the  judges, that  but  included  in  Appendix 5,  items  category. and t h a t  into  this  the  other  too  the  to  feel  not  included  with  by  were  this  case  the  had. created  Relative  Observability. quite  to  the  relative  Judge same  In  the  B had extent.  for  two  discussion  c o u l d be two s e p a r a t e This  a  Advantage  advantage  two o t h e r s .  "subtle".  judges'  into  items  category  that  i t e m was  indicated  more  attempt  is  cate-  that  the  As (*),  to  items  #60  included  f r o m E a s e o f U s e , #68  from T r i a l a b i l i t y .  These  in  i n the  "main"  i d e n t i f y ambiguous  items,  simply  reconcile  were  it  items and #72  simply  defeat any  make  discussed,  34,  intent  item  which  and  i n any  35,  37,  it  the  was c o n s i d e r e d t o  s e v e r a l were too' ambiguous, o r s i m p l y d i d not f i t these  not  indicated  fit  " m o v e " an i t e m t o  made  had  agreed  a better  was t o  judges  quickly  t h a n two g r o u p i n g s , as  Eventually a l l  more  included  T h i s would  was  or  examined.  likely  goal  groupings.  no  ambiguous.  the  one  were  pressured to  i n d i c a t e d i n Appendix 4,  it  be was  category.  43,  and  44  f r o m O b s e r v a b i l i t y , and  were dropped from the  item pool  for  the  step.  This pool,  all  f o r whom an a s t e r i s k  Also,  from C o m p a t i b i l i t y ,  next  put  although  those  emphasised t h a t  procedure.  a n d #93  in  reflect  category  discussion,  judges  was  inherently  #81  were  separate  discussion that  was p u t  is  similarly,  "predominating"  originally  As  had  intended to  differences  no j u d g e was  agreed that  he  but  B and P a l l o w e d t h a t - t h e r e  the  those  It  with  categories,  which  items  a  Judges  the  minimal  the  the  into  -  i t e m s n e e d e d t o be r e e x a m i n e d .  Following  of  those  that  observability  "fit"  as  six  o b s e r v a b i l i t y items  followed,  with  "value"  and p u t  gories,  had o n l y  108  process  of  f o r a t o t a l of  culling 84  items:  left  the  f o l l o w i n g number o f  items  i n each  item  -  Voluntariness: Image: R e l a t i v e Advantage: Compatibility: Ease of Use: • Observability: Trialability:  The i n t e r - j u d g e , As  shown  in  agreement  scores  Kappa had a low o f .89. of  items  2).  This  of  43%  items see  placed is  because  the  the  one  discussion  .74  to  above  .90,  the  target  sorting  had  been  with,an  carried  average  desired minimum of :  constructs  out,  of  the  of  percentage  ratio  they  were  providing  retained  clustering.  for  construct  85%  Cohen's  f a c t t h a t O b s e r v a b i l i t y o n l y had a placement off-diagonal  to  raw  and a h i g h  Furthermore,  rose  the  .83.  .65,  high.  Table  significant  of  r o u n d was q u i t e  ( A p p e n d i x 8,  however,  effect  this  a respectable score o f . . 8 0 .  of the  of  did cluster, what  well  within  in spite  the  from  .70,  The a v e r a g e was  agreement f o r  after  ranged  -  6 8 18 11 17 .11 13  l e v e l of  A p p e n d i x 7,  109  the  next  definitions  Because sorting  would  be  these,  round on  to  item  placement.  After'  the  j u d g e s were already  asked t o  among j u d g e s  A p p e n d i x 6,  matched  the  differently  the  intent  categorisations  label  independently  agreement in  various  and d e f i n e  carried as  to  this what  definitions of  the  enough from t h e  b e e n some p r o b l e m w i t h  its  had  each of  out,  and  been the this  each c a t e g o r y  s u p p l i e d by, the  researcher.  reconciled, categories. step  panel  operationalisation.  of  group  of  Each judge  examined  represented.  Observability,  o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n to  the  the  had  level  As c a n be  of  seen  judges  very  closely  however,  was  defined  indicate  t h a t t h e r e may h a v e  -  4.7  Judges The j u d g e s  ment  at  the  diverse  for  4.7.2  this  round were a l s o  U n i v e r s i t y of  panel,  and  graduate student  hence  the  judges  Again,  from the F a c u l t y of  attempts  included  a  were  made  professor,  a n d a member o f t h e F a c u l t y s u p p o r t  round,  the  judges  i n d e x . c a r d s , and asked t o Problematic for  this  ticular  items  step.  included  to  a  Manage-  to  have  a  lecturer,  a  staff.  w i t h the  larly  sort  the  remaining items  had been  "too  identified in  ambiguous/  that  results  structure  the  judges  doesn't d i d not  with  90%  ranging  sort  except  from  for  indicated that  were  intended.  based  the  fit"  d e f i n i t i o n s on 3X5 on t h e  first  definition  "force  definitions.  round were  f i t " , any  were v e r y e n c o u r a g i n g .  card  item  dropped  was  into  also  a  par-  .86 .79  very  items it  which  good items  d e c i d e d to reexamine  The raw a g r e e m e n t  (Appendix 7). to  .86,  this  with  were  generally  was  concluded  demonstrated  loaded scale.  Cohen's an  constructs  reliability still  An e x a m i n a t i o n  shows v e r y h i g h a g r e e m e n t  O b s e r v a b i l i t y which  Thus,  in scales  Observability  of  items w i t h i n t a r g e t  This  for  this  ( A p p e n d i x 5)  an a v e r a g e  high,  resulted  of  exception of O b s e r v a b i l i t y .  placement of above  A  were s u p p l i e d the c o n s t r u c t  category.  factor  .88  which  ensure  Again the the  Calgary.  selected  Results For t h i s  tial  -  STEP FOUR - ROUND ONE  4.7.1  to  110  was  at  being that  construct  coefficients. on  other  Kappa s c o r e s were of  .83.  The  ( A p p e n d i x 8,  consistently  overall  development  validity,  with  Nevertheless,  theoretical  at  Table  placed  as  a high  or 3).  they  process  had  poten-  because  constructs,  .82  simi-  with a l l constructs  73%  the  judges,  s c o r e s ranged from  average  was 92%,  among t h e  of  it  some was  - Ill  4.7.3  Scale An  sorted too  Refinement  examination indicated  complex,  as  of  that  to  both  this,  cohesiveness, group,  items  67,  hence had been categories it  seemed  In  were  of  category,  Relative  As  it  was  al.  4,  their  was  3.  It  was  not  mainly  i t was  the  placed  though  it  was  was " d r o p p e d  in  that  they  and h e n c e items  again  from  were  after  construct.  Step  be  pool.  Items  the  construct  definitions  decided to  eliminate  any  items  in  from  i n Step  this  3,  Step 3 because Therefore,  the  had been  69,  fact,  Relative  74,  25%  been  and  79  by  at  of  the  Advantage  provided.  w h i c h m i g h t be  it  different  categories  In  and  separate  three  other  dropped.  4 were  as  internal  d e f i n i t i o n had  into  into  and  into three  placed  placed  had t o in  the  to  studies.  others  retained  theoretical  the  from o t h e r  however,  71 h a d b e e n  as  attempted  the  the  was  study  validity,  with  (1983)  and c o m m u n i c a b l e  visible  case,  were  defined  construct  clustered  with  however,  judges,  a result of  of the  Communicability.  et  Chapter  pool  For  this  confounded  with  Advantage.  tangibility  labelled  This  had not  Observability  even  that  sorting procedure,  problematic,  placements  d e f i n e d by Rogers  i n n o v a t i o n are  Although item  therefore  the  as  Observability  how i t w o u l d be p l a c e d o n c e a c o n s t r u c t  Step  and  two o f  reason,  high.  a n d 72  in  the  i n c l u d e d i n the p o o l f o r t h i s  expected  dropped.  from  and had b e e n ' d r a w n  t o be v e r y c o n g r u e n t  categories,  least  be  during the  provided.  also  was  68  was d e c i d e d t o s e e  an  The i t e m s  it  items  earlier  of  constructs,  would  the  o r i g i n a l construct  results  (1983, p . 2 3 2 ) .  Because of  how  discussed  others  these  the the  was  degree to which the  tap  -  Result (1973)  It  the  above  results, was  process.,. which  concluded  Demonstrability. who  indicated  that  it  was  would that  This the  include  the  ties more  decided to their  construct  back  to  the  "amenable  concentrate  Observability  would  be  more  term u s e d by to  on  the and  aptly  Zaltman  demonstration  the  -  innovation t o be  is,  and  from the  more  result 77,  the  of  the  this  culling of  "results"  Finally,  coverage  tion  of  software  This  sight.  is  meant  have  than  would  matter  Software,  that  the  of  other  types  little  raised  theoretical  as  is  (1983,  less  objects  [to  was  meant  back  it  is  d e m o n s t r a b i l i t y or  that  observe, 70  was  was r e w o r d e d t o  try  into  items  A l l items i n order  item  the  pool.  The  (68,  73,  were  reworded  to  75,  76,  concentrate  shown i n t h e • l i s t i n g and 8 0 - 3 ,  discovered that  that  this  in  to  He  the  when  If  were  results  related  to on  Appenincrease  to  hardware  and  only  software  Thus,  it  innovathe  rates  the  is  capable  more p o s i t i v e "  i n that  or  appears  t a n g i b i l i t y Of r e s u l t s  importance of v i s i b i l i t y ,  research  o f m a k i n g an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  ( Z a j o n c -& M a r k u s ,  1982). items,  to  to  software  slower  were  the  apparent the  that  alluded  dominant of  adop-  focus,  that  has  the adopt  shown  attitude  Because of and t h e  it  hardware.  a n i n n o v a t i o n , t h e more l i k e l y he i s t o  an i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,  s t r e n g t h of the  comparing  indicated  v i s i b l e than hardware.  objects]  V i s i b i l i t y of  and u s u a l l y have  p.232). they  of  Rogers  the: i n n o v a t i o n i s  issue  technology.  whether  is  "mere e x p o s u r e  seeming l a c k of  left.  which  observability  seems t o be  these  This  "advantages"  it  degree.to  a  "less  however,  This  toward  or  construct,  more a p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r c a n s e e it.  result  o n l y seven  were  more l i k e l y  a b i l i t y t o measure,  and p u t  that  construct,  the  Rogers  components  tion"  the  the  item pool.  dimension of  innovations  idea of  PWS.  construct  re-examining Observability,  itself.  sense  the  the  ...  w h i c h h a d been d e l e t e d ,  "benefits"  of  are,  two a d d i t i o n a l i t e m s w e r e w r i t t e n , 8 0 - 2  of the  another  a  o r i g i n a l , pool  to  the  reflected  using  68,  process  the  aspect  of  Item  capture  any r e f e r e n c e s  In yet  pool.  a n d 80)  d i x 2.  In keeping with  results  accurately  78,  drop  the  -  advantages  items were kept w h i c h  communicate  dropped to  t h e more v i s i b l e i t s  adopted" (p.39).  tangibility,  112  the  apparent  i t was d e c i d e d t o c r e a t e an i t e m p o o l  to  -  measure  the  actual v i s i b i l i t y  of  the  113  -  PWS.  For t h i s  i t e m s . w e r e w r i t t e n and added t o t h e o v e r a l l p o o l (Appendix 2,  4.8  items  f o r the next  round of  sorting  95-103).  STEP 3 - ROUND TWO  4.8.1  Judges The j u d g e s  Commerce (UBC)'.  and  for  the  second round of  Business  Again  professor,  the  Administration  p a n e l was k e p t  two g r a d u a t e  F a c u l t y support s t a f f . be composed o f rounds,  and  potential  4.8.2  at  the  diverse,  students,  a  might  U n i v e r s i t y of  with  research  Having s h i f t e d the  individuals  who  Step 3 were drawn from t h e F a c u l t y  five  members,  assistant,  locale  British  a  different  Columbia  and i n c l u d e d a  and a member  of  the  t o UBC e n a b l e d t h e p a n e l  who w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n a w a r e o f t h e  bring  of  perspective.  f o r h i g h l i g h t i n g any p r o b l e m a r e a s w i t h t h e  first  This  to  sorting  increased  the  items.  Results The  quick most  reason an a d d i t i o n a l n i n e  results  visual  of  the  second  examination of  items were c a t e g o r i s e d  categories  other  w h i c h ' shows constructs, wider  range  Image,  In  that but  that  than  in  examining  the  that  of  the  the  is  sorts.  are  shown i n A p p e n d i x 5 .  various  items  were  placed  constructs,  The  major  placement  ratio  reveals  A that  w e r e some c l u s t e r s  c o n f i r m e d by T a b l e  items  individual  Appendix  within  the  problem  4,  the  8,  target  percentages  areas  in  seemed  had  a  to  be  seen  in  Visibility.  with  a  D placed  Voluntariness  3  although there  This  of  the  previous and  intended,  86%  Step  placement  target.  within  Image,  Judge  the as  overall  Compatibility,  Appendix 5 cluding  than the  round of  items.  seven  of  This  the  of  eight  overall  72%, items  g r o u p was  it  can  within  be a  labelled  group  in-  "external  - 114 -  pressure reflect the  such  an o v e r a l l  construct  internal of  t o u s e PWS" ( A p p e n d i x 6 ) .  validity  consistency  items were  rise  of  of  several  Judge  also  was  image i t e m s the  not  not  severely  construct,  s u r p r i s i n g , and  threatened.  remained h i g h ,  target  o n l y Judge  These  i n that  if  reflection items see  judges  of of  Once  and i f  the  as  how t h e y  were  i n the next  to  construct  the  sorting  of  thus  Also,  Judge D ' s  placement  the group  ratio  would  a  some  for  the  placement of  the  It  because  of  ratio  the  items  target  i t was d i f f i c u l t  was t h e r e f o r e the  placed of  success  53%.  together.  ( w i t h the  the t a r g e t ,  C o m p a t i b i l i t y were  items.  were  internal consistency  included within  for  items  to  an  of  the  the  place-  determine  anomaly,  decided to in earlier  d e f i n i t i o n s were  Ease  if  or  a  leave  the  sorts,  and  provided  to  the  round.  Judge  was V i s i b i l i t y w i t h  M had. grouped  and l a b e l l e d t h i s  the  PWS,  sub-aspects  validity  in  outside  p l a c e d when c o n s t r u c t  grouped t o g e t h e r , detract  round  they were,  ( A p p e n d i x 5)  be  but  Nevertheless,  problem category  visibility  considered  together  67%.  as  group a m a j o r i t y  augured w e l l  sorting  however,  Trialability Again,  this  to  problems  resulting  Judge N ' s items were  essentially  again,  items  problems w i t h  The f i n a l  have  D f a i l e d to  facts  ment r a t i o w o u l d r i s e results  to  categories,  N d i d group e i g h t  items,  items  appeared  different  o f Use items)..  not  the  items  grouping is  "  Nevertheless,  the  the  the  V o l u n t a r i n e s s and Image b o t h m i g h t  t o 90%.  into  to  construct,  included within  Compatibility  the  In that  of  as  of  the  well  as  a construct  items  from  the  of  category  the  items  internal  73%.  together  with  for  (Appendix 6).  trial,  called "exposure",  target"  r a t i o of  "exposure"  opportunity  remained h i g h .  although o u t s i d e the  significantly  all  a placement  and  Furthermore, construct,  cohesiveness  the  be  therefore  because  meant of  might  the  they d i d overall  -  V i s i b i l i t y group of group,  the placement  Because inter-judge d i x 7, .94, to  items.  the  of  the  several  agreement  the  fact,  despite  fell  below the  4.8.3  Scale  to  .65  items  outside  the  of  .71  remained w e l l  .53,  decided  to  eliminate  pattern  of  placement  that  in  a  five  i n c l u d i n g items  were  placement  of  of  7,  items  more  t h e more c o m p l e x  4.9.1  As c a n  .58,  constructs, be  seen  low o f ..60  above  targets,  the  in  to  target  only three  and . 6 4  various  few w e r e p l a c e d any  items  outside  items  3,  smaller pools.  4.9  overall  of  of  the  the  Appen-'  a high  of  from  .58  showed a w i d e r a n g e  .65. ten  In  scores  respectively.  the  being  80-3,  for  in  81,  several  which target  dropped  individual  there  and 92.  had been  construct  from  in  likely  each to  the  items  in  pool  item  i n Appendix 5, It  a  all  before  T h i s assessment  construct's  have  items  categories.  a n y s i m p l e a l g o r i t h m , b u t was l a r g e l y s u b j e c t i v e  pools  the  Refinement  seen  number  target  ranged from a  Cohen's Kappa a l s o  t h r e s h o l d , at  c a n be  the  were added t o  93%.  groupings outside the  In examining the  resulted  these  showed a w i d e r a n g e .  .75.  average  the  if  raw a g r e e m e n t  of  -  groupings  scores  p r o p o r t i o n of  but  Finally,  r a t i o would r i s e  w i t h an a v e r a g e .94,  115  was  fairly the  therefore consistent  sorts.  the  next  This round,  was n o t made b a s e d on  a n d i n p a r t was a l s o b a s e d pool.  dropped at  Constructs  this  it  stage  with  than  The a i m was t o t r y t o k e e p a p p r o x i m a t e l y t e n i t e m s  on  larger  those  with  f o r each  of  constructs.  STEP 4 - ROUND TWO Judges Judges  for  this  round  were  again  from  the  Faculty  of  Commerce  and  - 116 -  Business  Administration  professor  and t h r e e  4.9^2  at  UBC.  Four  graduate  students.  of  is  judges  nation  placement  shows  off-target  items  a, f a i r l y  cluster.  Trialability  simple This  items  again  shown  "factor  is  for  w i t h i n . the  surprising i n that  The factor  structure. .90.  agreement  scores  Judge  J  and  .74,  are  o v e r a l l placement  of  J,  of  the  with  only  placed  one  seven  construct.  exami-  significant  of  Again,  the this  The  agreement  reflect  eleven is  off-target  Trialability  They range  three  the  not 3,  simple  among t h e p a i r s o f  Cohen's•Kappa scores  of.82.  .96.  ( A p p e n d i x 7)  the  75% r a n g e .  items w i t h i n the  validity  of  are  judges  items,  also  are  all  for  the  corres-  from a low group o f  low s c o r e s  S h i f t i n g the  the  .70, pairs  a  construct  ratio  construct  being Trialability  cluster  raises  b e l o w 90%  considered problematic 90%.  constructs  a l s o show t h a t  a high  and p o t e n t i a l r e l i a b i l i t y had been a c h i e v e d .  off-target  with  i n excess of  target  items w i t h i n . t h e t a r g e t  f o r an i n d i v i d u a l  construct  with  A visual  J.  degree of c o n s t r u c t  well  a  Trialability.  scores  f o r Judge J ,  an a v e r a g e  a high  The p l a c e m e n t  was n o t  agreement  i n the  with  i n c l u d i n g Judge  other  raw  Except  to  Appendix 5.  who  Voluntariness  Even f o r Judge  pondingly high,  5).  including  t h e p e r c e p t i o n . o f V o l u n t a r i n e s s , as d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r  inter-judge  was a b o v e  in  structure",  should also c o n t r i b u t e to the p e r c e p t i o n of  score  recruited,  Results The  .72,  were  i n that  is  this  at  i s 92%,  w i t h the  lowest  84% ( A p p e n d i x 8,  group t o  100%.  R e l a t i v e Advantage,  i n previous sorts  the  at  The  Table  The  only  87%.  This  ratios  had  been  -  4.9.3  117  -  S c a l e Refinement The  various  final scales  analysis  step  of  this  r o u n d was  the  Again,  t h i s number was b a s e d on  ( 1 9 8 5 ) who e s t i m a t e d  p r o v i d e the d e s i r e d l e v e l s of  number  reduce  to approximately ten each.  c o n d u c t e d by D a v i s  The  to  scales  and h e n c e  for  that  and  included for  Image w e r e  the  next  already  development  R e l a t i v e Advantage o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h a d 18 i t e m s s o r t i n g rounds. (1985)  was t h e r e f o r e  p a r t i c u l a r scale  had s u r v i v e d  the  items  f r o m two o t h e r  different items,  As left the  is  15  construct,  -24,  rounds  intact,  sources  (#'s  Thus  the  rather  25-28, scale  because  which It  the  i n d i c a t e d i n Appendix 4,  it  of the  was  next  number o f  items  this  t u n i t y to e v e n t u a l l y develop a b e t t e r scale  the  were.  various  d e v e l o p e d by D a v i s  its  f o r the  four  to provide a p o t e n t i a l l y s t a g e was composed o f  keep  all  eleven  14  items  categorisation  Although the c o n s t r u c t  Secondly,  t h i s new  i t was h o p e d t h a t  stage,  4,  construct  s o r t i n g i n c o n s i s t e n c y d i d not  Therefore, at  they  o f t h e s u c c e s s he h a d  inconsistent  for a p o t e n t i a l l y high r e l i a b i l i t y coefficient.  was n o t b a s e d o n any e x i s t i n g o n e .  target  construct.  3 and 4 .  c o m p l e x as R e l a t i v e Advantage, t h i s  larger  the  would  was a l s o d e c i d e d t o k e e p  decided to  sometimes  the  as  demonstrated  complex n a t u r e of the  items which had o c c u r r e d d u r i n g Steps  relatively  the  As shown, i n A p p e n d i x  A p p e n d i x 2)  for  within  stage  items  Appendix 2).  t o R e l a t i v e Advantage.  f o r Compatibility because  not.as well  perspective.  r e f l e c t i n g the  (#'s  sorting  v a l i d i t y with respect  for  item scale  remaining after  d e c i d e d t o keep t h e  for his "perceived usefulness"  with this it  It  a ten  items  reliability.  Voluntariness  were  number o f  there final  w o u l d be  of was  augur scale  by k e e p i n g a more  questionnaire.  oppor-  - 118 -  A g a i n as Use s c a l e . ease  of  again  i n d i c a t e d i n A p p e n d i x 4,  These were  use".  They  because  of  all  had passed  the  success  should provide a v a l i d  It  was  items  a proper perhaps First,  this  scale  through  realised  retain  be  all  for  developed,  irrelevant.  as was d i s c u s s e d  perception  demonstrability, ible,  or  less  the  and  This  earlier,  of of  the  amenable  that  i n an o r g a n i s a t i o n a l  cant  requirement  erations  will  to  be  for  that  of  see  results  Like  Result  decided  of the  to  it  based  retain  in  construct  fact  u s i n g a PWS. the  where  this  "perceived  unaltered,  considered  items  might  too  and  that  from o t h e r  they  sources  all  a  not  category  of  be  of  the  less.  items  more  considered a  dropped for  significant  this  a  of  is  signifi-  having  these from  the  consid-  the  next  to  final  stage  to  reveal.  remained  that  the  consideration  impact  or  intang-  u s i n g a PWS a r e ,  s c a l e would  which  strength  tangibility,  Both of  it  was  grouped  the  the  second  for  considerations.  the  Certainly,  retain  con-  study  t e n d e d t o be  captures  The  rounds. was  current  argued that  s c a l e , c o u l d be  have  it  PWS a r e ' p r o v i d e d w i t h o u t  t e s t of the  was  the  couple  acquisition,  nine  sorting  f a c t o r i a l l y complex  of  results  one.  was d e c i d e d t o  it  on  from t h i s  their  initial  Demonstrability,  Observability  for  Nevertheless,  context  u s i n g a PWS w i l l  perhaps  Nevertheless,  was  was  in using  context,  instrument.  It  i n the  demonstration,  perceived  benefits  indicated  what t h e  was  T h u s , . i t m i g h t be  of  justifying  stage.  was p e r h a p s  items  results  advantage  the  it  The o t h e r  next  R e l a t i v e Advantage  less  demonstrate  scale.  Davis s c a l e  v a l i d a t i o n rounds  by D a v i s ,  particular construct  to  somewhat  the  the  f o r t h e "Ease o f  s o r t i n g rounds were d r o p p e d .  w i t h t h o s e o f . R e l a t i v e Advantage. of  were r e t a i n e d  remained f o r Result Demonstrability a f t e r the  decided to  sidered that  the  items  d i r e c t l y from the  and r e l i a b l e  w h i c h had r e m a i n e d a f t e r  Eight  taken  ten  for  aspect  impact  Visibility. of  within  Rogers' organ-  -  isations.  This  individuals hence also  is  are  likely  not  items  sorting  yet  quite  decided to  These  due t o  rounds,  had but  again  to  after  stage.  was a l s o  within date  the  had a g e n e r a l  focus,  specific These  As d i s c u s s e d  negative  include  monitor users,  the  as w e l l  not  issue  Six  that is  they  Therefore,  of  specific  The items  as  final  i n Chapter which  have  which  #'s  be  part  for  flexibility  a  new  to  received  Most  measure  rather  potentially  deskilling  It  a new c o h e s i v e  perceptions usage  provide  with  from  the  one  another.  a  there  For  two  essentially item  measure  has  items  as  fit  most  certain  management  these  the is  single  item  the  of  items  no r e a s o n  it  to  concerns  perceptions  is  to  attention.  example,  for  was  of  elimination  monitoring issue,  .constitute  with  as  it  developed  s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t scale,  the  specifically  prominent  and j o b  was  during  scale  items  computer  and  it  in culling  which d i d not  however,  PWS  of  of  Trialability.  consistently  point.  used  104-109).  new i t e m s  to  health  from  the  measures  control  and  104-105).  refinement  necessary  this  2,  widespread,  items were d e v e l o p e d t o measure u s e r s '  perceptions, (it's  rather  new i t e m s  a n d c o u l d be  separate the  to  allow  developed to  should correlate  distinctly  monitoring issue  to  add s i x  constitute  others. very  items  fairly  which remained f o r  were  they  are  number  i n d i c a t e d i n Appendix 4,  twelve items  the h e a l t h ,  ( A p p e n d i x 2,  necessarily  expect  as  as  as  capability  some PWS u s e r s .  these concepts do  aspects  machines  together,  decided to scales  the  grouped  ten  general  innovations.  of  retain  even though a s i g n i f i c a n t  Finally,  the  been  -  that  PWS,  "visible".  thought b e t t e r  It  fact  using  keep t e n of  had  the next  the  119  for  to users  the  scales  and  for  non-users  the of  Pre-Pilot test the  PWS.  was t o  This  reword  essentially  -  involved  a  slight  change  i n tense  t h e u n d e r l i n e d words i n t h e  Using a before.  Non-User:  U s i n g a PWS would done before.  re-wording  two d i f f e r e n t  as  illustrated  by  not  to  be  sets  anything  similar  of  that  to  done  anything  items  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  I've  which  Respondents  d e p e n d i n g on w h e t h e r t h e y used t h e  that  I've  were  grouped  in  were d i r e c t e d t o  the  PWS o r  not.  General  The  next  pre-pilot  test,  small.  having  stage  the  were  and  plus  this  had  complete  the  development  s i z e of test  been  was t o  served  the  but  because  size  would  however,  of  the  the  that  r e l i a b i l i t y of  the  be  inappropriate.  is  test's  of  the  first  t o comment o n t h e  ensure  were  The  see  a  intentionalmechanics  of  accomplished  by  included to  conduct  if  comment  on  (Appendix any  its 11).  difficul-  respondents  would  questionnaire.  was  purpose  test's  was  ensuring that  it  to  the  and t h e n  s c a l e s was  aim  that  This  questionnaires  purpose  was  s a m p l e was k e p t  questionnaire,  the  of  process  adequate.  instructions  a scanning of  the  a minimum o f d i f f i c u l t y c o m p l e t i n g t h e  The a n a l y s i s  section,  first  encountered,  encounter  sample  instrument  questionnaire  wording,  These comments,  test,  the  s o - c a l l e d because the  respondents  length,  of  The p r i m a r y a i m o f  compiling  ties  of  items,  example:  similar  two  the  P R E - P I L O T TEST  4.10.1  ly  not  created  sections  appropriate sections  4.10  P W S is  -  a n d mood f o r  following  User:  The  120  of  also  considered the  impact on the  v a r i o u s s c a l e s measuring 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  important that  discussion  in a  this large  in  development of  o f u s i n g t h e PWS.  this the  -  4.10.2  Sample  Questionnaires non-users  taken  University the  taries.  of B r i t i s h  Results  While perceived  that  it  20 u s e r s  and  t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l g a r y and  included both voluntary users  and n o n - v o l u n t a r y u s e r s , were  primarily  of  secre-  returned.  o f t h e p r e - p i l o t were met, o n l y t h e s c a l e s  characteristics internal  were  statistically  consistency  of  the  analysed.  eight  scales  The  measuring intent  which  possible  the  was  had been  to  deve-  i f a n y , c o u l d be e l i m i n a t e d .  81 i t e m s w e r e s i m p l y t o o many f o r t h i s  I t was  t y p e o f i n s t r u m e n t , and  while  retaining desired  reli-  levels.  scales  were  t h e s i x measures  measures, lower  at  sample  s h o u l d b e r e d u c e d as much as  The  bound on t h e  s i x measures fairly  matrix  of  to-total  analysed of  using  true  items  by Guttman  i n most  i n each  correlations"  SPSS-X  t h e one w i t h  r e l i a b i l i t y of  discussed  standard  the  r e l i a b i l i t y discussed  Guttman argued t h a t  become  scale  the  R e l i a b i l i t y routine, by Guttman (1945). lowest  the scale.  was a l s o  discussions  of  (henceforth  item-item),  (henceforth  item-scale),  Of t h e  candidates  for deletion  correlations,  variance  from t h e s c a l e .  reliability.  ALPHA,  examined The  the  which would  (and hence would  have  raise  ALPHA  if  low e x p l a n a t o r y  with  the  one as  of has  correlation  "corrected  item-  t h e "ALPHA i f d e l e t e d "  Items  six  rating establishes  Cronbach's  (Lambda 3 ) ,  calling  score,  t h e i t e m s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s c o r e s were a l s o used t o determine w h i c h  item-scale low  This  a n d t o s e e how many o f t h e i t e m s ,  ability  were  faculties  sample o f  .  considered that  and  Columbia.  a convenience  usable questionnaires  a l l aims  on t h e  loped,  the  from the business  Seventeen  4.10.3  for  were d i s t r i b u t e d t o  PWS, p r i m a r i l y , f a c u l t y members,  check  121 -  items  low i n t e r - i t e m and  deleted,  or which  showed  power i n any m o d e l )  were  -  all  candidates  show t h e  for  initial  elimination.  results  been d e l e t e d from the lacks  some  felt  that  valuable  validity the  in  insight  is  measure all  determine  is  recognised that have  from  shown  4-1  Guttman's  scales.  The  at  Appendix 4,  five  the  the  ALPHA i f  Because  refer  to  results  their  of  for  this  lowest  deleted  the  corrected score.  ever,  this  items  items  scale  item-scale  r e l a t i v e homogeneity of  scale  showed p o o r  was  .89,  the  for the next  with  ALPHA  correlation with  the  deleted.  A f t e r d r o p p i n g them,  rose  .84.  was  affect for  It  coverage  the next  Fourteen (labelled  statistics the  after  one  items  to had  second a n a l y s i s round Nevertheless,  statistics  of  these  of  the  round of  items  also  were  5,  14,  would  analysis  concluded  domain o f  the  included 23,  31,  in  it  was  be  most  rounds  the  a n d 38;  questionnaire).  .95,  with  are  scale  to  henceforth  As s u m m a r i s e d  at  ALPHA a t  .93.  c o r r e l a t i o n would GLB r o s e items,  to  .96  .71.  scale,  item  actually  raise  a n d ALPHA t o  i t was d e c i d e d t h a t  ( l a b e l l e d IMG). Two i t e m s  and w o u l d  (36  .94.  item  14  initial how-  significantly  raise  e l i m i n a t i n g the  construct,  The  and 4 9 ) ,  GLB d r o p p e d s l i g h t l y t o that  One  round.  Image s c a l e  ALPHA i f to  conducted,  ( l a b e l l e d VOL) w e r e v e r y e n c o u r a g i n g .  GLB) was  Seven items were i n c l u d e d i n the for  were  deleted.  results  Once d e l e t e d ,  c o u l d be d r o p p e d f r o m t h e s c a l e  GLB  been  number o n t h e  lower bound ( h e n c e f o r t h  with  the  examining these  Voluntariness (questionnaire  i n Table  the  to  items  gained  rounds  4-1.  i t e m numbers  (#14)  It  that  r e f i n i n g the  given i n Table  As  in  -  Two a n a l y s i s  a n d one  scales.  122  and hence  .88  items they  but  ALPHA  would  not  were dropped  testing.  were  R A ) , and hence  originally it  included i n  was h o p e d t h a t  the  the  R e l a t i v e Advantage  a n a l y s i s would r e v e a l  scale  several  -  items  which  would  scale  was . 9 8 , w i t h ALPHA a t  deleted while  be  still  candidates  for elimination.  .89..  remaining w i t h i n the target  low i n t e r - i t e m  and i t e m - s c a l e  were  first  to  were  examined  deletion,  as  therefore,  domain coverage  The  the  scale  that  item content  because  lations. three 28  scale  CPAT)  rose  t o . 8 9 a n d GLB t o  four  items  ument,  and  coverage.  demonstrated was  37,  on  five  72,  s l i g h t l y to  showed some  (items  01,  52,  81).  After  .97.  I t was  contained  eleven  surprising negative  54,  and 7 1 ) .  m i g h t be t h e c a s e ,  item-  Examination of  but they  higher  Furthermore,  i t was d e c i d e d t h a t  signifi-  (.86).  Never-  based on t h e s e  a d d i t i o n a l items items  Thus,  revealed  w h i c h had low i t e m - s c a l e  domain coverage items  i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t for  parsimonious  correthat  (items  20,  was c a r r i e d o u t ALPHA the revised scale  r e l i a b i l i t y i n the without  the  could  was e x a m i n e d a n d a g a i n i t was f e l t  good p o t e n t i a l  sufficiently  these items  examination o f the r e s u l t s  o v e r a l l d e l e t i o n of seven .93.  the  items  a n d e l i m i n a t i n g them w o u l d n o t n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t  of these  Once t h i s  down  analysis,  originally  c o u l d be d r o p p e d w i t h o u t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t i n g  and 6 9 ) .  low v a r i a n c e  cut  c o r r e l a t i o n s w o u l d make a n y s c a l e  were two o r t h r e e The c o n t e n t  25,  a l t h o u g h GLB w a s . somewhat  the negative  from t h e s c a l e .  there  would  Items  c o u l d be r e d u c e d t o n i n e i t e m s w i t h -good  o f t h e domain o f the c o n s t r u c t ,  deleted  them  GLB d e c r e a s e d  d i d n o t r e v e a l why t h i s (.52),  combined w i t h  (16,  c o u l d be  reliability.  for this  items hard t o i n t e r p r e t ,  that  the scale  correlations  l o w e r e d ALPHA  coverage  while  items  this  for r e l i a b i l i t y .  Based on t h i s  for Compatibility (labelled  and i t e m - s c a l e  theless,  be  any o f  for. deletion  .89,  and e x c e l l e n t  The s t a t i s t i c s  cantly  dropping  candidates  ALPHA r e m a i n e d a t  concluded,  item  if  GLB f o r  several  range  correlations,  of the domain o f the c o n s t r u c t .  identified  items.  see  The i n i t i a l  I t was d e c i d e d t h a t  with  coverage  123 -  detracting  of  final  instr-  from  domain  • -  The  original  scale  for  Ease  124  of  -  Use  (labelled  Within this  s c a l e one i t e m h a d a n e g a t i v e , i t e m - s c a l e  others  low i t e m - s c a l e  for  had  ALPHA  latter  was  as  with  GLB a t  #59  reliability  without .92.  The  with  and # 1 9 ) . GLB a t  domain coverage.  reduced  As a r e s u l t  .91.  scale  The  therefore  The  #19  items. and t w o  the  content  score of  the  c o u l d be d r o p p e d as  r e s u l t i n g ALPHA was-  demonstrated  w i t h o u t reduced domain coverage  developed  items.  Analysis  and  correlations  of  item-scale  (24,  35,  of  the  construct  whose  slightly  .83  higher  a n d was u s e d i n  if  item-item  even  d e c i d e d t o keep t h e including  #75.  Demonstrability (labelled  the  results  of  and  40)  the  pre-pilot test  Four  a n d one  highly  items  was  had  near  RD)  the  showed v e r y  negative  zero  contained  (75).  (39  a n d 70)  Even  items  as t h e y w e r e d e s i g n e d t o t a p t h e  within  the  .35.  Once  again,  therefore,  was a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e c o n t e x t  general  DOI  framework.  items w i t h p o s i t i v e i t e m - s c a l e The ALPHA  for  same An  i n t e n d e d to measure t h e o b s e r v a b i l i t y o f  c o r r e l a t i o n was construct  poor  item-scale  domain had s u r p r i s i n g l y low i t e m - i t e m c o r r e l a t i o n s .  questioned whether t h i s research,  Result  correlate  example a r e t h e two i t e m s results  for  correlations.  39,  w h i c h were e x p e c t e d t o  test,  .79  c o r r e l a t i o n (#59)  a n d i t was d e c i d e d t h a t  affecting  coefficients  scale  item-item  part  low a t  (#06  included ten  test.  The eight  relatively  two i t e m s was e x a m i n e d ,  well  pilot  correlations  EOU)  this  of the  it  current  Nevertheless,  correlations  f o u r i t e m s c a l e was  it  f o r the  .62  was  was pilot  w i t h GLB a t  .72.  The  scale  developed  for  T r i a l a b i l i t y (labelled  t a i n e d e l e v e n f a i r l y homogeneous s h o u l d be a b l e of  .77,  items;  hence,  t o be r e d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y .  and.GLB of  .94.  Once  again,  TRIAL)  originally  i t was e x p e c t e d t h a t  With eleven items  therefore,  items  were  this  conscale  i t h a d an ALPHA examined  to  see  -  which  c o u l d be  maintaining  15,  27  Several  which  might  domain coverage.  correlations (8,  deleted  below  .40  and '33)  were  combinations  noted  deletions  i t e m s c a l e was d e t e r m i n e d w i t h GLB  at  .84.  included Pilot by  The  27,  33,  T e s t was  one  remaining 45,  the  responses,  not  necessary  items  a  62,  that  as  adequate  items  the  i n the  21,  in  of  were  the  the  opinions.  with  for  Four  and a  refinement  in  to  the  the  perceived  Thus  example,  to  final  five  .81,  It  were  and  pilot  require  qualifiers  ( w i t h the  .50.  items  T r i a l a b i l i t y items.  others  below.  a n ALPHA o f  use  still  item-scale  correlations  analysed,  scale  while  criteria.  domain coverage,  c o u l d be  following  levels,  a n d 73)  on t h e s e  One f i n a l  items  51  item-scale  items  rewording of  gradation  (17,  with  of  and 77.  slight  respondent  items  reliability  i d e n t i f i e d based  also  of  -  increase  Four  were  125  test  for  was  the  noted  dichotomous added t o  added q u a l i f i e r  the  under-  lined) :  U-45:  The nature  A PWS was available to me to adequately test run various applications.  Visibility  of  the  scale  construct  was  composed  were  fairly  of  nine  items,  homogeneous.  which  ALPHA  because  for  the  of  nine  the item  1  s c a l e was  .83,  correlations the  aspects  .95.  Examination of  candidates  construct,  Thus  less  five  it  than  items  item-scale  for deletion.  was .65  the  felt  that  c o u l d be  and  Once a g a i n ,  most  of  the  item-item because  items  eliminated without  were dropped (29,  55,  f o u r i t e m s c a l e t o be u s e d i n t h e p i l o t t e s t  GLB o f  The  the  c o r r e l a t i o n of  domain coverage. resulting  GLB o f  revealed several  s i m p l i c i t y of  item-scale  and  with  63,  66,  with  of an  affecting  and 7 6 ) .  showed an ALPHA o f  The .94,  .95.  remaining of  computer  six  items  usage  in  were  the put  instrument through  the  dealing same  with  analysis  the as  negative a  group  -  labelled  Computer A v o i d a n c e ( C A ) .  expected  that  there  various  items,  between  items  PWS  usage.  initial  4.11  and t h i s  be  a  As  stated  be  the  degree  case.  which addressed the  suspected,  therefore,  earlier,  however,  of  The  it  was  not  among  the  correlation  was  correlation  highest  c o n t r o l and m o n i t o r i n g a s p e c t s  there  did  not  any p a r t i c u l a r computer a v o i d a n c e t y p e  materialise  from  of  this  construct.  P I L O T TEST  4.11.1  General  The  final  stage  of  the  test  of  the  questionnaire  similar  to  the  target  " f u l l , scale"  pilot  ground  be  would  primary  aim o f  strated  the  check  for  4.11.2  the  pilot  appropriate any  completing the  instrument  test  difficulties  or  The calling  process  using  that  reliability.,  ambiguities  the  the  conduct  whose  final  various  Secondary  that  to  respondents  p o p u l a t i o n of ensure  was  respondents  back-  study.. scales  aims were  a  The  demon-  to  might  again  face  in  questionnaire;  of  company. PWS,  It  the  pilot  test  included a variety  from a v a r i e t y of  were d i s t r i b u t e d t o  4.11.3  of  to  development  Sample  a utility  non-users  was  levels  The s a m p l e p o p u l a t i o n f o r of  -  significant  proved to  12 a n d 5 8 , As  test  would  126  75 i n d i v i d u a l s ,  levels  was d r a w n df  from the  individuals,  head  office  both users  and  and d e p a r t m e n t s , . , Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  w i t h 66 u s a b l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  returned.  Results scales for  Furthermore,  the the  f o c u s s i n g on t h e  were six same  again  analysed  measures analysis  of  using  the  reliability was  conducted  i t e m - i t e m and i t e m - s c a l e  SPSS-X  Reliability  discussed as  for  correlations.  by the  (Table  routine,  Guttman pre-pilot 4-2  (1945). test,  summarises  -  the  results  measures  the  tion  all  scales  The V o l u n t a r i n e s s  scale  r e l i a b i l i t y scores  were  at  a  Cronbach's would  very  raise  .87.  items  consisted slightly  ALPHA v e r y  had been  of  four  lower  level.  slightly  with  if  item i n the  retained  than  item  if  retained  for the  Nine  had  for this  would r a i s e  indicated  that  would  final  items  reliability (#26)  deleted  it  result  retained  final  for  Four ability theless, .81.  items  in this it  was  in  the  a  been  included  in  m i g h t be  were  pre-pilot  l o w e r bound lowest (to  test,  but  (GLB) was  item-scale  .88).  4-2  .88,  correla-  Nevertheless,  it  scale.  Image s c a l e . a GLB o f  l o w e r e d ALPHA,  the  Relative  .92  if  deleted.  improved by e m p h a s i s i n g  final  R e l i a b i l i t y for .88,  this  and ALPHA o f  and t h u s  all  five  .84. were  Advantage s c a l e .  word  Again,  .90.  One  item  Examination of  this  item  its  "disadvantage".  "reversed"  direction,  A l l n i n e were  there-  scale.  incorporated  instance still  the  s c a l e was h i g h w i t h b o t h GLB a n d ALPHA a t  ALPHA s l i g h t l y t o  f o r the  Innovativeness  scale.  w h i c h was done b y u n d e r l i n i n g t h e fore  four  As shown i n T a b l e  for  the  deleted  s c a l e was v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h e ' p r e - p i l o t , w i t h Any  the  items.  Guttman's  One i t e m (#14)  was d e c i d e d t o r e t a i n t h i s  Five  including  4.15.)  acceptable  ALPHA  -  developed,  discussed i n Section  certainly and  for  127  in  the  had decreased  i n the  A l l items were r e t a i n e d  acceptable f o r the  Compatibility scale,  somewhat range,  final  from the  with  scale.  GLB a t  whose  pre-pilot. .82,  reliNever-  a n d ALPHA  at  - 128  The Ease o f Use s c a l e an  acceptable  statistics increase items  l e v e l of  i n ALPHA  revealed  problems,  if  that  and t h a t  c o n s i s t e d of  reliability,  indicated that  -  two  eight  with  a GLB o f  (#23  and #24)  items  t h e y were  deleted.  the  "interaction"  word  changing i t  to  items, .85  again  would  might  result  the  be  The R e s u l t D e m o n s t r a b i l i t y s c a l e  of  eight  .83.  in  a  The slight  wording of  causing  " u s i n g " might improve the final  demonstrated  a n d ALPHA o f  Examination of  done and a l l i t e m s were t h e n r e t a i n e d f o r t h e  range of  which  some  scores.  these  of  the  T h i s was  scale.  items  demonstrated  a  narrower  r e l i a b i l i t y s c o r e s t h a n i n the p r e - p i l o t , a l t h o u g h they were s t i l l  the  lower range o f  any  item  would  acceptability.  decrease  GLB was  ALPHA,  and  .74  hence  a n d ALPHA was  all  were  .72.  retained  in  Removal o f  for  the  final  scale.  Five  items  resulting at  would  increase  .72.  that  constructs dropping  been  retained  r e l i a b i l i t y scores  ALPHA  indicated  had  There  it  were  appeared  slightly  if  contained  "and w o r k " ,  and  to  it  ("opportunity to  for in  a  the  be  were  the  be  "complex"  try  lower  problems to  with  range,  with  deleted. wording  and w o r k " ) .  retained  the  scale.  Trialability  with  one  Again  GLB a t  item  (#16)  which  might  Therefore,  it  other  items  four  be  was  .73 as  Examination of  the and  ALPHA  the  item  tapping  two  simplified for  the  by  final  scale.  The  Visibility  reliability .37.  from the  Although  this  scale  of  four  pre-pilot' test, construct  was  compared to o t h e r  constructs,  scale's  r e l i a b i l i t y score  potential  items  demonstrated  dropping of  lesser  to  significantly  a GLB o f  importance  i t was d e c i d e d t o a t t e m p t  .46 in  reduced  a n d ALPHA  the  study  to "improve" the  b y r e w o r k i n g some o f  the  items.  of  when final  Item  17  -  was d r o p p e d f r o m t h e word " n o t "  scale,  55  that  the  final  The  final•"scale"  from the  discussed  and r e p l a c e d  p r e - p i l o t was  six  scale  for  included five  the  was  that  pre-pilot  items were r e t a i n e d » f o r  creation  characteristics items  from  extensive  was  s c a l e by u n d e r l i n i n g i t , and added.  final  measure not  The  result  The and was  .62,  "Computer A v o i d a n c e " .  expected  although the  GLB was a t  that  the  various  r e l i a b i l i t y scores  a n d ALPHA was  for  the  .60.  The same  the  perceived  instrument.  scales  them,  the  final  creating  from  Since  any  items,  the  scales,  survey  new  items  instrument  as  50  items to  in  was t h e  increase  Use)  relative were  the  was  choosing then  a fifty of  item  pilot  length  for  certainly  those  constructs  i n the  (such  as  a higher percentage  maximise t h e i r p o t e n t i a l r e l i a b i l i t y scores  i n the  of  the  study.  on  comments it  adding  considered  Relative items  was  instrument.  involve  Nevertheless, study  Although  tests, this  an  instrument,  reliability.  and  would  appropriate  undertaking  lower bound, based  pre-pilot  reliabilities  importance  allocated  the  at  measure  and  levels  maximum f e a s i b l e  i n s t r u m e n t was a c c e p t e d .  higher  necessary,  acceptable  both  to  instruments,  The r e s u l t  reliabilities  respondents  attempt  and E a s e o f  a l l with  demonstrated  concluded that  of  of  s c a l e development p r o c e s s .  received  be  it  to  included surveying existing  comprising nine  to  pre-pilot.  items.  test,  the  from the  SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT OF P C I SCALES The  some  76  final  attempting  t e s t d i d i m p r o v e somewhat.  4.12  by i t e m  reworded s l i g h t l y  i t e m s w o u l d be v e r y h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d , pilot  -  i n i t e m 36 was e m p h a s i s e d i n t h e  item  As  129  Advantage  i n order  to  -  130  -  SECTION C : S U B J E C T I V E NORM, A T T I T U D E ,  4.13  SUBJECTIVE NORM  4.13.1  General  The  Subjective  component it  AND INNOVATIVENESS MEASURES  of  the  was n o t t h e  model.  Theory of  intent  Rather,  Perceived reject  major  of  the  created  for this  4.13.2  Scale  aim  should  to  it  examine the  undertaken,  and  To - c a l c u l a t e  the  SN i s  are  to  the  SN, t h e r e f o r e ,  relevant  the the  p l i e d together  effects, the  if  discussed,  any,  decision  to  an  this  of  the  adopt  or  some e x a m i n a t i o n o f  therefore  d e f i n e d as  instrument  the was  to  the  Likert  responses,  or  one  particular  semantic  follows:  E(NBj)(MC.)  a s p e c i f i c behaviour  w i t h the  needs  to  respective  a n d summed f o r a l l r e f e r e n t s  measure  type.  is  referent.  both  Scales  the  for  A p p e n d i c e s A and B ) ,  differential  and t h e n t h e  jth  behaviour.  h a v e b e e n o u t l i n e d b y A j z e n and F i s h b e i n ( 1 9 8 0 ,  assigned  was  major  Development  MC.. = t h e m o t i v a t i o n t o c o m p l y ( o r n o t )  of  as  one  to r i g o r o u s l y apply  the  PWS o n  where NB. = t h e b e l i e f t h a t the performance of ^ e x p e c t e d by t h e j t h r e f e r e n t ; and  basically  forms  Nevertheless,  was d e c i d e d t h a t  SN =  which  3  purpose.  As d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 3 ,  MC's  Chapter  study to attempt  adopting  be  in  Action.  was  Nevertheless, SN  described  current  of  Characteristics  as  Reasoned  of the  the  PWS u s a g e .  effects  (SN)  Norm  NB's  doing which  Numeric v a l u e s  N B ^ ' s and M C / s a r e  to c a l c u l a t e  the o v e r a l l SN.  and this are are  multi-  -  The NB a n d MC f o r use  of  this  single  items  procedure  example,  in  has  one  each  referent  contrasts been  fairly  single-item  of  responses. midpoint  to the  intended to a l t e r  Different  measure SN was  the  this  zero,  method f o r t h i s F o r example,  has  ("neither  unlikely". likely  appropriate.  the  SN,  The  same  often  been  If  used  "Unlikely"  bi-polar  scale,  the mid-point.  it  was  r a n g i n g from -3  that to  (simi-  Therefore,  research,  and n e g a t i v e NB's.  it  to  was  the  not  various  centered  appears  to  be  such scores  '  because  scales.  values  This to  he u s e d o n l y  on a  a  valid  make  sense.  .  +3  likely  that  a  nor  unlikely"  referent  u s i n g a PWS, t h e n t h e scoring this  to  these  positive..values scores  for  for  seven p o i n t s ,  the  NB's  to  also the  would  "ex-  opinion  r e s p e c t i v e NB  response  responses  to  h a d no  s h o u l d t e n d t o have a n e g a t i v e  assigning  decided  outcomes  i n assigning values  Therefore,  responses  for  current  For  (1982)  SN, however,  the  SN.  Ryan  For the  thought  negative' values  holds  Action, the  the  I s h o u l d use a PWS"  n o r u n l i k e l y " ) about h i s  argument Hence,  for  the  about  through "neither  SN.  of  beliefs  to the b e l i e f  respondent  on the  Reasoned  While  reliabilities,  and,develop m u l t i - i t e m  positive  A thinks  a  measurement  the meaning a t t a c h e d  likely"  and a s s i g n i n g  ponses.  of  taken  the p o s s i b l e responses  s h o u l d h a v e no e f f e c t is  been  with  study i n that  from " e x t r e m e l y  tremely  of  items.  about  v a r i o u s N B ' s and M C ' s .  sub-goal  have  "Referent  range  Theory  accepted p r a c t i c e  approaches  discussion  i n the  t o measure  the a  Bipolar scoring, of  earlier  a c t u a l l y using a product.  scales  investigation  m e a s u r e d by s i n g l e  standard  a p p l i c a t i o n of  to P C l ' s ) of  -  are  with  constructed multiple-item scales lar  131  as  a  zero  effect  makes  sense.  "likely" be  with  based zero  on  reson  (0)  a as  -  Problems  appeared,  Fishbein  (1980)  unlikely  to  •think  they  be  "I  want t o  fact,  motivated to  settled.  examples A).  Indeed,  I n one e x a m p l e ,  much  do  ranged from " n o t this  second  not  clear  to  to  of  ...  is  to  do  do  what  of  contrary  publication  unlikely"  Ajzen  and  " i n that  people  are  their  to  salient  an e a r l i e r  and t h a t used  Ajzen  referents  argument  modifications  (Fishbein,  your  to the  such_  1976).  their to  for  response  want  you  w i t h the  response the  of  my  items  of  In still  provided  t h e MC ( 1 9 8 0 , A p p e n d i x  to  w o u l d be assumed t h a t  consistent  members  Fishbein  by  question:  parents  It  unlikely"  and  t o measure  categories  responses  what  MC.  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 MC i s  what  most  unipolar,  s h o u l d be  Appendix B),  "extremely  for  do?  the  scoring  unipolar view.  categories  ranged  In from  statement:  family  this  indicates  think  type  a 0 or  -3  I should  would  be  do.  scored.  on a seven  point  debatable.  Within unipolar  one  values  correct,  "  f r o m 0 t o +7,  how t h e  W h e t h e r an " e x t r e m e l y scale  runs  in fact  response  want  (1980,  likely"  opposite  a l l " to " v e r y much".  example  I want  is  their  at  MC i s  seven p o i n t s c a l e s  case would range  "extremely  It  is  within  you  the  This  opposite  o f two d i f f e r e n t  How  the  that  (p.75).  -  determining  do t h e  bipolar scaling do t h e  in  as p o i n t e d o u t b y R y a n ( 1 9 8 2 ) ,  not  in  suggested  should do"  F i s h b e i n that as  once  however,  132  the.context  scoring  for  the  of  the  MC.  current First,  in organisations  would c o n s c i o u s l y act  having  negative  possible  scores  study,  it  however,  was t h o u g h t counter  d i d not  make  it  was d e c i d e d t o  u n l i k e l y that  individuals  to the p r e v a i l i n g norms. sense.  Second,  if  use  a  Thus,  bi-polar  v  -  s c a l e were u s e d , the or  having  a  in  a  unipolar. w o u l d be  16  the  the  of  asking  other  zero.  (-3  of  a  poles  would  m i d p o i n t (16)  (24.5).  This  u n l i k e l y from a s h o u l d be  unipolar of  would  values,  then  be  treated  point  MC s c a l e  scores  than  of  (1  if  view,  1 (1*1)  and 49  were score (7*7).  below the  create  potential  numeric  responses  because  of  of  actual  items  groups  was  being  i n d i v i d u a l s (two  senior  level  conceptual  scoring  technique.  fairly required.  junior  manager)  simple,  who  support  thea'.r  and  with  This  was  staff,  referents  value  interpretation  d i s t r i b u t e d evenly  both  7),  both  "neutral"  obviously  as  to  the  would l i e w e l l  in  semantic  h a n d , h a v i n g one u n i p o l a r s c a l e and one b i - p o l a r  referent  This resulted  a  unipolar  i t was d e c i d e d t o u s e t h i s  the  and  The  MC w o u l d r e s u l t  from an a r i t h m e t i c  and  with  is  situations  distribution  only,  semantic  two  +3),  a negative It  Finally,  to  Therefore,  five different  managers, were.  the  construction  tification  SN.  midpoint  considerations,  NB t i m e s  these  theoretical  i n having the  The  on t h e  referent  for  On t h e  midpoint  that  [ (NB=4)*(MC=4) ]'.  numeric  results  view  NB s c a l e  one  value  problems.  of  better  For  -  t h e y were b o t h p o s i t i v e .  effect  bipolar  results  Thus,  if  point  h a v i n g an e q u a l  of  multiplying a negative  same s c o r e as conceptual  133  scale  about  arithmetic  o n l y the  iden-  accomplished two m i d d l e in  a  the  by  level  workplace  i n the obvious groups b e i n g i d e n t i f i e d :  Co-workers (peers) Immediate s u p e r i o r s S e n i o r Management Subordinates ( i f applicable)  Items  were  then  constructed  based  on t h e . f o r m a t  suggested  by A j z e n  Fishbein  (1980).  One i t e m was w r i t t e n f o r t h e NB a n d MC f o r e a c h o f  referent  groups.  A n o v e r a l l i t e m f o r t h e NB was c r e a t e d  and F i s h b e i n was  (1980),  decided to  as  well  i n c l u d e both  as of  the these  inclusion.of latter  as s u g g e s t e d  "friends"  referents  to  as  the  above  by A j z e n  referents.  provide  and  It  flexibility  -  later  in.the  analysis  s i t u a t i o n warranted. SN.  MC:  NB  4.13.3  items  My co-workers job. Generally should  results.  The f i n a l  Examples o f the  NB:  of  are  (Overall): Most u s e t h e P W S in  reliability  using single this  tionnaire within  follows:  think  that  want  to  I should  do  what  use  my  the  PWS in  co-workers  my  think  I  are  important  to  me t h i n k  I  should  r e l i a b i l i t y of t h i s  asked  about  items  study.  a different would  to  measure  It  also  reasonable  have SN i s  i n s t r u m e n t c o u l d be made b e c a u s e "referent".  been  In order  to  assess  required.  As d i s c u s s e d  ear-  normal p r a c t i c e  and h e n c e h a d  been  h e l p e d keep  the  overall  length of  the  ques-  limits.  General  In the  early  stages of  d i r e c t l y measure  tude  i n c l u d e d or d e l e t e d  ATTITUDE  4-14.1  to  the  people who my job.  a multi-item scale  adopted f o r  4.14  r e s u l t was a 12 i t e m i n s t r u m e n t t o m e a s u r e  I  c o u l d be  Reliability  NB a n d MC i t e m  lier,  the  as  They  do.  No a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e each  -  as  (peers)  speaking,  134  from the  soned A c t i o n ,  final  Attitude.  beliefs  about  of  Rather,  PWS u s a g e  the  i n c l u d e d i n the  survey.  this  research,  pilot  i t was n o t  i n t e n t i o n was t o  i n accordance  as d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 3 .  A t t i t u d e had been f o r the  development  For that test.  with  reason,  the  synthesise  Atti-  Theory o f  no s c a l e t o  Nevertheless,  intended  one was  Rea-  measure created  -  4.14.2  Development  In that usage,  as  particular particularly  o f Attitude Scale  several  well  studies  had i n v e s t i g a t e d  as  the  fact  format,  the  development  problematic.  that  Ajzen  semantic  Davis for  differential  used a t o t a l  his  scale.  instrument, As a r e s u l t ,  of  In part l c u l a r ,  both  five  Given  the  four p a i r s  to  scale,  using  a  somewhat  to construct  of adjectives  had suggested  measure (1985)  series  of  an o v e r a l l lengthy  a four  and C h r i s t e n s e n  from D a v i s ' s  construct  adjective  of  the  The  adjective  pairs  and N e g a t i v e - P o s i t i v e . as  a further  4.15  current research.  s e t o f f i v e were  selected. scale:  m y u s i n g a PWS i n m y j o b i s :  i n c l u d e d Good-Bad, H a r m f u l - B e n e f i c i a l , W i s e - F o o l i s h , The o r i e n t a t i o n  of  each  subsequent  check on t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e o v e r a l l  p a i r was  reversed  instrument.  INNOVATIVENESS  4.15.1  General  The aspects reflects  dependent of  actual  variables  i n the  innovative  current  behaviour.  In  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  innovation.  Use I n n o v a t i v e n e s s i s  adopted the i n n o v a t i o n uses new u s e d o m a i n . which  .96  for this  These were u s e d t o r e s p o n d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t on a s e v e n p o i n t Overall,  pairs.  r e l i a b i l i t y of  nature  item s c a l e  a  was n o t  Attitude  The a p p r o a c h i s t o  and a c h i e v e d  already  o f Attitude on system  (1980)  Davis  good r e s u l t s .  items,  i t was d e c i d e d  and F i s h b e i n scale  rating  of  the e f f e c t  a  (1987) had used such a s c a l e w i t h a  135 -  that  study  are  review,  a l l based  A d o p t i v e Innovativeness  is relatively  early  puts  i n a d o p t i n g an  t h e degree t o w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l  i n n o v a t i o n to s o l v e  novel problems,  F i n a l l y , Implementation Innovativeness r e f l e c t s  an i n d i v i d u a l  on v a r i o u s  an i n n o v a t i o n  to  use,  or  implements  who h a s or i n a  t h e degree t o it,  within  a  -  g i v e n use  domain.  these d i f f e r e n t  most  measures for  variables  feasible  m i g h t be  was  within  an  or micro,  possible  that  access  have  started  organisation  this  or  not  study,  the  one.  i n d i c a t i n g when  On t h e  access  PWS u n t i l  same a r g u m e n t h o l d s f o r t h e o t h e r self-reports  well  other  practical,  to  should again  be  would  have  Innovative-  and t h a t  ones.  such  example,  on documentary  evidence  individual  one.  they  dimensions of  all  For  the  hand,  after  capture  it  determining  some had  received  Nevertheless,  m i g h t h a v e b e e n u s i n g a PWS b e f o r e  received  using  decided that  was  for  m i g h t be b a s e d  o r was g i v e n o f f i c i a l  individuals  to  current  measures  that  s t u d y had t o  t o PWS u s a g e .  i n the  objective felt  the  e v e n more u n r e l i a b l e t h a n s e l f - r e p o r t e d  terminal  was  regards  b e i n g measured  derive it  -  used w i t h i n  Adoptive Innovativeness, a measure  available  had  to  Nevertheless,  ness.  measures  forms o f b e h a v i o u r w i t h  Of a l l t h e been  Thus t h e  136  it  individuals  received  to  is  they " o f f i c i a l l y " may  not  access.  The  Innovativeness. T h e r e f o r e , used  a  collect  data  it  on  these  the  PWS,  variables.  The which  in  common  three the  types  MIS. domain, i s  measure  Ginzberg,  within  1981b;  u s e d o n l y one  basing  as  his  equation  is  akin  to  1986;  to  capture  into  the  error  error  the  Usage.  This  use  i s not  and  in  term.  around  1979).  variables  coefficients,  revolve  some  variables.  Pindyck  i n independent  taken  (for  and Robey,  independent on  all  System  research  of u n r e l i a b i l i t y , i t  discussion  regression  MIS  two i t e m s  for  unreliability any  Lee,  or  c r e a t e a degree variables  of: innovativeness  examples  of  the  see  introduces  dependent  While this  a  fairly  Davis,  1985;  measures  have  While this  may  a problem f o r Davis  (1981), bias  of  been  F.  system.  example,  Rubinfeld  the  has  T y p i c a l l y these  as s e r i o u s For  use  dependent  (1985,  argued  p.97),  that  while  and i n c o n s i s t e n c y variable  may i n c r e a s e  side the  of  into the  estimate  -  of  error  For  this  measure  variance, reason, use  of  system usage. For.  any  it the  was PWS,  4.15.2  decided that as  -  and c o n f i d e n c e  most  or  two  researchers  are  will  final  focus on t h e p i l o t  test.  for  be  valid. used  to  when e x a m i n i n g  following  sections.  questionnaire,, although  A d o p t i v e Innovativeness  A d o p t i v e I n n o v a t i v e n e s s was o p e r a t i o n a l i s e d as t h e d a t e o f PWS.  be  will  done  i n the  t o the  still  items  have  described  i t e m numbers r e f e r  the d i s c u s s i o n w i l l  intervals  o n l y one  other  The v a r i o u s m e a s u r e s  ease o f reference.,  initially  tests  137  Three items were d e v e l o p e d t o c a p t u r e t h e month a n d y e a r o f  f i r s t u s e as  Approximately when the PWS b e y o n d any  The  second  item  simply  follows  (month trial of  asked  this  aspect.  f i r s t use of  The f i r s t  the  item asked  (B-3):  and year) did you first it y o u m a y h a v e c a r r i e d  for  a  length  of  time  start out?  the  user  using  had  been  with  each  u s i n g t h e PWS ( B - l l ) : I  The  responses  to  have  been  this  using  the  i t e m were based  point  i n d i c a t i n g a bracket  "less  t h a n one m o n t h " , w i t h t h e  of  time  since  high  these p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l s  attitudes  be  minimal  anchor)  experience  item b e i n g used f o r t h i s  long  ("in  functions  a third  months") (B-9).  seven  users  as  with  The  was i n t e n d e d t o  The  scale  low anchor p o i n t  was  more  (high  offer  that  The  differences  anchor)  or  less  seven p o i n t s c a l e , a v a r i a t i o n of  in  (low rather  the type  of  measure.  i t e m was  they  point  i t was f e l t  t h a n t h e a n c h o r s . . The u s e o f t h e  t h a n a raw number o f m o n t h s ,  Finally,  on a  a n c h o r b e i n g " m o r e t h a n 24 m o n t h s " .  at  for  for:  adoption.  anchors were s e t would  PWS  had  longest  i n c l u d e d a s k i n g the been used  regularly  using  respondent any  of  a  function should correlate  to  i n d i c a t e how  variety  of  PWS  highly with  the  -  date of be  first  using  use  the  of  the  function  concluded that  PWS.  It  138  is possible  that, p r e c i p i t a t e d  these cases  s h o u l d be  three  for  items.  This  functions  commensurate  The  required  first  with that  reliability  converting  and s e l e c t i n g  i n B-9.  of  the  These were  the  the  responses  Because  the  reliability  the  response set,  4.15.3 As  measures  was  of  the  but  and h e n c e t h e  it  item  was  should  PWS u s e .  constructed  from  "Month-Year" response  these in  B-3  used f u n c t i o n from the  d i s t r i b u t e d on a s e v e n  the o t h e r This  assessed  .94). upper  overall  It  scale  also  allowed  after  the  was n o t e d ,  limit  two i t e m s  w h i c h , i t was e x p e c t e d ,  operationalised,  of  adopter  the  considered  of  the  d i d not  list  point  Pilot  scale  Test,  and  that  the  however, seven  fall  if  point  scale.  B - l l were  c o u l d be u s e d t o f o r m t h e for  a wider  should f a c i l i t a t e  use".  knowledge, for  Implementation  uses the  p o t e n t i a l use  that  there  was  Self-reported  a s s e s s m e n t w o u l d be  measure  PWS,  the  and more eventual  rescale  detailed analysis.  Implementation Innovativeness.  assessment  tential  the  the  first  longest  then  beyond the  instrument.  hours which the  was  fell  i t was d e c i d e d t h a t final  of  longer  in B - l l .  many o f  for  use  the" date of  f o u n d t o be v e r y h i g h (ALPHA and GLB a t  moved,  first  a n i n d i v i d u a l may no  m e a s u r i n g A d o p t i v e I n n o v a t i v e n e s s was  i n t o a number o f m o n t h s , of used  that  few i n n u m b e r ,  provide a f a i r l y accurate indicator of  A scale  -  very  experience, the  While t h i s  which the no  feasible  measures  of  much d e p e n d e n t  and o t h e r  average  PWS.  number  Innovativeness  of  hours  may make o f  method w i t h potential  such f a c t o r s . of  the  number  d o e s n o t p r o v i d e an  individual  o n an  is  which to  accurate  the  PWS,  measure  w o u l d be u n r e l i a b l e  individual's training, Thus, actual  per  week  it  "poas  an  general  i t was d e c i d e d t o usage  of  for  simply each  - 139 -  function  (B-8).  The t o t a l  computed as the sum of these  Measures  number of hours of use per week could then be responses.  of the frequency  of use were also  included  (B-5, B-7), in  keeping with other studies of computer usage (for example Davis, 1985). B-5 provided  an indication  of o v e r a l l  PWS  usage, while  B-7  Item  indicated the  frequency of use of individual functions.  Because only one question had tapped  the hours o f use, no  assessment could be made of this construct. question for the f i n a l questionnaire.  reliability  Therefore, i t was to add a second  This item (B-4) simply asked the more  general question of overall use, as follows:  Overall, how many hours per week do you use a PWS?  The r e l i a b i l i t y of the frequency measures i n the P i l o t Test was .86 for both GLB and ALPHA.  Although this was f a i r l y high, the d i f f i c u l t y was recog-  nised of trying to compare frequency general overall usage measure. for  the f i n a l  of use of individual functions, with a  Therefore, although both items were retained  questionnaire, i t was decided that the item dealing with  fre-  quency of use of individual functions (B-7) would be the primary measure. "frequency"  score could be computed by summing the response  individual function.  values  A  to each  It i s recognised that this certainly does not constitute  an interval scale, but i t was concluded that the response  set would be wider  and more detailed than a simple seven-point scale, and hence more amenable to analysis.  The idea of asking respondents  for a "raw number" indicating the  overall frequency of use was rejected as l i k e l y being too d i f f i c u l t to answer.  -  Secondly  it  was  considered  that  I n n o v a t i v e n e s s was  different  that  functions  different  "use  made t o  measure  the  use  This  It  be  difficult  would  very  what c o n s t i t u t e d  tion  the  PWS  in  d e g r e e o f change domains  these  a  of  the  was done  validity of  adopter  to  novel  PWS t o  determine  reasons  this  with  a  study  study  PWS,  (see  Section  one  likely  be  number  of  addresses  3.4).  No  most'  degree  of  attempt  reliability  however,  the  Therefore,  a  greater  using i t  aspect of  or  applica-  innovativeness.  on t h i s  the  pragmatic.  l i k e l y ; require  of  the  within  o f w h i c h was  Secondly,  concentrated  the  " n o v e l " problems  same d o m a i n .  greater  as  which  much d e g r e e  domain would  demonstrate  that  the  solve  problems.  use  this  two r e a s o n s ,  than using i t . w i t h i n the  would  on  construct  for  "novel"  in  uses  domains" aspect of the  domain.  for  s u c h an i t e m w o u l d  i n c h e c k i n g f u n c t i o n by f u n c t i o n .  operationalised  an  same u s e  novel  to  Use I n n o v a t i v e n e s s  Use  was  -  any r e s p o n s e  more u n r e l i a b l e t h a n one r e c e i v e d  4.15.4  140  It  in was  use i n n o v a -  tiveness.  No d i r e c t that  several  included  others  i n these  discussions write  h a d t o be c r e a t e d were  items  already  i n any f u n c t i o n n o t  "number "months function  of of  of  (B-9)  component.  could  be  used.  this  a s p e c t o f PWS u s a g e ,  construct.  on a w a r e n e s s  The a c t u a l  what i s  available,  in  functions as w e l l  as  O p p o r t u n i t y was a l s o p r o v i d e d t o a l l o w r e s p o n d e n t s  to  listed.  i t e m s w h i c h c o u l d be u s e d w e r e t h e  hours use"  t o measure  t a p p i n g the  were based  with users.  The f i r s t  also  items  use"  (B-8),  from  "frequency  Implementation  from Adoptive Innovativeness. Two. o t h e r One  items  asked  were  whether  included the  of use"  Innovativeness,  Each had in  (B-7)  the  functions  a  function  Pilot were  Test  used  and and by  which oh  the  -  mainframe or functions  micro  were  (B-6),  adopted  (not  provided five different  In  order  to  made o f  the  average  taken.  a n d ' GLB  The  .99.  items  an  the  study,  this  would not  help shorten the  overall  it  general,  questionnaire Dillman lowing  once  was  (1978). his  methods,  which  validity,  and  follows  is  hence  based  "used" was  score,  i n each  dealing  contribute  a count  item,  very high,  with  both  with  the  was  and t h e n  an  ALPHA  sequence  s i g n i f i c a n t l y to  r e l i a b i l i t y of  the  scale,  of aims  and w o u l d  QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN  earlier.  The  specific using  claimed were  had  been  the  Total  Design  very  high  response  apparently  i n more t h a n were  items  50  refined  surveys.  f o l l o w e d whenever  and it  answering  was  tested  Pre-Pilot Test's  questionnaire  and  examine  Perceived Characteristics.  the  were  also  of  the  for  collaboration  The  the as  to. test  by  surveys  fol-  with  face  discussion  that  experience  questionnaire has  been  the  items  a  a l l have  and on p e r s o n a l  the  overall  advocated  guidelines  rounds,  development  The P i l o t t e s t  rates  After  two s e p a r a t e  two m a i n aims  M e t h o d as  possible.  questionnaires. in  developed,  in  The  b o t h on D i l l m a n ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s  administering assembled,  the  Dillman  researchers  the  this  questionnaire.  designed  number o f  been  In t o t a l  GENERAL In  in  innovativeness  question  from the  various  construct.  scores the  sequence w i t h which  questionnaire).  this  d i d not  SECTION D: 4.16  the  final  Use  the  reason,  detract  overall  for  i n d i c a t e d as  r e l i a b i l i t y of  a d o p t i o n was d r o p p e d , i n - t h a t of  second  t o measure  functions  For  -  included i n  calculate  number o f  at  and t h e  141  had  discussed  formatting to  measure  was u s e d t o do t h i s  but  of the  to  a  -  lesser  degree,  as  most  of. the  142  -  problems  had  already  been  identified  and  ad-  dressed.  4.17  FORMAT  4.17.1  Booklet  First,  potential  respondents  are  apt  questionnaire  is  important.  Because the  questionnaire  is  very  to  taken  to  have  appearance time,  was  energy,  perceptions, and the the  as  with  and  was  Respondents  of  the  are  also  the  into  the  questionnaire.  questionnaire  likely  to  be  those  organisation.  of  logo h o p e f u l l y a l s o  responses.  The  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ' s  Booklet reason  the  short. sections  importance  style  In  letter  addition,  allowed  facilitated  a  the  skipping  one  concerns  about  of  the  the  use  of  that  reference  it  length.  high  with  a "sales  the  to  be  pages  be  to  was  made that  believed  of  these  reason,  what w i l l  be  and done  details  or  included  the  confidentiality  the.impressions  of  gimmick".  lengthy.  c o m p l e t i o n t i m e was  coloured  deal  q u a l i t y covers  cover  to  the  this  personal  the  Thus,  considered,  For  about  the was  higher  t o be  a  care  great  The  it.  contributed  to  a  emphasised the  explanation  which  questionnaire's  as  reason  i t was n o t  different  letter's  sections,  to  m i g h t be p e r c e i v e d  emphasised  "visual"  covering  the  and t h a t  that  likely  concerned  covering letter  questionnaires  covering  such  this  and t h e  is  respond  dealing  For  impression of  possible.  respondent  logo of the u n i v e r s i t y , the  as  the  features  answering  a n d how t h e y r e s p o n d ,  assembled  to  even  first  to  with  especially  their  whether  incentive  chosen,  responses,  impressions  put  debate whether  respondents'  "package"  indicate  important  s h o u l d be  format  their  to  affect a  e x p e n s e was  more  greater  paper.  professional  intended  the  booklet  likely  to  for  the  the  help  this  relatively different  sections.  respondents would  For  would reduce  This be any  -  143  J  The  use  of  c o l o u r e d pages  simple  enhancement  antly,  however,  pondents  of  the  f r o m one  to  the  purpose  reduce  the  impressions  are  of  the of  "stuffy".  of  the  able  were  vertically  through the page,  d i r e c t i o n of to  colour  resrather and  another.  page  included a cartoon  cartoon some  was  twofold.  respondents  Second,  it  related  First,  that  hopefully  formatted with  oriented,  three  whenever  questionnaire.  answers  typically category  This  to  the  left  of  allowed responses  it  academic  put  to  the  topic.  s h o u l d have  research  respondents  in  help  (and a  aca-  positive  items.  p r i n c i p l e s i n mind.  possible,  to  allowed respondents  description.  Instructions the  Finally,  indicated  Although that  as  this  questions  a manner o t h e r  categories  achieve  the  as  than that  Secondly,  than on the  flow  down  the  respondents right.  This  length of  the  questions.  at  may seem t o which  vertical  t o move q u i c k l y  the  answers  a n s w e r c a t e g o r i e s w e r e t y p e d i n UPPER CASE  actual  well  rather  First, a  stacked without regard to  f o r answering the questions  questionnaire,  ructions.  the  t o be  t o d i s t i n g u i s h them f r o m t h e  in  import-  t o move more q u i c k l y  a c h i e v i n g a s e n s e o f a c c o m p l i s h m e n t and p r o g r e s s .  placed  out  More  the  Question Layout  Questions were  One was  booklet.  aided the  frame o f mind w i t h w h i c h t o approach a n s w e r i n g the  4.17.2  purposes.  By m a k i n g r e f e r e n c e  s h o u l d have been  i n s i d e cover  Again,  two o t h e r  appearance  another.  respondents  the  served  coloured sections  from one s e c t i o n t o  Finally,  demics)  overall  different  section  t h a n page numbers, accurately  the  also  the have  beginning i n a set been  lacked, these  desired.  were c o n s i s t e n t l y p l a c e d t h r o u g h -  redundant,  Instructions  of  the  general Pre-Pilot  were o f t e n  insttest  answered  - 144 -  4.17.3  Covering Letter  The  covering  questionnaire letter  to  the  was  s t u d y were  intended  potential  was d e s i g n e d f o l l o w i n g  was d e s i g n e d t o the  letter  catch  the  was e s t a b l i s h e d ,  w h i c h was  answering the  sell  respondent.  respondents'  then  costs  questions.  to  w e r e m i n i m i s e d , w h i c h meant e m p h a s i s i n g t h e .confidentiality re-stated,  As  of  the  responses.  a n d a commitment s o u g h t  can  be  seen  from  Finally, from the  A p p e n d i x 9,  the  ple,  as  there  is was  dissertation.  the  case w i t h  no  plea  Finally,  to  of  both  computer p r o l i f e r a t i o n on our j o b s ) the  4.18  f i n d i n g s ) were  sales  short the  covering paragraph goals  of  respondent.  were i n t r o d u c e d ,  "pitches",  the  costs  c o m p l e t i o n t i m e and t h e  high  benefits  were  of  responding  wording  benefits  of  the  letters.  covering  It  d i d not  covering letters. doctoral  rewards  ask  For  student  (understanding  letter  exam-  finish  the  for  his  impact  ( r e c e i v i n g a copy  of of  offered.  TESTING  ionnaire,  and o n i t s  beginning,  complete of  the  the  respondent.  and s p e c i f i c  The P r e - P i l o t T e s t was p r i m a r i l y  the  the  first  to  respondent  most  struggling  general  The  benefit  the  many q u e s t i o n n a i r e help' a  completing  i n d i c a t e what t h e  f o l l o w e d v e r y c a r e f u l l y t h e w o r d i n g o f most s a l e s favours,  of  reason,  techniques.  be  As w i t h  idea  this  attention,  them w o u l d the  the  For  standard sales  a n d how m e e t i n g  Once t h i s  to  the  Finally,  a l l of  overall  and  were  the  items.  instructions  were  length.  asked  to  Respondents monitor  Secondly, ambiguous,  a c h e c k on t h e  the  formatting of  w e r e made aware o f length  t h e y were asked t o difficult'  the  to  of  time  questthis  at  required  to  i n d i c a t e whether  understand,  t h e y w e r e a l s o a s k e d t o make any comments t h e y f e l t  and  so  appropriate  any  forth. about  -  the  wording  of  any  of  the  items  145  -  which  would  help  improve the  overall  ques-  tionnaire.  In have  general  the  questionnaire  been  discussed  i n the  primarily  reflected  the  Characteristics all  sections  of  was  the  or  attempts  w e r e made t o  tions  the  of  tions., the  missed,  the  comments  item development  sections.  Any n e g a t i v e  comments  of  ensure  both  the  the  A few  none that  of  length of items  these  this  were  with  the  answered  Perceived  consistent. occur  tests  complete  either  inappro-  Nevertheless,  i n future administra-  m a k i n g more e x p l i c i t  and P i l o t  FINAL SURVEY  of  time r e q u i r e d to  were  would not  by r e w o r d i n g o r pre-pilot  dealing  helped  t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r s w h i c h had escaped d e t e c t i o n t o . t h a t  4.19  the  instruc-  i d e n