You are on page 1of 34

A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated with Information

Technology Enabled Work Systems


Author(s): 'Jon (Sean) Jasperson, Pamela E. Carter and Robert W. Zmud
Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 525-557
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25148694 .
Accessed: 01/01/2014 07:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
^ m.C[!\M \^fc_r^ _[^^
Research Article
A Comprehensive Conceptualization
of
Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated
with Information Technology Enabled
Work Systems1
By:
'Jon
(Sean) Jasperson
Mays
Business School
Texas A&M
University
4217 TAMU
College Station,
TX 77843-4217
U.S.A.
jjasperson@mays@tamu.edu
Pamela E. Carter
College
of Business
Florida State
University
Tallahassee,
FL 32306-1110
U.S.A.
pcarter@cob.fsu.edu
Robert W. Zmud
Michael F. Price
College
of Business
University
of Oklahoma
307 W.
Brooks,
Room 307E
Norman,
OK 73019-4006
U.S.A.
rzmud@ou.edu
1
Jane Webster was the
accepting
senior editor for this
paper.
Anitesh Barua was the associate editor. Terri
Griffith served as reviewer.
Abstract
For the last 25
years, organizations
have invested
heavily
in information
technology
to
support
their
work
processes.
In
today's organizations,
intra
and
interorganizational
work
systems
are in
creasingly
IT-enabled. Available
evidence,
how
ever,
suggests
the functional
potential
of these
installed IT
applications
is underutilized. Most IT
users
apply
a narrow band of
features, operate
at
low levels of feature
use,
and
rarely
initiate exten
sions of the available features. We
argue
that
organizations
need
aggressive
tactics to en
courage
users to
expand
their use of installed IT
enabled work
systems.
This article strives to
accomplish
three
primary
research
objectives. First,
we offer a
compre
hensive research model aimed both at
coalescing
existing
research on
post-adoptive
IT use be
haviors and at
directing
future research on those
factors that influence users to
(continuously)
exploit
and extend the
functionality
built into IT
applications. Second,
in
developing
this
compre
hensive research
model,
we
provide
a window
(for
researchers across a
variety
of scientific disci
plines
interested in
technology management)
into
the rich
body
of research
regarding
IT
adoption,
use,
and diffusion.
Finally,
we discuss
implications
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3, pp. 525-557/September
2005 525
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
and recommend
guidelines
for research and
practice.
Keywords:
IT
adoption,
IT
use,
post-adoptive
behavior,
IT value
Introduction _--HH-_--H_-_-__-_-_-_!
Organizations
have made
huge
investments in
information
technology
over the last 25
years,
resulting
in
many,
if not
most, intra-organizational
work
systems being
IT-enabled.
Further,
organi
zations are
increasingly depending
on IT-enabled
interorganizational
value chains as the backbone
of their commerce with
clients, customers, sup
pliers,
and
partners (Davenport
1998;
Mabert et al.
2000,2001).
However,
existing
evidence
strongly
suggests
that
organizations
underutilize the func
tional
potential
of the
majority
of this mass of
installed IT
applications:
users
employ quite
narrow feature
breadths, operate
at low levels of
feature use, and
rarely
initiate
technology-
or task
related extensions of the available features
(Davenport
1998;
Lyytinen
and Hirschheim
1987;
Mabert et al.
2001;
Osterland
2000;
Rigby
et al.
2002;
Ross and Weill
2002).
Investments in
enterprise
resource
planning
implementations nicely
illustrate this
phenomenon.
The costs of an ERP
implementation
are
high:
it
is not unusual for
large organizations
to
spend
over
$100
million on their ERP
implementations
(Robey
et al.
2002;
Seddon et al.
2003),
with an
estimated
$300
billion worldwide on ERP
systems
during
the 1990s
(James
and Wolf
2000).
How
ever,
approximately
one-half of ERP
implemen
tations fail to meet the
implementing organization's
expectations (Adam
and
O'Doherty 2003).
An
explanation
for an
organization's
failure to realize
expectations regarding
an ERP
implementation
might
lie in the fact that most ERP life
cycle
models lack an
explicit post-adoption stage.
Pragmatically,
the
post-adoption stage
is the
longest phase
of the ERP
project
life
cycle,
and
the
phase during
which benefits from the
investment
begin
to accrue.
Thus,
without
explicit
plans
for
realizing
benefits
through
the
software,
the
organization
falls short of its
implementation
expectations (Rosemann 2003).
Most
explana
tions of ERP
implementation
failures are
invariably
traced to
inadequate training (Duplaga
and Astani
2003;
Kien and Soh
2003;
Robey
et al.
2002)
and/or
inadequate change management (Adam
and
O'Doherty
2003;
Bagchi
et al.
2003;
James
and Wolf
2000;
Robey
et al.
2002;
Ross et al.
2003). Training
and
change management
inter
ventions are critical in the
post-adoptive
context;
they
allow the
organization
to benefit from
previous
learning
and
adjust
to
ongoing changes
in the work
system.
Yet,
because we have not
systematically
defined and examined the
post-adoptive (in
this
case,
ERP)
context,
information
systems
researchers and
practitioners
often overlook the
potential
of these and other
post-adoptive
inter
ventions.
In
general, organizations may
be able to achieve
considerable economic benefits
(via relatively
low
incremental
investment) by successfully inducing
and
enabling
users to
(appropriately)
enrich their
use of
already-installed
IT-enabled work
systems
during
the
post-adoption stage.
For
example,
Lassila and Brancheau
(1999) report
that com
panies
in
expanding
and
high-integration
utilization
states,
where users had more freedom to
adjust
both software features and the
organizational
processes
that could take
advantage
of those fea
tures,
realized
greater
benefits than
companies
in
standard
adoption
and
low-integration
utilization
states.
The
goals
of this
paper
are to
conceptualize
the
post-adoptive
behavior
construct,
to
provide
a
synthesis
of the factors shown in
prior
research to
influence
post-adoptive
behavior,
and to situate
these factors within a
nomological
net to facilitate
future research in this domain. To
guide
this
effort,
we focus on the
following
research
question:
What influences current users of installed IT
appli
cations to learn
about, use,
and extend the full
range
of features built into these
applications?
We
organize
the
paper
as follows.
First,
we
present
a
view of
post-adoptive
behavior within the
larger
context of IT
adoption
and use. We
identify
three
aspects
of
post-adoptive
behavior that have not
been
fully
addressed in
prior
research:
prior
use,
526 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
habit,
and a feature-centric view of
technology.
Next,
we
develop
a
conceptualization
of
post
adoptive
behavior characterized
by ongoing, dyna
mic interactions between two levels: one level
representing
individual
cognitions
and the other
representing organizational
drivers that stimulate
these individual
cognitions. Finally,
we conclude
with
implications
for future research and
practice.
Post-Adoptive
Behavior
-_-_ _
The research stream
examining
the
adoption
and
use of new IT has evolved into one of the richest
and most mature research streams in the
information
systems
field
(Hu
et al.
1999;
Venka
tesh et al.
2003).
Much of this research has been
framed around
stage
models that
represent
the
decisions and activities associated with the
adoption
and diffusion of IT
applications (see
Cooper
and Zmud
1990;
Kwon and Zmud
1987;
Rogers 1995).
While these
stage
models
typically
incorporate
three
high-level stages (i.e., pre
adoption
activities,
the
adoption decision,
and
post-adoption activities) (Rogers 1995),
the
majority
of
prior
research has focused on the
reflective
cognitive processing (e.g., resulting
in
cognitions regarding
a
technology's
usefulness
and ease of
use)
associated with individuals'
pre
adoption activities,
the
adoption
decision,
and
initial use behaviors.
Where research attention does address
post
adoptive behavior,
such behaviors have
generally
been modeled
(explicitly
or
implicitly)
as
being
influenced
by
the same set of factors that lead to
acceptance
and initial use
(Bhattacherjee
2001;
Kettinger
and Grover
1997; Thompson
etal.
1994;
Venkatesh et al.
2000;
Venkatesh et al.
2003).
Often,
researchers
conceptualize post-adoptive
use of an IT
application
as
increasing (e.g.,
more
use,
greater frequency
of
use,
etc.)
as individuals
gain experience
in
using
the
application.
In
reality,
post-adoptive
behaviors not
only intensify,
but
may
also diminish over
time,
as the various features of
an IT
application
are
resisted,
treated with
indifference,
used in a limited
fashion,
routinized
within
ongoing
work
activities,
championed,
or
extended
(Hartwick
and Barki
1994;
Hiltz and
Turoff
1981;
Kay
and Thomas
1995; Thompson
et
al.
1991, 1994). Understanding
the factors and
dynamics
that influence these behaviors is central
to this work.
We
agree
that the cumulative tradition of research
on
technology acceptance
and initial use should
enrich our
understanding
of individual
post
adoptive
behaviors.
Indeed,
because of the
path
dependent
nature of IT
adoption
and use
pro
cesses in
general (Gersick
1991;
Rogers 1995)?
and
post-adoptive
IT behaviors in
particular?post
adoptive
behavior must be framed within this
larger
context.
However,
distinctions have been
observed between
pre-adoption
and
post-adoption
beliefs and behaviors
(Agarwal
and Karahanna
2000;
Karahanna etal.
1999;
Oliver
1980),
and the
IS literature has
argued
that
political
and
learning
models
might
better
explain post-adoptive
behaviors while rational
task-technology
fit models
might
better
explain pre-adoption
and
adoption
behaviors
(Cooper
and Zmud
1989, 1990;
Kling
and lacono
1984;
Markus
1983;
Robey
et al.
2002).
It
appears, thus,
that factors not ade
quately explored
in
prior
research
may
influence
post-adoptive
user behaviors. We focus on three
aspects
of
post-adoptive
behavior that have been
under-researched:
prior
use, habit,
and a feature
centric view of
technology.
Prior Use
By
its
nature,
the
study
of
post-adoptive
behavior
situates an individual's use of an IT
application
within a stream of use
experiences,
some of which
have
already
occurred and some of which have
yet
to occur.
However,
as can be seen from Table
1,
the
majority
of
previous
studies tend to either
examine IT
application
use
immediately
after
adoption
or otherwise do not account for a user's
history
in
using
a
focal,
much less a
similar,
IT
application.
In studies that have considered the
direct
impact
of
prior
use on
post-adoptive
behaviors,
as
might
be
expected,
researchers
found
prior
use to be a
significant
antecedent of
post-adoptive
behavior.
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 527
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Table 1. Role of Prior Use in Illustrative IT
Adoption
and Use Research
Prior Use Not Considered
Adams et al.
1992;
Agarwal
and Prasad
1997;
Bhattacherjee 1998; Compeau
and
Higgins 1995b;
Compeau
et al.
1999;
Davis et al.
1989;
Fuerst and
Cheney
1982;
Fulk
1993;
Gefen and Straub
1997;
Ginzberg
1981;
Goodhue and
Thompson 1995;
Guimaraes and
Igbaria 1997;
Hartwick and
Barki
1994;
Howard and Mendelow
1991;
Igbaria
and Guimaraes
1994;
Igbaria
and livari
1995;
Igbaria
et al.
1997;
livari
1996;
Jobber and Watts
1986;
Karahanna et al.
1999;
King
and
Rodriguez
1981;
Leonard-Barton and
Deschamps
1988;
Lucas
1975;
Lucas and
Spitler 1999;
Rai et al.
2002;
Robey
1979;
Schewe
1976;
Straub et al.
1995;
Swanson
1974;
Szajna
1996;
Taylor
and Todd
1995a, 1995b;
Teo et al.
1999;
Thompson
et al.
1991;
Venkatesh and Davis 2000
Prior Use Considered
Indirectly
Confirmation
?
Bhattacherjee
2001
Changes
in user
perceptions
over time
?
Burkarhdt 1994
Changes
in feature use over time
?
Hiltz and Turoff 1981
Changes
in choices and use of commands over time
?
Kay
and Thomas 1995
Changes
in
individual, task,
and social variables over time ?Kraut et al. 1998
Changes
in use over time
?
Orlikowski
2000;
Orlikowski et al.
1995;
Tyre
and Orlikowski
1994;
Webster
1998;
Yates et al. 1999
Changes
in
predictors
of intention over time
?
Taylor
and Todd
1995a;
Venkatesh
2000;
Venkatesh
and Morris
2000;
Venkatesh et al.
2000;
Venkatesh et al.
2003;
Xia and Lee 2000
Changes
in
predictors
of use over time
?
Taylor
and Todd 1995a
Prior Use Considered
Directly
Computer experience
?
Igbaria
1990, 1993;
Igbaria
et al.
1995;
Igbaria
et al.
1996; Thompson
et al.
1994
Computer
skill
?
Kraut et al. 1999
Extent of
prior
e-mail use
(in months)
?
Kettinger
and Gover 1997
Prior use
?
Kraut et al.
1999;
Venkatesh et al.
2000;
Venkatesh et al. 2002
Habit
During
the initial use of an IT
feature,
individuals
most
likely engage
in active
cognitive processing
in
determining post-adoptive
intention or
behavior;
however,
with
any repetitive behavior,
reflective
cognitive processing dissipates overtime,
leading
to
non-reflective,
routinized behavior
(Bargh
1989,
1994;
Logan
1989;
Ouellette and Wood
1998).
Psychologists
have been
studying
the role of habit
in individual behavior for
many years (see Bargh
1989;
Eagly
and Chaiken
1993;
James
1890;
Ouellette and Wood
1998;
Triandis
1971,
1980).
Ouellette and Wood
(T998) provide
an extensive
review of
previous
research on the role of habit in
predicting
future intentions and behavior and find
substantial
empirical
evidence
supportive
of a
direct
relationship
between
past
behavior and
intentions
regarding
future behavior. Most
impor
tant,
with stable
contexts, past
behavior has a
direct effect on future behavior over and above the
effect of intention
(Ouellette
and Wood
1998).
Connor and
Armitage (1998)
also find
empirical
evidence of a direct
relationship
between
past
behavior and
intentions,
as well as between
past
behavior and future
behavior,
and
propose
that
future research
applying
the
theory
of
planned
behavior
(TPB)
in the context of
frequently per
formed behaviors should include
past
behavior as
528 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
a
predictor
of both intention and of future
behavior.2
Feature-Centric View of
Technology
In the social construction of
technology (e.g.,
DeSanctis and Poole
1994;
Griffith
1999;
Griffith
and Northcraft
1994;
Orlikowski
1992;
Walsham
1993;
Weick
1990),
features of a
technology
are
interpreted (and possibly adapted) by
individual
users so as to constitute a
technology-in-use
(DeSanctis
and Poole
1994;
Garud and
Rappa
1994;
Griffith
1999;
Orlikowski and Gash
1994).
As
such,
Organizations
where
implementers
are
able to determine which features users
mentally bring
to the social construction
process
should
ultimately
be able to
improve technology design, implemen
tation, use,
and
redesign.
Without such
knowledge, technology implementation
(indeed, any organizational change) pro
ceeds on limited
information,
and
organi
zations, thus,
can less
proactively
manage
the
implementation process.
(Griffith 1999, p. 473)
In the
post-adoptive
context,
after an individual has
begun
to
actively
learn about and use the
application,
awareness of the
existence, nature,
2Ajzen (2002)
and his
colleagues (Ajzen
and Fishbein
2000;
Bamberg
et al.
2003)
discuss, discount,
and dis
miss
previous
work that
suggests
habit should be added
to TPB.
The observed correlation between
frequency
of
prior
and later behavior is no more
(or less)
than an indication that the behavior in
ques
tion is stable over
time....Thus,
behavioral
stability may
be attributable not to habituation
but to the influence of
cognitive
and motiva
tional factors that remain
unchanged
and are
present every
time the behavior is observed.
(Ajzen 2002, p. 110)
We echo
Ajzen's (2002)
call for future research that
establishes a measure of habit
independent
of
prior
behavior
frequency.
and
potential
usefulness of the
application's
features arise
and,
over
time,
are fleshed out.
Therefore,
a feature-centric view of
technology
is
valuable because the set of IT
application
features
recognized
and used
by
an individual
likely
changes
over
time,
and it is the
specific
features in
use at
any point
in time that influence and
determine work outcomes
(DeSanctis
and Poole
1994;
Goodhue
1995;
Goodhue and
Thompson
1995;
Griffith
1999;
Hiltz and Turoff
1981;
Kay
and
Thomas
1995;
Tyre
and Orlikowski
1994).
Here,
we define a
technology's
features as the
building
blocks or
components
of the
technology (Griffith
1999;
Griffith and Northcraft
1994).
Some of these
features reflect the core of the
technology,
collec
tively representing
its
identity.
Other
features,
however,
are not
defining components
and their
use
may
be
optional (DeSanctis
and Poole
1994;
Griffith
1999).
Although prior
research has examined the use of
a
variety
of
technologies (see
Table
2),
most
researchers tend to
study
IT
applications
as a
black box rather than as a collection of
specific
feature sets. We found
only
five studies that have
empirically
examined IT use at a feature level of
analysis (Bhattacherjee
1998; Ginzberg 1981;
Hiltz
and Turoff
1981; Kay
and Thomas
1995;
Straub et
al.
1995).
In each
study,
the researchers found
variation in the number of
technology
features
used. In
addition,
two studies found that feature
selection and use varied over time. Hiltz and
Turoff
(1981),
in their
study
of an electronic infor
mation
exchange system,
found that the number of
features considered
"extremely
valuable" or
"fairly
useful" varied with a user's
experience
in
using
the
application. Kay
and Thomas
(1995)
found that
users of a Unix-based text editor
adopted
an
increasing
number of commands as their use
became more
sophisticated
and that
later-adopted
features tended to be more
complex
and
powerful
than
early-adopted
features.
However,
a
simple
increase in the number of
features used
may
not
necessarily
correlate with
an increase in
performance
outcomes. Individuals
can
apply
features in
nonproductive ways
or
they
may
be overwhelmed
by
the
presence
of too
many
features,
resulting
in an
inability
to choose
among
feature sets or to
apply
the features
effectively
in
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 529
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Table 2.
Technologies
Studied in Illustrative IT
Adoption
and Use Research
Business Process
Applications
Account
management system
?
Venkatesh and Davis 2000
Accounting system
?
Venkatesh et al. 2003
Activity report system
?
Swanson 1974
Banking system
?
Bhattacherjee
2001
Batch
report system
?
Schewe 1976
CASE tool
?
livari
1996;
Tyre
and Orlikowski
1994;
Xia and Lee 2000
Computer systems
?
Goodhue and
Thompson 1995;
Hartwick and Barki 1994
Customer service
management system
?
Venkatesh et al. 2003
Data retrieval
system
?
Venkatesh and Morris
2000;
Venkatesh et al.
2000;
Venkatesh et al. 2002
Database of
product
standards
?
Venkatesh et al. 2003
DSS
?
Bhattacherjee 1998f;
Fuerst and
Cheney 1982;
Igbaria
and Guimaraes
1994;
King
and
Rodriguez
1981
Expert system
?
Leonard-Barton and
Deschamps
1988
Interactive
report system
?
Schewe 1976
Market
system
?
Lucas and
Spitler
1999
Marketing
information
system
?
Jobber and Watts 1986
Online
help
desk
system
?
Venkatesh 2000
Portfolio
management system
?
Ginzberg 19811;
Venkatesh and Davis
2000;
Venkatesh et al. 2003
Property management system
?
Venkatesh 2000
Sales information
system
?
Lucas
1975;
Robey
1979
Scheduling system
?
Venkatesh and Davis 2000
Student information
system
?
Rai et al. 2002
Communications and Collaboration
Systems
Computer conferencing system
?
Orlikowski et al.
1995;
Yates et al. 1999
Electronic information
exchange system
?
Hiltz and Turoff 1981
+
Electronic mail
?
Adams et al.
1992;
Fulk
1993;
Gefen and Straub
1997;
Kettinger
and Grover
1997;
Kraut et al.
1999;
Szajna
1996
Lotus Notes
?
Orlikowski 2000
Online
meeting manager
?
Venkatesh et al. 2003
Video
telephone system
?
Kraut et al.
1998;
Webster 1998
Voice mail
system
?
Adams et al.
1992;
Straub et al. 1995*
Computers
Computing
resource center
?
Taylor
and Todd
1995a,
1995b
Computers
?
Igbaria 1990, 1993;
Igbaria
et al.
1995;
Igbaria
and livari
1995;
Igbaria
et al. 1996
PC
?
Compeau
and
Higgins 1995b; Compeau
et al.
1999;
Howard and Mendelow
1991;
Igbaria
et
al.
1997;
Thompson
et al.
1991;
Thompson
et al. 1994
Office
Applications
Graphics
?
Adams et al. 1992
Office
systems
?
Lucas and
Spitler 1999;
Tyre
and Orlikowski 1994
Spreadsheet
?
Adams et al. 1992
Text editor
?
Kay
and Thomas 1995*
Word
processing
?
Adams et al.
1992;
Davis et al. 1989
530 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Table 2.
Technologies
Studied in Illustrative IT
Adoption
and Use Research
(Continued)
System
Software
Client/Server
system
?
Guimaraes and
Igbaria
1997
In-house LAN
?
Burkhardt 1994
Mainframe
systems
?
Lucas and
Spitler
1999
Windows
operating system
?
Karahanna et al.
1999;
Venkatesh
2000;
Venkatesh and Davis 2000
World Wide Web/Internet
Internet
?
Kraut et al.
1999;
Teo et al. 1999
WWW
?
Agarwal
and Prasad 1997
Examined feature level use.
their work
(Silver
1990;
Trice and
Treacy 1988).
Positive
performance
benefits are most
likely
to
occur when individuals
recognize
a match between
the
requirements
of a work task and an
appli
cation's features and
subsequently
alter their
post
adoptive
behaviors
by selectively applying
features
to
leverage
the
synergy
offered
by
this fit between
the task and the
technology (Goodhue
1995;
Goodhue and
Thompson 1995;
Todd and Ben
basat
2000). By examining
individual
post-adop
tive behavior both at a feature level of
analysis
and
over
time,
researchers
may
increase our under
standing
of
why
different users evolve
very
differing patterns
of feature use
and,
as a
result,
extract differential value from an IT
application.
In
summary, despite
more than 20
years
of
research
examining
IT
adoption
and
use,
we
believe our collective
understanding
of
post
adoptive
behavior is at an
early stage
of
develop
ment.
Further,
the three
shortcomings just
iden
tified resonate
through
the
existing
literature and
impede
the intellectual
development
of the
post
adoptive
behavior construct. Because of these
shortcomings, prior
research
has,
for the most
part,
inhibited
penetrating
examinations of how
individuals
selectively adopt
and
apply,
and then
exploit
and extend the feature sets of IT
appli
cations introduced to enable
organizational
work
systems. Recognition
of these three deficiencies
has
greatly
influenced the lens
applied
here in
developing
a fresh
conceptualization
of
post
adoptive
behavior.
The Phenomenon of
Post-Adoptive
Behavior
We define
post-adoptive
behavior as the
myriad
feature
adoption decisions,
feature use
behaviors,
and feature extension behaviors made
by
an
individual user after an IT
application
has been
installed,
made accessible to the
user, and
applied
by
the user in
accomplishing
his/her work
activities.3
Figure
1 situates
post-adoptive
be
havior,
at the individual level of
analysis,
within a
broader
three-stage
model of IT
adoption
and use.
Stage
one reflects an
organization's
decision to
adopt
a
technology.
This decision
might
be volun
tary
or
mandatory,4
with a
mandatory
decision
reflecting
situations where
regulators, competitors,
and/or
partners
induce the
organization
to both
adopt
a
technology
and force
organization
mem
bers to
apply
the
technology (Hartwick
and Barki
1994).
After the
organization
has
adopted
and
installed the IT
application, stage
two occurs when
intended,
as well as
unintended,
users make indi
3Through
the remainder of this
article,
our use of the
term
post-adoptive
behavior denotes an individual's use
of a
single
feature
(or
a select subset of
features)
available in an IT
application.
4Some researchers have
applied
the terms
discretionary
or
nondiscretionary
use
(see
Howard and Mendelow
1991)
to
represent
the same idea
represented by
our use
of the terms
voluntary
or
mandatory
use.
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 531
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Organizational Application
Adoption
Decision
(voluntary
or
mandatory)
\
Individual
Application
Adoption
Decision
(voluntary
or
mandatory) _
J^^^ Post-Adoptive
Behaviors
?s.
/ Individual Feature
\
/
Adoption
Decision s. \
/
(voluntary
or
mandatory)
\.
,
\
/
N,
Individual Feature
\
I Extension
j
\
^
(voluntary)
/
\ Individual Feature Use
^^^ /
\
(voluntary
or
mandatory)
/
Figure
1. Feature-Centric View of IT
Adoption
and Use
vidual decisions to
adopt
the
technology (Leonard
Barton and
Deschamps 1988).
This
secondary
adoption
decision reflects an
explicit acceptance
by
an individual that s/he will use the
technology
to
carry
out
assigned
work
tasks,
and it
may
also be
voluntary
or
mandatory.
A
mandatory
decision
reflects the situation where an
organization
embeds the IT
application
within a work
system,
thus
forcing
the user to
adopt
the
application
to
complete
his/her work
assignments.
After an individual commits to
using
an IT
applica
tion
during stage two,
stage
three occurs as the
individual
actively
chooses to
explore, adopt,
use,
and
possibly
extend one or more of the
appli
cation's features. These
tertiary
feature-level
decisions
may
occur
voluntarily
or,
particularly
with
initial use
experiences,
as an
organizational
mandate;
typically, though,
IT
applications
have
many
more features than those mandated for work
accomplishment.
After some individuals have
gained experience
in
using
a
specific
feature
(or
set of
features), they may
discover
ways
to
apply
the feature that
go beyond
the uses delineated
by
the
application's designers
or
implementers,
thereby engaging
in feature extension behaviors
(Cooper
and Zmud
1990;
Goodhue and
Thompson
1995;
Kwon and Zmud
1987;
Morrison etal.
2000;
Saga
and Zmud
1994). By definition,
feature
extensions are
always voluntary.5
In our
concep
5ln
general,
we believe that feature extensions are
always voluntary; however,
we
recognize
that after one
individual's
voluntary
feature
extension,
the
organization
532 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
tualization,
feature
adoption,
use,
and extension all
fall within the realm of
post-adoptive
behaviors.
Although
the IT
adoption
and use literature has
primarily
focused on
voluntary
use
contexts,
the
conceptualization developed
here
applies
to both
mandatory
and
voluntary
contexts. Even when an
organization
mandates the use of an IT
appli
cation,
individuals retain considerable discretion
regarding
their use of the features of the
appli
cation
(Hartwick
and Barki
1994).
A Two-level Model of Post
Adoptive
Behavior
_ __-_ _ _ _
Organizations
are "social
systems
of collective
action that structure and
regulate
the actions and
cognitions
of
organizational participants through
rules, resources,
and social relations"
(Oscasio
2000, p. 42).
As
such,
the rich and
dynamic
inter
play
that occurs within
systems
of collective action
(i.e.,
the
organizational context) shapes
and
influences individuals'
cognitive processing
and
cognitive
content
(Bandura 1986, 1995;
Weick
1979a, 1979b,
1995).
This
desirability
to accom
modate both
organizational
and individual levels of
analysis
is
particularly important
with
complex
IT
enabled work
systems,
such as ERP
systems,
as
noted
by
others.
Although people
described individual ad
justments
to ERP's technical
complexity
and
changes
in
jobs, learning
was not
concentrated at the individual level.
Rather,
the structures and
processes
of
entire divisions needed to
change,
and
occasional references to cultural
change
reflected the
organizational scope
of the
learning process.
(Robey
et al.
2002, p.
38)
may
realize the value of the extension and
subsequently
mandate use of the extension for other users. In such
situations,
the
organization
has redefined the feature
(i.e.,
enacted a
technology-in-use
definition of the
feature;
see Orlikowski
2000); therefore,
use of this
feature
by
individuals other than the innovator would not
be considered a feature extension.
Applying
such
notions,
our
conceptualization
of
post-adoptive
behavior involves two levels of
analysis (see Figure 2):
one
operating
at the level
of an individual's
cognitions
and behaviors
regarding
feature
adoption,
use,
and
extension;
and the other
operating
at the level of the
organizational
context within which these individual
cognitions
are situated.
Here,
the individual
cogni
tions that determine
post-adoptive
intentions or
behaviors are seen as
becoming
stabilized
(resulting
in routinized
behaviors)
unless stimu
lated
by
interventions
emanating
from the
organi
zation level
(i.e.,
work
system interventions),
the
individual level
(i.e.,
user-initiated
interventions),
or
both.
By modeling
individual
cognition
and
organi
zational action
separately
but
interdependent^,
the
exercise of
accommodating
the
multiple
threads of
behavior involved becomes
conceptually
less
complex.
The
logic underlying
the
conceptual
model
depicted
in
Figure
2
captures
the
dynamic
inter
actions between the two sub-models
(i.e.,
individual
cognition
model and
organizational
action
model).
Three
major
theoretical lenses lend
support
for this two-level model of
post-adoptive
behavior.
First,
psychologists argue
that
cognitive scripts
(derived
from
prior cognitions)
drive habitualized
individual behavior
(Bargh
1989, 1994;
Logan
1989;
Ouellette and Wood
1998;
Triandis
1971,
1980).
Individuals
may
alter habitual behavior in
situations in which the individual deliberates
her/his actions
(Louis
and Sutton
1991).
Such
deliberations lead to
changes
in
cognitions
which
in turn lead to novel behaviors
(Ajzen
2002;
Louis
and Sutton
1991).
Over
time,
the new behaviors
become routinized and the individual returns to a
state of habitual behavior
(Bargh
1989, 1994).
If
individuals do not encounter situations which
induce them to
significantly
alter their
cognitions,
the
ingrained cognitive script
will
only
reinforce
these habitual behaviors
(Bargh
1989;
Logan
1989;
Louis and Sutton
1991;
Ouellette and Wood
1998).
Second,
punctuated equilibrium theory proposes
that
deep
structures
(i.e., deep,
less-reflective
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 533
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
j Organizational
Action Model
WlM <%
piiliiS
Confirmation/Disconfirmation
gBJjN-s
HB
Work
System
Bl^^B^^^^^B
Work
System
IKHiBii^^^^S
Work
System
|*
H_Wi
Interventions
HH^HHn
Sensemaking
ItfjEkijfiilfiiill^li^l)i[tiiiffi1_^Si^ittiJijliljffl
Outcomes
|f|
^^^Mjj^^^Mm
lnd'vidual
t^^^^jMMyM|M^i|
Post-Adoptive
a^S
Post-Adoptive
JBIM Technology
HB
^Bj^^^^^^^B
Cognitions BMBBBBBl
Intentions
H39
Behaviors
|tJJil||
Sensemaking 111
H
Individual
[^
Individual
1
UseHistorv W
|H
Attention
^^gS
Differences
useMlstory
g^gi^Ki^gf^^^^^Mj^a
||||l?^^
Confirmation/Disconfirmation
l||w|M
__^__^__H__^__^__^__H_T^E^^_^_^_^HS^^^_I
___I__H^_^_^_^_^_H JZZEL __^__^__H_D^confirmation_H
wiiiiiiMi^^ Interventions
|fflj||||j^
[individual
Cognition
Model
IJBJlM
Figure
2.
Conceptual
Model of
Post-Adoptive
Behavior
mental
scripts)
remain
relatively
stable because of
path dependencies (i.e.,
choices made in the
past
limit future
options)
and feedback
loops.
This
stability
contributes to
equilibrium periods,
where
patterns
of
activity essentially
remain constant
(Gersick 1991). Changes
or
adjustments may
occur within the
system,
but if these
changes
do
not alter
deep
structures,
the
system
remains in
equilibrium. Revolutionary periods,
however,
occur when
systems
dismantle and reconstruct
deep
structures
(Gersick
1991;
Tushman and
Romanelli
1985).
Researchers have observed that
IT
application
use often reflects
patterns
of routine
use
punctuated by episodes
of
change activity
(Lassila
and Brancheau
1999;
Majchrzak
et al.
2000;
Tyre
and Orlikowski
1994).
Third,
structuration
theory suggests
that human
agents (i.e.,
individual
users, peers, experts,
and
managers)
initiate interventions to
modify
techno
logy
structures
(i.e., applied
feature sets of
implemented
IT
applications)
and
organizational
structures
(i.e.,
task
structures,
work
processes,
social
structures)
as both
objective
and
subjective
aspects
of social
reality (Giddens
1979, 1984;
Orlikowski
1992,
2000).
At the
organizational
action
level,
human
agents?as
a result of work
system
or
technology sensemaking?introduce
interventions
expected
to have certain effects
and/or
engage
in actions that result in
emergent
interventions. At the individual
cognition
level,
individual users will make sense of these inter
ventions in
idiosyncratic ways
to enact the
cogni
tions that determine
post-adoptive
behaviors
serving
as
inputs
of both work
system
outcomes
and
technology sensemaking (Oriikowski
1992,
2000;
Orlikowski et al.
1995;
Tyre
and Orlikowski
1994;
Weick
1995;
Yates et al.
1999).
These
post
adoptive
behaviors determine?both
immediately
through
the construction of new structural entities
and in a more
protracted
fashion
through
the
routinization of behaviors induced
by
both old and
534 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
new structural entities?the constitution of
organi
zational and
technology
structures
(Giddens
1979,
1984;
Orlikowski
1992;
Orlikowski and
Robey
1991).
In
summary,
central to our
conceptualization
of
post-adoptive
behavior is the notion
that,
over
time,
post-adoptive
behaviors become habitualized
unless interventions occur to
disrupt
the formation
of these
deep,
non-reflective mental
scripts.
When
individuals attend to these
interventions,
the
interventions
produce periods
of substantive
technology
use,
defined as a state in which an
individual
reflectively engages
with one or more
features of an IT
application.6
In the absence of a
substantive
period
of
technology
use,
post
adoptive
behavior
likely
transitions to a state of
habitual behavior in which an individual
engages
in
a
recurring pattern
of
using
a selected subset of
technology
features in his/her work
(Bargh
1989,
1994;
Conner and
Armitage
1998;
Edmondson et
al.
2001;
Limayem
et al.
2001;
Logan
1989;
Ouellette and Wood
1998;
Venkatesh et al.
2000;
Venkatesh et al.
2002).
Where these habitual
behaviors lead to
satisfactory
outcomes and where
the work context is
stable,
such behaviors
might
very
well be viewed as
appropriate. Often,
however,
these two conditions do not
jointly
hold
(Edmondson
etal.
2001).
Organizational
Action Model of
Post-Adoptive
Behavior
The
organizational
action model of
post-adoptive
behavior situates an individual's use of an IT
application's
features within a
complex
set of
organizational
actions
that,
when attended
to,
induce
episodes
of substantive
technology
use.
The work
system represents
the context within
which
organizational
members
perform
their
assigned
work
(Gibson
et al.
1994; Schippmann
1999).
Thus,
the work
system
includes
organiza
6Through
the remainder of this
article,
our use of the
term substantive
technology
use denotes an individual's
reflective consideration to use a
single
feature
(or
a
select subset of
features)
available in an IT
application.
tional
members,
the work tasks undertaken
by
members,
work
processes, technology
features
that enable or
support
work tasks and
processes,
and social structures that direct
organizational
members both in their work-related behaviors and
in their interactions with each other. Social struc
tures include both
performance-related (e.g.,
performance
evaluation and
feedback, promotion,
merit
pay, bonuses,
etc.)
and
personal-related
(e.g.,
social
recognition, reputation,
social inter
action, etc.)
incentives and disincentives that
prior
research
suggests
are
likely
to influence individual
behaviors,
including
IT use
(Ba
et al.
2001;
Bhattacherjee
1998;
Eisenhardt
1989;
Howard and
Mendelow
1991;
Stajkovic
and Luthans
2001).
An
organization's
members are
obviously
core
elements of the work
system,
both in
performing
work-related roles and as users of
work-enabling
technologies.
Most
important, given
that an
organization's
members
continuously interpret
their work context
(Brousseau
1983;
Dunham etal.
1977;
Gibson et al.
1994;
Orlikowski
2000),
their
work
system sensemaking
becomes an
especially
critical
subcomponent
of the work
system.
Work
system sensemaking
occurs via observa
tions
regarding
work
system
outcome
expectation
gaps (as perceived by
users,
by peers
of these
users,
by technology
or work
system experts,
or
by
managers).7 Organizations
and their members
introduce new IT
applications
with the
expectation
that certain work
system outcomes?again,
characterized as
being performance-related,
personal-related,
or both?will occur
(Zuboff 1988).
In this
specific
context of
post-adoptive behaviors,
we are concerned with work
system
outcomes that
arise,
either
intentionally
or
unintentionally,
as a
result of
applying
IT
application
features in the
conduct of
organizational work,
such as
performing
a task in a more effective and/or efficient
manner,
enhancing power (for
an individual or
group)
through
control of a critical information
resource,
7The focal actor of the
organizational
action model could
be one of
any
number of individuals
employed by
the
organization.
Here we mention four
specific organiza
tional roles
(user, peer, expert,
or
manager)
that
might
be
played by
these individuals. These
organizational
roles
correspond
to intervention sources to be discussed later.
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 535
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
etc. The work
system
outcome
expectation gap
represents
the difference between desired and
perceived
work
system
outcomes?a difference
that,
if
sufficiently large, triggers
a need to resolve
the dissonance caused
by
the
expectation
outcome conflict. To resolve
expectation gaps,
organizational
members
engender
interventions
that have the
potential
to induce work
system
changes,
which in turn
directly
influence work
system
outcomes.
All such interventions have a source and a
target.
Intervention sources include the individual user,
the user's
peers,
work and
technology experts,
and
managers.8
The interventions that induce
periods
of substantive
technology
use
target
reshaping existing cognitions regarding
IT
appli
cation
features, cognitions regarding
work
systems,
or
cognitions regarding
both. In
essence,
such interventions
induce,
or
perhaps
mandate,
the individual to
apply
unused
features,
to
apply
already-used
features at
higher
levels of
use,
to
discover new uses of
existing
features,
or to
identify
the need to
incorporate
new features into
the IT
application.
In other
words,
these inter
ventions
pick up
the
pace
in the mutual
adaptation
of
organizational
structures,
task
structures,
and
technology
structures that
accompanies organi
zational life and
that,
invariably, produce
both
intended and unintended
consequences
(DeSanctis
and Poole
1994;
Leonard-Barton
1995;
Majchrzak
et al.
2000;
Orlikowski
1992;
Tyre
and
Orlikowski
1994).
Although many types
of work
system
interventions
might
be
initiated,
the interventions of
primary
interest here are those that
represent
either
purposeful
or
emergent
actions directed at
disrupting
established
patterns
of
technology
feature use
(or nonuse) (Orlikowski
et al.
1995;
Yates et al.
1999).
For the sake of
simplicity,
we
do not
attempt
to
develop
a
complete taxonomy
of
possible
interventions or to model the
complex
8Although
technology
itself
might
be considered an
intervention source
(e.g.,
built-in
wizards,
online
help,
etc.),
it is our belief that the initial
impetus
of such an
intervention lies with these four identified intervention
sources.
relationships
that
might
exist between and
among
interventions and their outcomes. Table 3
references articles that
provide
further
descriptions
of each intervention source and
provides examples
of interventions undertaken
by
each source.
Individual
Cognition
Model of
Post-Adoptive
Behavior
The individual
cognition
model contains two
distinctly
different feedback
loops directly
asso
ciated with
post-adoptive
behavior. One
loop
(characterized by
reflective
thought
and
repre
sented
by
the solid line
relationships
in
Figure 2)
contains the series of
relationships
from individual
cognitions
to
technology sensemaking
and back.
The
logic
of this feedback
loop
is founded in
reflective consideration
whereby
an individual com
mences reflection with a
preexisting
set of
cognitions
and then
mindfully
considers and
pro
cesses
surrounding
informational cues
regarding
an IT
application's
features
(Langer
1989;
Langer
et al.
1978;
Langer
and
Piper 1987;
Louis and
Sutton
1991).
This reflective
cognitive processing
may modify
the individual's
(already existent) post
adoptive
intentions,
which then direct future
post
adoptive
behaviors.
Subsequent
to these be
haviors,
the individual
again engages
in reflection
(i.e., technology sensemaking) regarding
this most
recent
post-adoptive experience. Then,
based on
the
strength
of confirmation or disconfirmation
associated with this
technology sensemaking,
the
individual either
adjusts
his/her
cognitions
about
technology
features
accordingly (weak
confir
mation)
or initiates a work
system
intervention
and/or a
personal technology-learning
intervention
(strong confirmation).
The second feedback
loop
in the individual
cognition
model
(characterized by
non-reflective
thought
and
represented by
the dashed line
relationships
in
Figure 2)
consists of the direct
relationships
between use
history
and
post
adoptive
behavior. In this
loop,
reflective consi
deration does not drive
post-adoptive
behavior.
Instead,
habitual
behavior, captured
in use
history,
determines
post-adoptive
behavior. In this routin
536 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et a
I./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Table 3.
Description
of Intervention Sources and Illustrative Intervention Actions
Intervention
Source
Description/Citations
Intervention Actions
Users
Community
of users associated with an Self-orchestrated
learning
such as
IT
application
formal/informal
training,
external
documentation,
observations of
others,
Bagchi
et al.
2003;
Hartiwck and Barki
experimentation
with IT
features,
1994; Igbaria
and Guimaraes
1994;
King experimentation
with work tasks
and
Rodriguez 1981;
Manning
1996;
Direct actions taken toward
modifying
McKersie and Walton
1991;
Morrison et or
enhancing
the IT
application
and/or
al. 2000 work
tasks/processes
Peers Coworkers from the same or different
Designing, leading,
or
directing
formal
work units and workers in other and informal
training
sessions
organizations
Direct actions taken toward
modifying
or
enhancing
the IT
application
and/or
Contractor et al.
1996;
Fulk
1993;
Fulk et work
tasks/processes
al.
1990;
Kraut et al
1998;
Lucas and Joint actions taken with users toward
Spitler 1999;
Markus 1990
modifying
or
enhancing
the IT
applica
tion and/or work
tasks/processes
Experts
Internal and external
professionals (i.e., Designing, leading,
or
directing
formal
(Work
and
consultants, contractors,
or
technologists
and informal
training
sessions
Technology)
in
partner firms)
housed in central or Direct actions taken toward
modifying
distributed work units or
enhancing
the IT
application
and/or
work
tasks/processes
Boynton
and Zmud
1987;
Earl
1993;
Joint actions taken with users toward
Markus and
Bj0rn-Andersen
1987;
modifying
or
enhancing
the IT
applica
Nelson and
Cheney
1987;
Venkatesh tion and/or work
tasks/processes
and
Speier 1999;
Venkatesh et al.
2002;
Xia and Lee
2000;
Yates et al. 1999
Managers
Direct
supervisors,
middle
managers,
Indirect Actions
and senior executives
Sponsoring
or
championing
Providing
resources
Ba et al.
2001;
Bhattacherjee
1998;
Issuing
directives and/or mandates
Guimaraes and
Igbaria 1997;
Howard
and Mendelow
1991;
Igbaria
1990, 1993;
Direct Actions
Igbaria
and Guimaraes
1994; Igbaria
and IT
application
feature use
livari
1995; Igbaria
et al.
1996;
Leonard- Work
task/process
involvement
barton
1988;
Orlikowski
2000;
Orlikowski Incentive structures
et al.
1995;
Purvis et al.
2001;
Stajkovic Inputs/influence
into
design
of
user,
and Luthans
2001;
Yates et al. 1999
peer,
or
technologist
interventions
Directing
modification or enhancement
of IT
application,
incentive
structures,
or work
tasks/processes
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 537
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
ized mode of IT
application
use,
individuals use
only
those IT
application
features
they
have
previously
used
(Bargh
1989, 1994;
Conner and
Armitage 1998;
Logan
1989;
Ouellette and Wood
1998).
In the absence of a
period
of substantive
technology
use, this non-reflective
loop
becomes
the
primary
driver of an individual's
post-adoptive
behavior.
The individual
cognition
model in
Figure
2
applies
both to
explaining
a
single
instance of
post
adoptive
behavior
(e.g., cognitions,
intentions,
behavior,
technology sensemaking,
and use
history
relative to a
specific
IT
application feature)
and to
understanding
the evolution over time of
individual
post-adoptive
behavior
(e.g.,
the rich
portfolio
of
cognitions,
intentions, behaviors,
technology sensemaking,
and use
history
relative
to an IT
application).
Here,
it is most critical to
recognize
that each individual
exposes
a
unique
pattern
of
post-adoptive
behavior
represented by
the collection of IT
application
features
that,
over
time,
the individual has
adopted, used, dropped,
and extended.
The
logic
of the reflective feedback
loop depicted
in
Figure
2 draws
liberally
from
prior
research on
IT
adoption
and
use,
in
particular
from the unified
theory
of
acceptance
and use of
technology
(UTAUT) (Venkatesh
et al.
2003).9
The
underlying
premise
of
UTAUT?here,
applied
to
post-adoptive
behavior?suggests
that,
given
a
particular
time
and
context,
an individual's intentions to
engage
in
post-adoptive
behavior are the best
predictors
of
that individual's actual
post-adoptive
behaviors
(Davis
et al.
1989; Taylor
and Todd
1995b;
Venkatesh et al.
2000;
Venkatesh et al.
2003).
Individual
cognitions,
which
comprise
the core of
UTAUT,
can be
conceptualized
as
encompassing
two domains:
cognitive process
and
cognitive
content
(Blumenthal 1977). Cognitive processing
involves both the mental
processes
used in
9The
collective results of IT
adoption
and use
research,
which has
applied eight
different theories to
explain
both
intention to use and actual use
behavior,
was reviewed
and
incorporated
into the
development
of UTAUT. We
refer the reader Venkatesh et al.
(2003)
for a more
comprehensive
discussion of these other theories.
perceiving, learning, remembering, thinking,
and
understanding,
and the mental
activity
of
applying
those
processes (Ashcraft 1998). Cognitive
con
tent consists of the collection of mental structures
formed as a result of
cognitive processing;
typically,
researchers refer to instances of
cogni
tive content as
cognitions.
But what
exactly
is the nature of these
cognitions
with
regard
to
post-adoptive
behavior? While a
large
number of
cognitions may play
a role in
influencing
individuals'
adoption
and use behaviors
(see
Table
4),
Venkatesh et al.
(2003)
have
synthesized
and
integrated
these into a
single
set
of
cognitions: performance expectancy,
effort
expectancy,
social
influence,
and
facilitating
conditions.10
Drawing
from
UTAUT,
we
suggest
these four
cognitions
as
being
most
likely
to
influence
post-adoptive
intentions.
UTAUT also
proposes
that individual
demographic
characteristics moderate the
relationship
between
cognition
and intention
(Venkatesh
et al.
2003).
Previous research identifies not
only demographic
characteristics but also
cognitive styles
and
personality
characteristics as individual differences
likely
to
impact post-adoptive
behavior
(Zmud
1979).
Table 5 contains an overview of various
individual differences considered
by
illustrative IT
adoption
and use research that has examined use
after
adoption. Again, following
the
logic
of
UTAUT,
the individual
cognition
model of
post
adoptive
behavior includes such individual
differences as moderators of the
relationship
between an individual's IT
application
feature
cognitions
and the individual's
post-adoptive
intentions.11
I
Venkatesh
et al.
(2003)
define
facilitating
conditions as
cognitions regarding
the technical and
organizational
infrastructure that
supports system
use.
II
UTAUT
proposes
a direct
relationship (moderated by
age
and
experience)
between the
facilitating
conditions
cognition
and use. Because we have
grouped
all four
cognitions proposed by
Venkatesh et al.
(2003)
into a
single
construct,
we have not modeled this
relationship
in
Figure
2.
538 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Table 4.
Cognitions
Studied in Illustrative IT
Adoption
and Use Research
Cognition Example Study
Compatability Agarwal
and Prasad
1997;
livari
1996;
Karahanna et al.
1999;
Taylor
and
Todd
1995b;
Xia and Lee 2000
Complexity Igbaria
et al.
1996;
livari
1996;
Thompson
et al.
1991,
1994
Computer anxiety* Compeau
and
Higgins
1995b;
Compeau
et al.
1999;
Howard and
Mendelow
1991;
Igbaria
1990, 1993;
Igbaria
and livari
1995;
Venkatesh
2000
Ease of use Adams et al.
1992;
Agarwal
and Prasad
1997;
Davis et al.
1989;
Gefen
and Straub
1997;
Igbaria
et al.
1995; Igbaria
and livari
1995;
Igbaria
et al.
1997;
Karahanna et al.
1999;
Kettinger
and Grover
1997;
Lucas and
Spitler 1999;
Rai et al.
2002;
Straub et al.
1995;
Szajna
1996;
Taylor
and
Todd
1995a, 1995b;
Teo et al.
1999;
Venkatesh
2000;
Venkatesh and
Davis
2000;
Venkatesh and Morris
2000;
Venkatesh et al.
2002;
Xia and
Lee 2000
Effort
expectancy
Venkatesh et al. 2003
Facilitating
conditions
Taylor
and Todd
1995b; Thompson
et al.
1991, 1994;
Venkatesh et al.
2003
Image Agarwal
and Prasad
1997;
Karahanna et al.
1999;
Schewe
1976;
Venkatesh and Davis 2000
Job-fit
Thompson
et al.
1991,
1994
Job relevance Venkatesh and Davis 2000
Outcome
expectations Compeau
and
Higgins
1995b; Compeau
et al.
1999;
Lucas
1975;
Thompson
et al.
1991,
1994
Output quality
Venkatesh and Davis 2000
Perceived behavioral
Taylor
and Todd
1995a, 1995b;
Venkatesh et al. 2000
control
Performance
expectancy
Venkatesh et al. 2003
Relative
advantage Agarwal
and Prasad
1997;
livari
1996;
Xia and Lee 2000
Result
demonstrability Agarwal
and Prasad
1997;
Karahanna et al.
1999;
Venkatesh and Davis
2000;
Xia and Lee 2000
Richness Fulk
1993;
Kettinger
and Grover 1997
Self-efficacy*
Burkhardt
1994;
Compeau
and
Higgins
1995b; Compeau
et al.
1999;
Igbaria
and livari
1995;
Taylor
and Todd
1995b;
Venkatesh
2000;
Webster 1998
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 539
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Table 4.
Cognitions
Studied in Illustrative IT
Adoption
and Use Research
(Continued)
Social influence
(peer Compeau
and
Higgins
1995b;
Fulk
1993;
Guimaraes and
Igbaria
1997;
influence,
management
Howard and Mendelow
1991;
Igbaria 1990, 1993;
Igbaria
et al.
1995;
support,
social
pressure, Igbaria
et al.
1996; Igbaria
et al.
1997;
Karahanna et al.
1999;
Kraut et al.
etc.) 1999;
Leonard-Barton and
Deschamps 1988;
Lucas
1975;
Schewe
1976;
Taylor
and Todd
1995b; Thompson
et al.
1991, 1994;
Venkatesh et al.
2003;
Webster 1998
Subjective
norm Davis et al.
1989;
Hartwick and Barki
1994;
Lucas and
Spitler
1999;
Taylor
and Todd
1995a, 1995b;
Venkatesh and Davis
2000;
Venkatesh
and Morris
2000;
Venkatesh et al. 2000
Trialability Agarwal
and Prasad
1997;
Karahanna et al.
1999;
Xia and Lee 2000
Usefulness Adams et al.
1992; Bhattacherjee 2001;
Davis et al.
1989;
Fulk
1993;
Gefen and Straub
1997;
Hiltz and Turoff
1981;
Howard and Mendelow
1991;
Igbaria
1993;
Igbaria
et al.
1995;
Igbaria
and livari
1995;
Igbaria
et
al.
1996;
Igbaria
et al.
1997;
Karahanna et al.
1999;
Kettinger
and Grover
1997;
Lucas
1975;
Lucas and
Spitler 1999;
Rai et al.
2002; Robey
1979;
Schewe
1976;
Straub et al.
1995; Szajna
1996;
Taylor
and Todd
1995a,
1995b;
Teo et al.
1999;
Venkatesh
2000;
Venkatesh and Davis
2000;
Venkatesh and Morris
2000;
Venkatesh et al. 2002
Visibility_Agarwal
and Prasad
1997;
Karahanna et al.
1999;
Xia and Lee 2000
Although
some
suggest
these constructs
represent
individual
differences,
we include them as
cognitions
because most
researchers measure them as individual
perceptions.
In addition to the focus on an IT
application's
fea
tures,
our
conceptualization
involves three exten
sions to UTAUT: the influences of
technology
sensemaking,
of use
history,
and of an individual's
attention to introduced interventions. We discuss
each of these in the remainder of this section.
Technology Sensemaking
Technology sensemaking
occurs as an evaluative
cognitive process
that
transpires
when an
individual contrasts the outcomes of a
post
adoptive
behavior
episode
with those
expected
from
pre-episode cognitions (Weick
1979a, 1990,
1995).
We
postulate
that
during
a substantive
period
of
technology
use,
an individual
engaged
in
reflective,
rather than
habitual,
use of an IT
application
feature
implicitly triggers technology
sensemaking
which confirms
(disconfirms)
the
cognitions
that existed
prior
to the active use
experience (Bhattacherjee
2001; Bhattacherjee
and Premkumar
2004;
Oliver
1980;
Weick
1990,
1995).
Weak confirmation
(disconfirmation)
out
comes will
likely
lead
directly
to modifications in
prior-held cognitions. Strong
confirmation
(discon
firmation)
outcomes,
on the other
hand,
will
likely
lead to user-initiated
learning
interventions and/or
user-initiated work
system
interventions.
User-initiated
technology learning
interventions
affect
post-adoptive
behaviors not
only through
their influence on
technology cognitions
but also
through
their influence on an individual's
interpre
tations of other work
system
elements
(Orlikowski
et al.
1995). Post-adoptive
intentions derive from
an individual's
understanding
both of how to use
an IT
application's
features and how these fea
tures
complement
other work
system
elements
(Swanson 1974).
Thus,
self-orchestrated
learning
540 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Table 5. Individual Difference
Categories
Studied in Illustrative IT
Adoption
and Use
Individual Difference
Example Study
Age
Burkhardt
1994;
Fuerst and
Cheney
1982;
Fulk
1993;
Howard and
Mendelow
1991;
Igbaria
1990, 1993;
Kettinger
and Grover
1997;
Kraut et
al.
1999;
Kraut et al.
1998;
Lucas
1975;
Schewe
1976;
Teo et al.
1999;
Venkatesh et al. 2003
Cognitive Style
Fuerst and
Cheney 1982;
Lucas 1975
Education Burkhardt
1994;
Fuerst and
Cheney
1982;
Fulk
1993;
Howard and
Mendelow
1991; Igbaria 1993;
Kettinger
and Grover
1997;
Lucas
1975;
Schewe
1976;
Teo et al.
1999;
Venkatesh et al. 2003
Gender Burkhardt
1994;
Fuerst and
Cheney
1982;
Fulk
1993;
Gefen and Straub
1997;
Howard and Mendelow
1991;
Igbaria 1990, 1993;
Kraut et al.
1999;
Kraut et al.
1998;
Teo et al.
1999;
Venkatesh and Morris
2000;
Venkatesh
et al.
2000;
Venkatesh et al. 2003
Organizational
level Howard and Mendelow
1991;
Igbaria
1990
Personality
Jobber and Watts 1986
Technology experience
Fulk
1993;
Howard and Mendelow
1991;
Igbaria
1990, 1993; Igbaria
et al.
1995;
Igbaria
and livari
1995;
Igbaria
et al.
1996;
Kettinger
and Grover
1997;
Kraut et al.
1999;
Schewe
1976;
Taylor
and Todd
1995a;
Venkatesh and Davis
2000;
Venkatesh and Morris 2000
Training
Howard and Mendelow
1991;
Igbaria
1990, 1993;
Igbaria
et al.
1995;
Igbaria
et al.
1996;
Igbaria
et al.
1997;
Leonard-Barton and
Deschamps
and
Deschamps 1988;
Venkatesh et al.
2002;
Webster
1998;
Xia and Lee
2000
Voluntariness of use*
Agarwal
and Prasad
1997;
livari
1996;
Karahanna et al.
1999;
Venkatesh
et al. 2003
Work
experience
Burkhardt
1994;
Fuerst and
Cheney
1982;
Howard and Mendelow
1991;
Schewe 1976
Although
many
researchers
study
voluntariness of use as a
cognition,
UTAUT
proposes
voluntariness of use as an
individual difference which modifies the
relationship
between
cognitions
and intentions
(Venkatesh
et al.
2003).
We
include voluntariness of use as an individual difference to be consistent with UTAUT.
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 541
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
about the IT
application's
features,
the
potential
use of those
features,
and the work
system
within
which the IT
application
is situated constitute
crucially important
means
by
which individuals
modify
their use
cognitions. Examples
of such
learning
interventions undertaken
by
an individual
user include
taking advantage
of formal or informal
training opportunities (Fuerst
and
Cheney 1982),
accessing
external documentation
(Brancheau
and
Wetherbe
1990), observing
others
(Bandura
1986;
Gioia and Manz
1985),
and
experimenting
with IT
application
features
(DeSanctis
and Poole
1994)
and/or new
approaches
for
handling
work
assign
ments
(McKersie
and Walton
1991).
Use
History
Existing
evidence
suggests
that as individuals
gain
experience
with what was
initially
a novel
behavior,
they
tend to
engage
less
frequently
in reflective
consideration of this behavior and
rely
instead on
previous patterns
of behavior to direct future
behaviors
(Bargh
1989;
Conner and
Armitage
1998; Langer 1989;
Lassila and Brancheau
1999;
Louis and Sutton
1991; Majchrzak
et al.
2000;
Ouellette and Wood
1998;
Triandis
1980; Tyre
and
Orlikowski
1994;
Venkatesh et al.
2000;
Venkatesh
et al.
2003;
Venkatesh et al.
2002).
It thus seems
reasonable
that,
as an individual
routinely applies
an IT
application
feature within her/his work con
text,
the
ever-accumulating prior-use experiences
imprint
these use behaviors within the
cognitive
(and organizational) scripts
that direct the indi
vidual
(or
the individual's work
unit)
in task
accomplishment (Bargh
1989;
Logan
1989;
Louis
and Sutton
1991;
March and Simon
1958;
Triandis
1971;
Triandis
1980;
Tyre
and Orlikowski
1994).
Accordingly,
much
post-adoptive
behavior,
over
time,
is
likely
to reflect a habitualization of action
where the decision to use the IT
application
feature occurs more or less
automatically
via a
subconscious
response
to a work situation
(Bargh
1989, 1994;
Eagly
and Chaiken
1993; Limayem
and Hirt
2003; Limayem
et al.
2001;
Logan
1989;
Ouellette and Wood
1998;
Thompson
et al.
1994;
Venkatesh et al.
2000).
In some
mandatory
use
environments,
such routinized behaviors
likely
develop through
the mindless
following
of
policy,
procedures, methodologies,
or other codified
organizational scripts (Langer
et al.
1978).
In
voluntary
and other
mandatory
use
environments,
however,
such routinized behaviors are more
likely
to reflect the
scripting
of once-active
personal
decision
processes (Bargh
1989;
Bargh
1994;
Langer
etal.
1978;
Langer
and
Piper 1987;
Logan
1989;
Louis and Sutton
1991;
Ouellette and Wood
1998).
A
key
facet of
post-adoptive
behavior is the
strong
influence of an individual's use
history
on
post
adoptive
intentions and
post-adoptive
behaviors
(encompassing
both reflective
thought
and the
deep
mental
scripting
that results in and from
habitual
use).
An individual's
past
use behavior
generally produces
a
tendency (e.g., post-adoptive
intention)
for the individual to act in a
particular
manner
(i.e., applying
a common set of IT
appli
cation
features) given
a
particular
context
(i.e.,
a
specific
work
task) (Eagly
and Chaiken
1993;
Ouellette and Wood
1998;
Triandis
1971,
1980).
During
the initial use of an IT
feature,
individuals
most
likely engage
in active
cognitive processing
in
determining post-adoptive
intention or
behavior;
however,
with
repetition,
the reflective
cognitive
processing dissipates, leading
to automatic and
routinized behavior
(i.e., habit) (Bargh
1989,1994;
Logan
1989;
Ouellette and Wood
1998).
We
define use
history
to include both an individual's
past
use behavior
(i.e.,
a
collective, systematic
account of an individual's
prior
use of an IT
appli
cation and its
features)
and an individual's use
habits
(i.e.,
learned situational-behavior
sequences
with
respect
to an IT
application
and its features
that have become automatic
[Triandis 1980]).
Thus,
during
substantive
technology
use
periods,
use
history
as
past
behavior
plays
a role in
pre
dicting
an individual's
post-adoptive
intentions to
engage
in
post-adoptive
behavior
(i.e.,
solid-line
relationships
in
Figure 2).
However,
during
periods
of
non-reflective, post-adoptive
behavior,
use
history
as habit becomes the dominant
pre
dictor of an individual's
post-adoptive
behavior
(i.e.,
dashed-line
relationships
in
Figure 2).
542 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Attention to Introduced Interventions
Ouellette and Wood
(1998, p. 66)
indicate that
when behavior is a function of conscious
decision
making
and
deliberation,
inten
tions
directly predict
behavior
perfor
mance, and the effects of
past
behavior
are
likely
to be mediated
through
conscious intents.
Louis and Sutton
(1991) suggest
that conscious
processing
occurs as a result of three
types
of
stimuli: when a situation is novel
(i.e.,
the initial
use of a
technology feature),
when an individual
senses a
discrepancy
between
reality
and
expec
tation,
and when individuals are induced to
deliberate
regarding
their behavior
(i.e.,
an inter
vention is attended
to).
Bandura
(1986) proposes
attention as the first
stage
in his observational
learning
model.
As shown in
Figure
2,
the extent to which an
individual attends to an intervention will moderate
the
relationship
between the intervention and
individual
cognitions.
For an intervention to induce
the individual to
engage
in conscious
cognitive
processing,
the intervention must be
sensed,
interpreted,
and considered
(Bandura 1986;
Yi and
Davis
2003).
One researcher
explains why people
often
disregard signals
directed toward them:
People
find
noninteresting
those
propo
sitions that affirm their
assumption
ground (that's obvious),
that do not
speak
to their
assumption ground (that's
irrele
vant),
or
deny
their
assumption ground
(that's absurd) (Weick 1979b, p. 51).
But,
what is it about an intervention that would
increase the likelihood a
targeted
individual would
attend to the intervention? Weick
(1995) suggests
individuals are more
likely
to attend to
signals
that
are
prominent
and
promise
to
disrupt
the work
system
context. Two intervention attributes are
suggested
as
particularly
relevant: the salience of
the work
system
elements
likely
affected
by
an
intervention
(Beach 1997;
March
1994)
and the
power
of the intervention source
(Jasperson
et al.
2002).
Here, power
refers to the intervention
source's
ability
to influence others to think or to act
(Emerson
1962;
Frost
1987;
Hall
1999;
Jasperson
et al.
2002).
Implications
for Research:
Theory
-_-_-H----H-B----_H-B--H-l
We
urge
researchers to
develop
and
apply
richer
and more
complex
research models in
examining
the variation within and across individuals'
post
adoptive
behavior. Such research models should
tap
into the
dynamic interplay
between the
organi
zational action and individual
cognition
levels
and,
therefore,
must collect data at
multiple points-in
time and account
(control)
for
changes
in the IT
application
via its
features,
individual
cognitions
regarding
the IT
application
via its
features,
and
the work
system(s) being
enabled. In
particular,
we advocate future
programs
of research that
systematically (1) explore
the outcomes of indi
vidual
post-adoptive
behaviors and the
resulting
feedback that
impacts organizational
action and
individual
cognitions
and
(2)
focus on work
system
interventions and the manner in which those
interventions
prompt
individuals to
engage
in
substantive
technology
use. We caution
against
future research efforts that
merely replicate
existing
IT
adoption
and use research at a feature
level of
analysis
or in a
post-adoptive context;
and
we
implore
researchers
examining post-adoptive
behaviors to discontinue the
practice
of
studying
post-adoption
intentions as the final outcome
variable?such research would have limited value
in
furthering
our collective
understanding
of the
dynamics
of
post-adoptive
behavior. Below we
suggest specific programs
of research
designed
to
investigate
the
dynamic
nature of our two-level
model.
Post-Adoptive
Behaviors and Work
System
Outcomes
We know little about the
patterns
of feature
adop
tion, use,
and extension that occur
throughout
the
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 543
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
post-adoptive stage
of diffusion or the cumulative
impacts
of those
patterns
on work
system
performance
over time. We
urge
scholars to
further
investigate
this
domain,
as
theory develop
ment in this area is
likely
to illuminate the
relationships
between diffusion
microprocesses
that occur at the individual level and macro
behavioral outcomes at the
organizational
level.
Example
research
questions
include
Are there consistent
patterns
of feature
adoption,
use,
and
extension,
and how do
such
patterns
evolve over time?
Are
specific patterns
within
particular
contexts
predictive
of
positive (negative)
work
system
outcomes?
What
aspects
of feature
adoption,
use,
and
extension
differentially explain impacts
on
various elements of a work
system?
Technology Sensemaking
Given the limited amount of research
examining
post-adoptive
behaviors at a feature level of
analysis,
we have insufficient
understanding
of the
technology sensemaking
processes
that
transpire
during
the
post-adoptive
context. A
deeper
under
standing
of these
dynamic processes
will allow us
to better
predict
and
explain
what influences
current users of installed IT
applications
to learn
about,
use more
fully,
and extend the feature sets
made available
through
these
applications.
Relevant research
questions
include
What
types
of
post-adoptive
behaviors
trigger
technology sensemaking?
What
aspects
of
technology sensemaking
most
distinguish
between and influence weak
and
strong
confirmation
(disconfirmation)?
What is the nature of the
tipping point leading
to
strong
confirmation
(disconfirmation)?
What situational factors induce
individuals,
as
a result of
strong
confirmation
(discon
firmation),
to
engage
in
self-learning
inter
vention as
opposed
to an intervention directed
at other work
system
elements?
Use
History
Previous IT
adoption
and use researchers have
found
past
use behavior to be a
significant
predictor
of future use behavior
(Igbaria
1990,
1993;
Igbaria
et al.
1995;
Igbaria
et al.
1996;
Kettinger
and Grover
1997;
Limayem
and Hirt
2003; Thompson
et al.
1994;
Venkatesh et al.
2000;
Venkatesh et al.
2002).
However,
for the
most
part,
these researchers have examined
prior
use
quite simplistically
in terms of the
frequency,
or
level,
of use of the whole
technology
rather than
capturing
users'
patterns
of use
regarding
the
technology's
features
(or
feature
sets).
We en
courage programs
of research that move
beyond
such
simplistic
views of use
history
in order to
(1) expose
the
sufficiently
rich
depictions
of use
history required
to
surface, study,
model,
and
understand the
path-dependent episodes
of use
leading
to routinized or habitual use of an IT
appli
cation
and, then,
to
(2) systematically
examine the
roles of both
aspects
of use
history (past
behavior
and
habit)
in
influencing post-adoptive
behavior.
Suggested
research
questions
include
What are
typical patterns
of feature
adoption,
use,
and
extension,
and which of these
patterns
lead to routinized or to habitual use?
How, when,
and
why
do individuals
engage
in
reflective versus non-reflective use of IT
application
features?
What are the
necessary
conditions
required
to
trigger periods
of substantive
technology
use
that
disrupt
states of routinized or habitual
feature use?
Attention to Interventions
Users must
actively
attend to an intervention if it is
to be effectual
(Beach
1997;
March
1994;
Weick
544 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
1979b, 1995;
Yi and Davis
2003).
Thus,
we
advocate that scholars
studying post-adoption
behaviors undertake efforts to increase our
understanding
of the
situational, intervention,
and
individual attributes associated with an intervention
being
attended to
by targeted
users.
Previously,
we identified two such attributes: the salience of
the work
system element(s) targeted by
an
intervention and the
power
of the intervention
source. Related research
questions
include
What are the
key
factors that influence
individuals to attend to work
system
inter
ventions,
and do these factors
vary
in different
situational contexts or with different user
groups?
What theoretical models
adequately portray
how these factors come
together
in
triggering
an individual's attention to an intervention?
Organizational
Interventions and
Substantive
Technology
Use
While
prior
literature has discussed work
system
interventions
(Orlikowski
et al.
1995;
Yates et al.
1999),
this
important
domain of IT
implementation
research merits more
systematic study.
Most
importantly,
it is
paramount
for researchers
studying post-adoptive
behaviors to
apply
research
designs
that enable them to
discover,
identify,
and
account for salient interventions directed at all of
the work
system
elements associated with the
focal IT
application.
Research studies that fail to
account for such interventions will
likely
observe
considerable
unexplained
variance. In
particular,
we see the
following
issues associated with
organizational
interventions and substantive
technology
use as crucial to
understanding post
adoptive
behavior.
Training
Interventions
The critical role served
by training
in successful IS
implementation
is well understood
(Duplaga
and
Astani
2003; Robey
et al.
2002).
While the
findings by
scholars
studying
IT
adoption
and use
consistently support
the
importance
of
training
(e.g., Compeau
and
Higgins 1995a;
Nelson and
Cheney
1987;
Venkatesh and
Speier 1999),
such
research
generally
has focused on
training
associated with initial
adoption
and use behaviors
(e.g.,
Venkatesh
1999;
Venkatesh and Davis
1996).
Prior IS studies indicate that the influence
of ease of use on intentions
(and indirectly
adoption
and
use)
diminishes over time
(Davis
et
al.
1989;
Venkatesh
2000;
Venkatesh and Davis
1996,
Davis
2000).
Consequently,
little
understanding
exists of when
and how an
organization
should orchestrate
training
interventions within the
post-adoptive
context?regardless
of whether such interventions
are formal or
informal,
scheduled or
just-in-time,
or
human- or
technology-enabled.
It seems obvious
that,
as individuals'
understandings
of an IT
application (with
its associated
features)
and a
work context evolve over
time,
training strategies
(i.e., learning objectives
and modes of
delivery)
need to evolve as well.
Therefore,
we
strongly
encourage
scholars
studying
the
post-adoptive
context to
develop
rich
conceptualizations
of
post
adoptive training strategies,
within which
training
tactics account for the
dynamic
behaviors reflected
in our
reconceptualization
of
post-adoptive
behavior.
Example
research
questions
include
What are or should be the
key components
of
post-adoptive training strategy-making
and
budgeting,
and who is or should be involved in
the
development
of those
key components?
What
types
of
processes
are involved in best
practice implementations
of
post-adoptive
training interventions,
and when and how
during
the
post-adoptive stage
of the tech
nology
life
cycle
should each of these
process
types
be
applied?
What
types
of
learning experiences
and
post
adoptive
behavior outcomes should be
assessed and
incorporated
into
training
activities at later time
periods?
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 545
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Portfolios of Interventions
While it is both
possible
and desirable to
design
laboratory
or field
experiments
which
impose
a
single
intervention on a
subject group
or a com
munity
of
users,
it is
highly unlikely
that such a
controlled action would occur in
practice
as users
are
invariably subjected
to
multiple
such inter
ventions at
any point
in time. For
example,
a
single
intervention source
(e.g.,
a
manager) might
initiate
multiple
interventions
targeted
at a
specific
user
group regarding
a
particular
IT
application
feature; meanwhile,
individuals within this user
group
are also
likely
to be
subject
to
multiple
interventions from this same
(and/or other)
source(s) regarding
this same
(and/or other)
IT
application(s)
and
corresponding
IT
application
feature(s).
Researchers who
investigate
the role
of interventions in
post-adoptive
behavior contexts
must account for the effects of
interacting
inter
ventions. Pertinent research
questions might
include
Do certain interventions
complement
or inhibit
others?
Do
path-dependencies
exist across
portfolios
of interventions over time?
For users involved with
multiple
work
sys
tems,
what are the
consequences?both
positive
and
negative?of
these users'
expo
sure to concurrent interventions directed at
more than one work
system?
Substantive
Technology
Use Periods
For too
long,
scholars
working
in the domain of IT
implementation
and use have
ignored
intensive
studies of
post-adoption
life
cycles.
What are and
what should be the ebb and flow of resources
invested in an IT
implementation
effort after the
application
is installed?
Clearly
much of the
benefit derived from installed IT
applications
comes
during periods
of
equilibrium
rather than
during periods
of dramatic
change.
However,
much remains to be learned about
managing
a
technology's post-adoption
life
cycle.
In
particular,
we believe that future researchers should direct
their interest toward examinations of
appropriate
patterns
of substantive
technology
use. Some
example
research
questions
include
When should
periods
of substantive tech
nology
use
proliferate (inducing
active
learning by users)
and when should
they
diminish
(enabling
these users to
leverage
this
learning)?
Is it advisable to constrain
(to specific
users,
to
specific technology
features, etc.) periods
of substantive
technology
use?
What are the
dysfunctionalities
of substantive
periods
of
technology
use?
Here,
we have
ignored
such
dysfunctionalities,
such as the
potential
for interventions to lead to
pro
ductivity
lost,
to
cognitive
overload,
or to
feelings
of mistrust.
How
likely
is it
that,
and under what conditions
might,
an intervention
trigger
a substantive
period
of
technology
use that never
stabilizes,
ultimately ending
in work
system
failures?
Once individuals are
engaged
in substantive
technology
use
episodes,
what contextual
conditions should be in
place
to increase the
likelihood that
gains
in individual
learning
transfer to others?
Implications
for Research:
Methodology
1
As discussed
throughout
this
paper, previous
researchers have overlooked a
significant
source
of variation in individual
post-adoptive
behaviors
by ignoring
the distinct features of an IT
appli
cation.
However,
researchers who
design
studies
that collect data at the feature level of
analysis
face a number of
challenges.
Here,
we focus on
four of these
challenges:
core versus
ancillary
features,
designers'
versus users'
views,
discreet
versus bundles of
features,
and
existing
versus
new instrumentation.
546 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Core Versus
Ancillary
Features
A crucial first
step
in
working
at the feature level of
an IT
application
is
appropriately scoping
the
research
project by identifying
the
specific
features
to include in the research
design.
IT
applications
associated with IT-enabled work
systems
are
comprised
of
very large
feature sets
consisting
of
both core and
ancillary
features.
Accordingly,
the
researcher must decide the set of features that is
to be the focus of a research
design
for at least
two reasons.
First,
ancillary features,
which are
optional, may
be unused or unknown to a
majority
of an IT
application's
users. As a
result,
it
may
prove
ineffectual or
dysfunctional
to
incorporate
such features into a research
design, depending
upon
the
goals
of the
study.
Second, empirical
studies at a feature level have the
potential
to
utilize data collection methods and data sets that
are too
large
and too rich for
subjects/respondents
(from
or about whom data is
collected)
and the
researcher
(in
terms of the volume of data to be
collected, analyzed,
and
interpreted), respectively.
A number of viable
options
exists in
selecting
those features to be the focus of a research
design, including
focus on
(1)
the core features of
a
technology
since those features serve to charac
terize the
technology
as a whole
(Griffith 1999),
(2)
those features that most
clearly
differentiate the
specific technology
from other
technologies (e.g.,
communication and social structure features in the
case of
GSS), (3)
those features most
likely
to be
applied
in a consistent fashion over the entire
post
adoptive
life
cycle,
and
(4)
those features most
likely
to stabilize or destabilize use
patterns
(Griffith 1999).
What is most
important
is that the
researcher
carefully
considers these various
options
and
provides
clear
justification
for the
approach
taken.
Designers'
Versus Users' Views
Also
important
when
working
at the feature level of
analysis
is
determining
the
point
of view
appro
priate
for the
goals
of the research. Two alter
natives are
possible:
the
designer's
view
(i.e.,
a
set of
predefined
features believed relevant for all
users of a
specific
IT
application)
or the users'
view
(i.e.,
a social construction of the
technology
in-use as defined
collectively by
a
specific
user
community).
Reasons
might
exist for
selecting
either view. For
example,
if the intent is to
study
a
single
IT
application
across
multiple
work
contexts,
it would be desirable to
employ
the
designers'
view
so that a consistent view is maintained across
these work contexts. On the other
hand,
if the
intent is to
study
over time the evolution of user
cognitions
within a
single
user
community,
it would
be desirable to
employ
these users' views
(or,
more
likely,
the views of subsets of users within
the
community)
of the IT
application's
features to
increase the likelihood that the nuances reflected
in
changes
in
cognitions might
better be surfaced
and
interpreted. Regardless
of the selected
view,
the
key
is that the researcher has
thoughtfully
examined and
justified
his/her selection.
Discrete Features Versus Bundles
of Features
A related decision is whether to focus on an IT
application's
elemental features or on
meaningful
bundles of these elemental features. For
example,
several distinct features
might collectively
come
together
in
forming
a feature bundle
(e.g.,
discreet
features such as "Generate Balance
Sheet,"
"Generate Income
Statement,"
and "Generate
Statement of Cash Flows"
may
also exist as a
feature bundle called "Generate Financial
Statements")
whose
functionality
is
generally
understood
by designers, by
users,
or both.
Again,
as
above,
either
approach
is viable
given
a
study's
research
goals
as well as the nature of the
IT-enabled work
system(s)
under
investigation.
Existing
Versus New Instrumentation
A
particularly thorny challenge
when
moving
to the
feature level of
analysis
is
deciding
whether or not
existing
instrumentation from the IT
adoption
and
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 547
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
use literature is
applicable.
Can researchers use
slight
modifications in
wording
to
existing
scales to
adequately capture
the nuances of feature
adop
tion, use,
and extension? Or do these
existing
scales need more extensive
refinement, possibly
to the
point
where the resultant
reconcep
tualization
requires
that
they
be
developed
anew?
We know of no current research which has
examined this issue
and, thus,
advocate that
scholars undertake research
(1)
to examine
whether or not
existing
instrumentation can be
effectually ported
to the feature level of
analysis
and,
if
needed,
(2)
to
develop
instrumentation
enabling
researchers to measure the
cognitions
and use behaviors associated with the
dynamic
interactions reflected in our
reconceptualization
of
post-adoptive
behavior.
Implications
for Practice
Installed IT
applications, particularly
those that
establish new IT-enabled work
platforms,
all too
often do not meet senior
managements' expec
tations due to a lack of
functionality
customized for
unique
business needs and
processes;
em
ployees'
lack of
understanding
of the IT
application
features,
the new work
processes,
or
both;
and a
lack of continual
system upgrades
and enhance
ments. To induce
managers,
technical and busi
ness
experts,
and the users associated with the
implementation
of an IT
application
to
engage
in a
rich set of
post-adoptive
behaviors,
we have
argued
that
periods
of substantive
technology
use
must occur
among
the
community
of users.
In our
conceptualization,
the
primary
means for
accomplishing
this task is
through
the
(direct
or
indirect)
orchestration of work
system
interventions
applied throughout
the
post-adoptive
life
cycle?
interventions that induce an
organization's
mem
bers to
engage
in active
learning
activities asso
ciated with the IT-enabled work
system.
Ac
cordingly,
we
strongly
believe that the
technology
and business
managers responsible
for the
success of an IT-enabled work
system
initiative
should reconsider these
responsibilities
in two
substantive
ways:
the active
management
of the
post-adoptive
life
cycle
and the active collection of
data on
post-adoptive
behaviors.
Management
of the
Post-Adoptive
Life
Cycle
All too
often,
the active
management
of the
imple
mentation of an IT-enabled work
system
essen
tially
halts soon after its installation as the
key
principals
involved with the
implementation (i.e.,
business and
project managers,
IT and business
experts, etc.)
are either
reassigned
to other
projects
or move on to what
they
consider more
pressing
activities
(Ross
et al.
2003).
As a
result,
the
majority
of the
post-adoptive
life
cycle
is
without
management
attention and direction. We
thus advocate that
organizations strongly
con
sider
reconvening
the
principals
associated
with such
implementation efforts,
after installa
tion,
to
plan
for and to
provide
the resources
for the
post-adoptive
life
cycle.
Here,
active
reflection
(Edmondson
et al.
2001)
should be
engendered regarding
what has so far
transpired,
the extent to which
prior expectations regarding
the new work
system
have been
met,
and current
organizational
realities. Paramount in
establishing
this
plan
for the
post-adoptive
life
cycle
are
decisions about when and how to induce
periods
of substantive
technology
use within the user
community.
In
addition,
organizations
must allow
sufficient time for
periods
of relative
stability during
which users
might leverage
the
learning
so
gained.
Collection of Data
on
Post-Adoptive
Behaviors
Because of the
learning (as
well as the
unlearning)
that occurs
during
the
post-adoptive
life
cycle,
the
principals responsible
for the
post-adoptive
life
cycle
of a
newly
installed IT-enabled work
system
will
undoubtedly
have to
periodically adjust
or
otherwise refine the
post-adoptive implementation
plan.
However,
it would be
very
difficult to assess
either the current state of the
implementation
effort
548 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
or the effectiveness of
past
interventions without
the
availability
of rich data
reflecting
users'
post
adoptive
behaviors. We thus advocate that
organizations strongly
consider
capturing
users'post-adoptive behaviors, overtime,
at a
feature level of
analysis (as
well as the out
comes associated with these
behaviors).
It is
only through analyzing
a
community's usage
patterns
at a level of detail sufficient to enable
individual
learning (regarding
both the IT
application
and work
system)
to be
exposed, along
with the outcomes associated with this
learning,
that the
expectation gaps required
to devise and
direct interventions can themselves be
exposed.
Without such richness in available
data,
it is
unlikely
that
organizations
will realize
significant
improvements
in their
capability
to
manage
the
post-adoptive
life
cycle.
Conclusion
__ _-_ _ _ _
We have created a two-level
conceptualization
of
post-adoptive
behaviors that we believe
signi
ficantly
advances our collective
understanding
of
IT
post-adoptive
behavior at the individual level of
analysis. Deep, systematic explorations
of
post
adoptive
behaviors have not
yet
attracted the
attention of either the research or
practice
com
munities. It is
admittedly
difficult to undertake such
research, given
that these efforts are
likely tightly
bound to an IT
application (its
features and their
evolution over
time),
the work
system (its
features
and their evolution over
time),
and the
organi
zational context
(its
features and their evolution
over
time).
Still,
the
capability
of
organizations
to
fully leverage
their current
(and future)
investments
in installed IT are
inextricably
bound to the collec
tive
knowledge
that exists
regarding post-adoptive
behaviors. We
hope
that our ideas stimulate
others to commit themselves to the more intensive
study
of this
important
facet of
organizational
life.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Jane Webster
(the
senior
editor)
and the three
anonymous
reviewers for MIS
Quarterly
for their
helpful
comments on earlier
versions of this
manuscript.
References
Adam, F.,
and
O'Doherty,
P. "ERP
Projects:
Good or Bad for
SMEs,"
in Second-Wave Enter
prise
Resource
Planning Systems: Imple
menting
for
Effectiveness,
G.
Shanks,
P. B.
Seddon,
and L. P. Willcocks
(Eds.), Cambridge
University
Press,
Cambridge,
UK, 2003, pp.
275-298.
Adams,
D.
A., Nelson,
R.
R.,
and
Todd,
P. A.
"Perceived
Usefulness,
Ease of
Use,
and
Usage
of Information
Technology:
A
Replica
tion,"
MIS
Quarterly (16:2),
June
1992, pp.
227
247.
Agarwal, R.,
and
Karahanna,
E. "Time Flies When
You Are
Having
Fun:
Cognitive Absorption
and
Beliefs About Information
Technology Usage,"
MIS
Quarterly (24:4),
December
2000, pp.
665
694.
Agarwal, R.,
and
Prasad,
J. "The Role of Inno
vation Characteristics and Perceived Volun
tariness in the
Acceptance
of Information Tech
nologies,"
Decision Sciences
(28:3),
Summer
1997, pp.
557-582.
Ajzen,
I. "Residual Effects of Past on Later
Behavior: Habituation and Reasoned Action
Perspectives," Personality
and Social
Psycho
logy
Review
(6:2) 2002, pp.
107-122.
Ajzen,
I.,
and
Fishbein,
M. "Attitudes and the
Attitude-Behavior Relation: Reasoned and
Automatic
Processes,"
in
European
Review of
Social
Psychology,
W. Stroebe and M.
Hewstone
(Eds.),
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
New
York, 2000, pp.
1-33.
Ashcraft,
M. H. Fundamentals of
Cognition
Addison
Wesley Longman, NewYork,
1998.
Ba, S., Stallaert, J.,
and
Whinston,
A. B.
"Research
Commentary: Introducing
a Third
Dimension in Information
Systems Design?
The Case for Incentive
Alignment,"
Information
Systems
Research
(12:3), September 2001, pp.
225-239.
Bagchi, S.,
Kanugo, S.,
and
Dasgupta,
S.
"Modeling
Use of
Enterprise
Resource
Planning
Systems:
A Path
Analytic Study," European
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 549
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Journal of Information
Systems (12:2),
June
2003, pp.
142-158.
Bamberg,
S.,
Ajzen,
I.,
and
Schmidt,
P. "Choice of
Travel Mode in the
Theory
of Planned Behavior:
The Roles of Past
Behavior, Habit,
and
Reasoned
Action,"
Basic and
Applied
Social
Psychology (25:3), September
2003, pp.
175
187.
Bandura,
A.
(Ed.). Self-Efficacy
in
Changing
Societies, Cambridge University
Press,
New
York,
1995.
Bandura,
A. Social Foundations of
Thought
and
Action: A Social
Cognitive Theory,
Prentice
Hall,
Englewood
Cliffs, NJ,
1986.
Bargh,
J. A. "Conditional
Automaticity:
Varieties
of Automatic Influence in Social
Perception
and
Cognition,"
in Unintended
Thought,
J. S.
Uleman and J. A.
Bargh (Eds.),
The Guilford
Press, NewYork, 1989, pp.
3-51.
Bargh,
J. A. "The Four Horsemen of
Automaticity:
Awareness, Intention,
Efficiency,
and Control in
Social
Cognition,"
in Handbook of Social
Cognition,
R. S.
Wyer
Jr. and T. K. Srull
(Eds.),
Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
1994, pp.
1-40.
Beach,
L. R. The
Psychology
of Decision
Making:
People
in
Organizations, Sage
Publications,
Thousand
Oaks, CA,
1997.
Bhattacherjee,
A.
"Managerial
Influences on
Intraorganizational
Information
Technology
Use:
A
Principal-Agent
Model,"
Decision Sciences
(29:1),
Winter
1998, pp.
139-162.
Bhattacherjee,
A.
"Understanding
Information
Systems
Continuance: An
Expectation-Confir
mation
Model,"
MIS
Quarterly (25:3), Septem
ber
2001, pp.
351-370.
Bhattacherjee,
A.,
and
Premkumar,
G. "Under
standing Changes
in Belief and Attitude toward
Information
Technology Usage:
A Theoretical
Model and
Longitudinal
Test,"
MIS
Quarterly
(28:2),
June
2004, pp.
229-254.
Blumenthal,
A. L. The Process of
Cognition,
Prentice-Hall,
Englewood
Cliffs, NJ,
1977.
Boynton,
A.
C,
and
Zmud,
R. W. "Information
Technology Planning
in the 1990's: Directions
for Practice and
Research,"
MIS
Quarterly
(11:1),
March
1987, pp.
59-71.
Brancheau,
J.
C,
and
Wetherbe,
J. C. "The
Adop
tion of
Spreadsheet
Software:
Testing
Inno
vation Diffusion
Theory
in the Context of End
User
Computing,"
Information
Systems
Re
search
(1:2),
June
1990, pp.
115-143.
Brousseau,
K. R. "Toward a
Dynamic
Model of
Job-Person
Relationships: Findings,
Research
Questions,
and
Implications
for Work
System
Design," Academy
of
Management
Review
(8:1), January
1983, pp.
33-45.
Burkhardt,
M. E. "Social Interaction Effects
Following
a
Technological Change:
A
Longi
tudinal
Investigation," Academy
of
Management
Journal
(37:4), August 1994, pp.
869-898.
Compeau,
D.
R.,
and
Higgins,
C. A.
"Application
of Social
Cognitive Theory
to
Training
for
Computer
Skills,"
Information
Systems
Research
(6:2),
June
1995a, pp.
118-143.
Compeau,
D.
R.,
and
Higgins,
C. A.
"Computer
Self-Efficacy: Development
of a Measure and
Initial
Test,"
MIS
Quarterly (19:2),
June
1995b,
pp.
189-211.
Compeau,
D.
R.,
Higgins,
C.
A.,
and
Huff,
S. L.
"Social
Cognitive Theory
and Individual Reac
tions to
Computing Technology:
A
Longitudinal
Study,"
MIS
Quarterly (23:2),
June
1999, pp.
145-158.
Conner, M.,
and
Armitage,
C. J.
"Extending
the
Theory
of Planned Behavior: A Review and
Avenues for Further
Research,"
Journal of
Applied
Social
Psychology (28:15), August
1998, pp.
1429-1464.
Contractor,
N.
S., Seibold,
D.
R.,
and
Heller,
M. A.
"Interactional Influence in the
Structuring
of
Media Use in
Groups:
Influence in Members'
Perceptions
of
Group
Decision
Support System
Use,"
Human Communication Research
(22:4),
June
1996, pp.
451-481.
Cooper,
R.
B.,
and
Zmud,
R. W. "Information
Technology Implementation
Research: ATech
nological
Diffusion
Approach," Management
Science
(36:2), February
1990, pp.
123-139.
Cooper,
R.
B.,
and
Zmud,
R. W. "Material
Requirements Planning System
Infusion,"
Omega (17:5)
1989, pp.
471-481.
Davenport,
T. H.
"Putting
the
Enterprise
into the
Enterprise System,"
Harvard Business Review
(76:4), July-August
1998, pp.
121-131.
Davis,
F.
D., Bagozzi,
R.
P.,
and
Warshaw,
P. R.
"User
Acceptance
of
Computer Technology:
A
Comparison
of Two Theoretical
Models,"
550 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Management
Science
(35:6), August
1989, pp.
982-1003.
DeSanctis, G.,
and
Poole,
M. S.
"Capturing
the
Complexity
in Advanced
Technology
Use:
Adaptive
Structuration
Theory," Organization
Science
(5:2), May
1994, pp.
121-147.
Dunham,
R.
B.,
Aldag,
R.
J.,
and
Brief,
A. P.
"Dimensionality
of Task
Design
as Measured
by
the Job
Diagnostic Survey," Academy
of
Management
Journal
(20:2),
June
1977, pp.
209-223.
Duplaga,
E.
A.,
and
Astani,
M.
"Implementing
ERP in
Manufacturing,"
Information
Systems
Management (20:3),
Summer
2003, pp.
68-75.
Eagly,
A.
H.,
and
Chaiken,
S. The
Psychology
of
Attitudes,
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
College
Publishers,
Fort
Worth, TX,
1993.
Earl,
M. J.
"Experiences
in
Strategic
Information
Systems Planning,"
MIS
Quarterly (MA),
March
1993, pp.
1-24.
Edmondson,
A.
C, Bohmer,
R.
M.,
and
Pisano,
G.
P.
"Disrupted
Routines: Team
Learning
and
New
Technology Implementation
in
Hospitals,"
Administrative Science
Quarterly (46:4),
December
2001, pp.
685-716.
Eisenhardt,
K. M.
"Agency Theory:
An Assess
ment and
Review,"
Academy
of
Management
ftewew(14:1), January 1989, pp.
57-74.
Emerson,
R. M.
"Power-Dependence Relations,"
American
Sociological
Review
(27 A), February
1962, pp.
31-41.
Frost,
P. J.
"Power, Politics,
and
Influence,"
in The
Handbook of
Organizational
Communication:
An
Interdisciplinary Perspective,
F. M.
Jablin,
L.
L.
Putnam,
K. H.
Roberts,
and L. W. Porter
(Eds.), Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA,
1987, pp.
503-548.
Fuerst,
W.
L.,
and
Cheney,
P. H. "Factors
Affecting
the Perceived Utilization of
Computer
Based Decision
Support Systems
in the Oil
Industry,"
Decision Sciences
(13:4),
October
1982, pp.
554-569.
Fulk,
J. "Social Construction of Communication
Technology," Academy
of
Management
Journal
(36:5),
October
1993, pp.
921-950.
Fulk, J., Schmitz, J.,
and
Steinfield,
C. W. "A
Social Influence Model of
Technology
Use,"
in
Organizations
and Communication
Technology,
J. Fulk and C. W. Steinfield
(Eds.), Sage
Publications,
Newbury
Park, CA, 1990, pp.
117
140.
Garud, R.,
and
Rappa,
M. A. "A
Socio-Cognitive
Model of
Technology
Evolution: The Case of
Cochlear
Implants," Organization
Science
(5:3),
August
1994, pp.
344-362.
Gefen, D.,
and
Straub,
D. W. "Gender Differences
in the
Perception
and Use of E-Mail: An
Extension to the
Technology Acceptance
Model,"
MIS
Quarterly (21:4),
December
1997,
pp.
389-400.
Gersick,
C. J. G.
"Revolutionary Change
Theories: A Multilevel
Exploration
of the Punc
tuated
Equilibrium Paradigm," Academy
of
Management
Review
(16:1), January 1991, pp.
10-36.
Gibson,
J.
L., Ivancevich,
J.
M.,
and
Donnelly
Jr.,
J. H.
Organizations:
Behavior, Structure,
Processes
(9th ed.),
Irwin, Boston, MA,
1994.
Giddens,
A. Central Problems in Social
Theory:
Action, Structure,
and Contradiction in Social
Analysis,
The Macmillan
Press, Ltd., London,
1979.
Giddens,
A. The Constitution of
Society:
Outline
of the
Theory
of
Structuration,
University
of
California
Press,
Los
Angeles,
CA,
1984.
Ginzberg,
M. J.
"Early Diagnosis
of MIS
Implementation
Failure:
Promising
Results and
Unanswered
Questions,"
Management
Science
(27:4), April 1981, pp.
459-478.
Gioia,
D.
A.,
and
Manz,
C. C.
"Linking Cognition
and Behavior: A
Script Processing
Inter
pretation
of Vicarious
Learning," Academy
of
Management
Review
(10:3), July
1985, pp.
527-539.
Goodhue,
D. L.
"Understanding
User Evaluations
of Information
Systems," Management
Science
(41:12),
December
1995, pp.
1827-1844.
Goodhue,
D.
L.,
and
Thompson,
R. L. "Task
Technology
Fit and Individual
Performance,"
MIS
Quarterly (19:2),
June
1995, pp.
213-236.
Griffith,
T. L.
"Technology
Features as
Triggers
for
Sensemaking," Academy
of
Management
Review
(24:3),
June
1999, pp.
472-488.
Griffith,
T.
L.,
and
Northcraft,
G. B.
"Distinguishing
Between the Forest and the Trees:
Media,
Features,
and
Methodology
in Electronic
Communication
Research,"
Organization
Science
(5:2), May 1994, pp.
272-285.
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 551
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Guimaraes, T.,
and
Igbaria,
M. "Client/Server
System
Success:
Exploring
the Human
Side,"
Decision Sciences
(28:4),
Fall
1997, pp.
851
876.
Hall,
R. H.
Organizations:
Structures, Processes,
and Outcomes
(7th ed.),
Prentice
Hall, Upper
Saddle
River, NJ,
1999.
Hartwick, J.,
and
Barki,
H.
"Explaining
the Role of
User
Participation
in Information
System
Use,"
Management
Science
(40:4), April 1994, pp.
440-465.
Hiltz,
S.
R.,
and
Turoff,
M. "The Evolution of User
Behavior in a
Computerized Conferencing
Center,"
Communications of the ACM
(24:11),
November
1981, pp.
739-751.
Howard,
G.
S.,
and
Mendelow,
A. L. "Discre
tionary
Use of
Computers:
An
Empirically
Derived
Explanatory
Model,"
Decision Sciences
(22:2), Spring
1991, pp.
241-265.
Hu,
P.
J., Chau,
P. Y.
K.,
Sheng,
O. R.
L,
and
Tarn,
K. Y.
"Examining
the
Technology Accep
tance Model
Using Physician Acceptance
of
Telemedicine
Technology,"
Journal of
Manage
ment Information
Systems (16:2),
Fall
1999, pp.
91-112.
Igbaria,
M. "End-User
Computing
Effectiveness:
A Structural
Equation
Model,"
Omega (18:6),
1990, pp.
637-652.
Igbaria,
M. "User
Acceptance
of
Microcomputer
Technology:
An
Empirical Test,"
Omega (21:1),
1993, pp.
73-90.
Igbaria,
M.,
and
Guimaraes,
T.
"Empirically
Testing
the Outcomes of User Involvement in
DSS
Development," Omega (22:2),
March
1994, pp.
157-172.
Igbaria,
M., Guimaraes, T.,
and
Davis,
G. B.
"Testing
the Determinants of
Microcomputer
Usage
via a Structural
Equation Model,"
Journal
of
Management
Information
Systems (11:4),
Spring
1995, pp.
87-114.
Igbaria,
M.,
and
livari,
J. "The Effects of Self
Efficacy
on
Computer Usage," Omega (23:6),
December
1995, pp.
587-605.
Igbaria,
M., Parasuraman, S.,
and
Baroudi,
J. J.
"A Motivational Model of
Microcomputer
Usage,"
Journal of
Management
Information
Systems (13:1),
Summer
1996, pp.
127-143.
Igbaria,
M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg,
P.,
and
Cavaye,
A.
L. M. "Personal
Computing Acceptance
Factors
in Small Firms: A Structural
Equation Model,"
MIS
Quarterly (21:3), September 1997, pp.
279
305.
livari,
J.
"Why
Are CASE Tools Not
Used?,"
Communications of the ACM
(39:10),
October
1996, pp.
94-103.
James, D.,
and
Wolf,
M. L. "A Second Wind for
ERP,"
McKinsey Quarterly (2),
2000, pp.
100
107.
James,
W.
Principles
of
Psychology, Holt,
New
York,
1890.
Jasperson, J., Carte,
T.
A., Saunders,
C.
S.,
Butler,
B.
S., Croes,
H. J.
P.,
and
Zheng,
W.
"Review: Power and Information
Technology
Research: A
Metatriangulation
Review,"
MIS
Quarterly (26:4),
December
2002, pp.
397-459.
Jobber, D.,
and
Watts,
M. "Behavioural
Aspects
of
Marketing
Information
Systems," Omega (14:1),
1986, pp.
69-79.
Karahanna, E., Straub,
D.
W.,
and
Chervany,
N. L.
"Information
Technology Adoption
across Time:
A Cross-Sectional
Comparison
of
Pre-Adoption
and
Post-Adoption Beliefs,"
MIS
Quarterly
(23:2),
June
1999, pp.
183-213.
Kay,
J.,
and
Thomas,
R. C.
"Studying Long-Term
System
Use,"
Communications of the ACM
(38:7), July
1995, pp.
61-69.
Kettinger,
W.
J.,
and
Grover,
V. "The Use of
Computer-Mediated
Communication in an
Interorganizational
Context,"
Decision Sciences
(28:3),
Summer
1997, pp.
513-555.
Kien,
S.
S.,
and
Soh,
C. "An
Exploratory Analysis
of the Sources and Nature of Misfits in ERP
Implementations,"
in Second-Wave
Enterprise
Resource
Planning Systems: Implementing
for
Effectiveness,
G.
Shanks,
P. B.
Seddon,
and L.
P. Willcocks
(Eds.), Cambridge University
Press,
Cambridge,
UK, 2003, pp.
374-387.
King,
W.
R.,
and
Rodriguez,
J. I.
"Participative
Design
of
Strategic
Decision
Support Systems:
An
Empirical
Assessment,"
Management
Science
(27:6),
June
1981, pp.
717-726.
Kling,
R.,
and
lacono,
S. "The Control of Infor
mation
Systems Developments
after
Implemen
tation,"
Communications of the ACM
(27:12),
December
1984, pp.
1218-1226.
Kraut,
R.
E., Mukhopadhyay,
T.,
Szczypula, J.,
Kiesler, S.,
and
Scherlis,
W. "Information and
Communication: Alternative Uses of the Inter
552 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
net in
Households,"
Information
Systems
Research
(10:4),
December
1999, pp.
287-303.
Kraut,
R.
E., Rice,
R.
E., Cool, C,
and
Fish,
R. S.
"Varieties of Social Influence: The Role of
Utility
and Norms in the Success of a New
Communication
Medium,"
Organization
Science
(9:4), July-August 1998, pp.
437-453.
Kwon,
T.
H.,
and
Zmud,
R. W.
"Unifying
the
Fragmented
Models of Information
Systems
Implementation,"
in Critical Issues in Informa
tion
Systems
Research,
R. J. Boland and R. A.
Hirschheim
(Eds.),
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
New
York, 1987, pp.
227-251.
Langer,
E. J.
"Minding
Matters: The Conse
quences
of
Mindlessness-Mindfulness,"
Advances in
Experimental
Social
Psychology
(22),
1989, pp.
137-173.
Langer,
E.
J., Blank, A.,
and
Chanowitz,
B. "The
Mindlessness of
Ostensibly Thoughtful
Action:
The Role of 'Placebic' Information in Inter
personal Interaction,"
Journal of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology (36:6),
June
1978, pp.
635
642.
Langer,
E.
J.,
and
Piper,
A. I. "The Prevention of
Mindlessness,"
Journal of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology (53:2), August 1987, pp.
280-287.
Lassila,
K.
S.,
and
Brancheau,
J. C.
"Adoption
and Utilization of Commercial Software Pack
ages:
Exploring
Utilization
Equilibria,
Transi
tions,
Triggers,
and
Tracks,"
Journal of
Management
Information
Systems (16:2),
Fall
1999, pp.
63-90.
Leonard-Barton,
D.
"Implementation
Characteris
tics of
Organizational
Innovations: Limits and
Opportunities
for
Management Strategies,"
Communication Research
(15:5),
October
1988,
pp.
603-631.
Leonard-Barton,
D.
Wellsprings
of
Knowledge:
Sustaining
Sources of
Innovation,
Harvard
Business School
Press, Boston,
1995.
Leonard-Barton, D.,
and
Deschamps,
I. "Mana
gerial
Influence in the
Implementation
of New
Technology," Management
Science
(34:10),
October
1988, pp.
1252-1265.
Limayem, M.,
and
Hirt,
S. G. "Force of Habit and
Information
Systems Usage: Theory
and Initial
Validation,"
Journal of the Association of Infor
mation
Systems (4:3) 2003, pp.
65-97.
Limayem, M., Hirt,
S.
G.,
and
Chin,
W. W. "Inten
tion Does Not
Always
Matter: The
Contingent
Role of Habit on IT
Usage
Behavior,"
in
Proceedings
of the 9th
European
Conference
on Information
Systems, Bled, Slovenia, 2001,
pp.
274-286.
Logan,
G. D.
"Automaticity
and
Cognitive
Control,"
in Unintended
Thought,
J. S. Uleman and J. A.
Bargh (Eds.),
The Guilford
Press,
New
York,
1989, pp.
52-74.
Louis,
M.
R.,
and
Sutton,
R. I.
"Switching Cogni
tive Gears: From Habits of Mind to Active
Thinking,"
Human Relations
(44:1), January
1991, pp.
55-76.
Lucas
Jr.,
H. C. "Performance and the Use of an
Information
System," Management
Science
(21:8), April 1975, pp.
908-919.
Lucas
Jr.,
H.
O,
and
Spitler,
V. K.
"Technology
Use and Performance: A Field
Study
of Broker
Workstations,"
Decision Sciences
(30:2), Spring
1999, pp.
291-311.
Lyytinen,
K.,
and
Hirschheim,
R. A. "Information
Systems
Failures: A
Survey
and Classification
of the
Empirical Literature,"
in Oxford
Surveys
in Information
Technology,
P. I.
Zorkoczy (Ed.),
Oxford
University Press, Oxford, UK, 1987, pp.
257-309.
Mabert,
V.
A., Soni, A.,
and
Venkataramanan,
M.
A.
"Enterprise
Resource
Planning:
Common
Myths
Versus
Evolving Reality,"
Business
Horizons
(44:3), May-June 2001, pp.
69-76.
Mabert,
V.
A., Soni, A.,
and
Venkataramanan,
M.
A.
"Enterprise
Resource
Planning Survey
of
U.S.
Manufacturing
Firms,"
Production and
Inventory Management
Journal
(41:2),
Second
Quarter
2000, pp.
52-58.
Majchrzak, A., Rice,
R.
E., Malhotra, A.,
King, N.,
and
Ba,
S.
"Technology Adaptation:
The Case
of a
Computer-Supported Inter-Organizational
Virtual
Team,"
MIS
Quarterly (24:4),
December
2000, pp.
569-600.
Manning,
P. K. "Information
Technology
in the
Police Context: The 'Sailor'
Phone,"
Informa
tion
Systems
Research
(7:1),
March
1996, pp.
52-62.
March,
J. G. A Primer on Decision
Making:
How
Decisions
Happen,
The Free
Press, NewYork,
1994.
March,
J.
G.,
and
Simon,
H. A.
Organizations,
John
Wiley
&
Sons, Inc., NewYork,
1958.
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 553
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Markus,
M. L.
"Power, Politics,
and MIS
Imple
mentation,"
Communications of the ACM
(26:6),
June
1983, pp.
430-444.
Markus,
M. L. "Toward a 'Critical Mass'
Theory
of
Interactive
Media,"
in
Organizations
and Com
munication
Technology,
J. Fulk and C. W.
Steinfield
(Eds.), Sage
Publications,
Newbury
Park, CA, 1990, pp.
117-140.
Markus,
M.
L.,
and
Bjorn-Andersen,
N. "Power
Over Users: Its Exercise
by Systems
Professionals,"
Communications of the ACM
(30:6),
June
1987, pp.
498-504.
McKersie,
R.
B.,
and
Walton,
R. E.
"Organiza
tional
Change,"
in: The
Corporation
of the
1990s: Information
Technology
and
Organiza
tional
Transformation,
M. S. Scott Morton
(Ed.),
Oxford
University Press, NewYork, 1991, pp.
244-277.
Morrison,
P.
D., Roberts,
J.
H.,
and von
Hippel,
E.
"Determinants of User Innovation and Inno
vation
Sharing
in a Local
Market,"
Management
Science
(46:12),
December
2000, pp.
1513
1527.
Nelson,
R.
R.,
and
Cheney,
P. H.
"Training
End
Users: An
Exploratory Study,"
MIS
Quarterly
(11:4),
December
1987, pp.
547-559.
Oliver,
R. L. "A
Cognitive
Model for the Ante
cedents and
Consequences
of
Satisfaction,"
Journal of
Marketing
Research
(17:4),
November
1980, pp.
460-469.
Orlikowski,
W. J. "The
Duality
of
Technology:
Rethinking
the
Concept
of
Technology
in
Organizations," Organization
Science
(3:3),
August
1992, pp.
398-427.
Orlikowski,
W. J.
"Using Technology
and Consti
tuting
Structures: A Practice Lens for
Studying
Technology
in
Organizations," Organization
Science
(11:4), July/August
2000, pp.
404-428.
Orlikowski,
W.
J.,
and
Gash,
D. C.
"Technological
Frames:
Making
Sense of Information Techno
logy
in
Organizations,"
ACM Transactions on
Information
Systems (12:2), April
1994, pp.
174
207.
Orlikowski,
W.
J.,
and
Robey,
D. "Information
Technology
and the
Structuring
of
Organi
zations,"
Information
Systems
Research
(2:2),
June
1991, pp.
143-169.
Orlikowski,
W.
J., Yates, J., Okamura, K.,
and
Fujimoto,
M.
"Shaping
Electronic Communi
cation: The
Metastructuring
of
Technology
in
the Context of
Use,"
Organization
Science
(6:4),
July-August
1995, pp.
423-444.
Oscasio,
W. "How Do
Organizations
Think?,"
in
Organizational Cognition: Computation
and
Interpretation,
T. K. Lant and Z.
Shapira (Eds.),
Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ,
2000, pp.
39-60.
Osterland,
A.
"Blaming ERP,"
CFO
(16:1),
January
2000, pp.
89-92.
Ouellette,
J.
A.,
and
Wood,
W. "Habit and Inten
tion in
Everyday
Life: The
Multiple
Processes
by
Which Past Behavior Predicts Future
Behavior,"
Psychological
Bulletin
(124:1), July
1998, pp.
54-74.
Purvis,
R.
L.,
Sambamurthy,
V.,
and
Zmud,
R. W.
"The Assimilation of
Knowledge
Platforms in
Organizations:
An
Empirical Investigation,"
Organization
Science
(12:2), March-April 2001,
pp.
117-135.
Rai, A.,
Lang,
S.
S.,
and
Welker,
R. B.
"Assessing
the
Validity
of IS Success Models: An
Empirical
Test and Theoretical
Analysis,"
Information
Systems
Research
(13:1),
March
2002, pp.
50
69.
Rigby,
D.
K., Reichheld,
F.
F.,
and
Schefter,
P.
"Avoid the Four Perils of
CRM,"
Harvard
Business Review
(80:2), February
2002, pp.
101-109.
Robey,
D. "User Attitudes and
Management
Infor
mation
System
Use," Academy
of
Management
Journal
(22:3), September 1979, pp.
527-538.
Robey, D., Ross,
J.
W.,
and
Boudreau,
M.
"Learning
to
Implement Enterprise Systems:
An
Exploratory Study
of the Dialectics of
Change,"
Journal of
Management
Information
Systems
(19:1),
Summer
2002, pp.
17-46.
Rogers,
E. M. Diffusion of Innovations
(4th ed.),
The Free
Press, NewYork,
1995.
Rosemann,
M.
"Enterprise System Management
with Reference Process
Models,"
in Second
Wave
Enterprise
Resource
Planning Systems:
Implementing
for
Effectiveness,
G.
Shanks,
P.
B.
Seddon,
and L. P. Willcocks
(Eds.),
Cam
bridge University
Press, Cambridge,
UK, 2003,
pp.
315-334.
Ross,
J.
W., Vitale,
M.
R.,
and
Willcocks,
L. P.
"The
Continuing
ERP Revolution: Sustainable
Lessons,
New Modes of
Delivery,"
in Second
554 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
Wave
Enterprise
Resource
Planning Systems:
Implementing
for
Effectiveness,
G.
Shanks,
P.
B.
Seddon,
and L. P. Willcocks
(Eds.),
Cam
bridge University
Press,
Cambridge,
UK, 2003,
pp.
102-132.
Ross,
J.
W.,
and
Weill,
P. "Six IT Decisions Your
IT
People
Shouldn't
Make,"
Harvard Business
Review
(80:11),
November
2002, pp.
84-91.
Saga,
V.
L.,
and
Zmud,
R. W. "The Nature and
Determinants of IT
Acceptance, Routinization,
and
Infusion,"
in
Diffusion,
Transfer and
Imple
mentation of Information
Technology,
L. Levine
(Ed.),
Software
Engineering
Institute,
Carnegie
Mellon
University, Pittsburgh,
PA, 1994, pp.
67
86.
Schewe,
C. D. "The
Management
Information
System
User: An
Exploratory
Behavioral
Analysis," Academy
of
Management
Journal
(19:4),
December
1976, pp.
577-590.
Schippmann,
J. S.
Strategic
Job
Modeling:
Working
at the Core of
Integrated
Human
Resources,
Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates,
Publishers, Mahwah, NJ,
1999.
Seddon,
P.
B., Shanks, G.,
and
Willcocks,
L. P.
"Introduction: ERP?The Quiet
Revolution?,"
in
Second-Wave
Enterprise
Resource
Planning
Systems: Implementing
for
Effectiveness,
G.
Shanks,
P. B.
Seddon,
and L. P. Willcocks
(Eds.), Cambridge University
Press,
Cam
bridge, UK, 2003, pp.
1-16.
Silver,
M. S. "Decision
Support Systems:
Directed and Nondirected
Change,"
Information
Systems
Research
(1:1),
March
1990, pp.
47
70.
Stajkovic,
A.
D.,
and
Luthans,
F. "Differential
Effects of Incentive Motivators on Work Per
formance,"
Academy
of
Management
Journal
(44:3),
June
2001, pp.
580-590.
Straub,
D.
W.,
Limayem,
M.,
and Karahanna
Evaristo,
E.
"Measuring System Usage: Impli
cations for IS
Theory Testing," Management
Science
(41:8), August
1995, pp.
1328-1342.
Swanson,
E. B.
"Management
Information
Sys
tems:
Appreciation
and
Involvement,"
Manage
ment Science
(21:2),
October
1974, pp.
178
188.
Szajna,
B.
"Empirical
Evaluation of the Revised
Technology Acceptance Model," Management
Science
(42:1), January 1996, pp.
85-92.
Taylor, S.,
and
Todd,
P. A.
"Assessing
IT
Usage:
The Role of Prior
Experience,"
MIS
Quarterly
(19:4),
December
1995a, pp.
561-570.
Taylor,
S.,
and
Todd,
P. A.
"Understanding
Information
Technology Usage:
A Test of
Competing
Models,"
Information
Systems
Research
(6:2),
June
1995b, pp.
144-176.
Teo,
T. S.
H., Vivien,
G. G.
L.,
and
Raye,
Y. C. L.
"Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Internet
Usage," Omega (27:1), February 1999, pp.
25
37.
Thompson,
R.
L.,
Higgins,
C.
A.,
and
Howell,
J. M.
"Influence of
Experience
on Personal
Computer
Utilization:
Testing
a
Conceptual Model,"
Journal of
Management
Information
Systems
(11:1),
Summer
1994, pp.
167-187.
Thompson,
R.
L.,
Higgins,
C.
A.,
and
Howell,
J. M.
"Personal
Computing:
Toward a
Conceptual
Model of
Utilization,"
MIS
Quarterly (15:1),
March
1991, pp.
125-143.
Todd,
P.
A.,
and
Benbasat,
I. "The
Impact
of
Information
Technology
on Decision
Making:
A
Cognitive Perspective,"
in
Framing
the Domains
of IT
Management: Projecting
the Future
Through
the
Past,
R. W. Zmud
(Ed.),
Pinnaflex
Educational
Resources, Inc, Cincinnati, OH,
2000, pp.
1-14.
Triandis,
H. C. Attitude and Attitude
Change,
Wiley,
NewYork,
1971.
Triandis,
H. C.
"Values, Attitudes,
and Inter
personal Behavior,"
in Nebraska
Symposium
on
Motivation, 1979,
M. M.
Page (Ed.), University
of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln, NE, 1980, pp.
195
259.
Trice,
A.
W.,
and
Treacy,
M. E. "Utilization as a
Dependent
Variable in MIS
Research,"
Data
Base
(19:3/4),
Fall/Winter
1988, pp.
33-41.
Tushman,
M.
L.,
and
Romanelli,
E.
"Organiza
tional Evolution: A
Metamorphosis
Model of
Convergence
and
Reorientation,"
in Research
in
Organizational Behavior,
B. M. Stawand L. L.
Cummings (Eds.),
JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT,
1985, pp.
171-222.
Tyre,
M.
J.,
and
Orlikowski,
W. J. "Windows of
Opportunity: Temporal
Patterns of Technolo
gical Adaptation
in
Organizations," Organization
Science
(5:1), February 1994, pp.
98-118.
Venkatesh,
V. "Creation of Favorable User Per
ceptions: Exploring
the Role of Intrinsic Moti
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 555
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
vation,"
MIS
Quarterly (23:2),
June
1999, pp.
239-260.
Venkatesh,
V. "Determinants of Perceived Ease
of Use:
Integrating
Control,
Intrinsic
Motivation,
and Emotion into the
Technology Acceptance
Model,"
Information
Systems
Research
(11:4),
December
2000, pp.
342-365.
Venkatesh, V.,
and
Davis,
F. D. "A Model of the
Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use:
Development
and
Test,"
Decision Sciences
(27:3),
Summer
1996, pp.
451-481.
Venkatesh, V.,
and
Davis,
F. D. "A Theoretical
Extension of the
Technology Acceptance
Model: Four
Longitudinal
Field
Studies,"
Man
agement
Science
(46:2), February
2000, pp.
186-204.
Venkatesh, V.,
and
Morris,
M. G.
"Why
Don't Men
Ever
Stop
to Ask for Directions?
Gender,
Social
Influence,
and Their Role in
Technology
Acceptance
and
Usage
Behavior,"
MIS
Quarterly (24:1),
March
2000, pp.
115-139.
Venkatesh, V., Morris,
M.
G.,
and
Ackerman,
P. L.
"A
Longitudinal
Field
Investigation
of Gender
Differences in Individual
Technology Adoption
Decision-Making
Processes," Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(83:1), September
2000, pp.
33-60.
Venkatesh, V., Morris,
M.
G., Davis,
G.
B.,
and
Davis,
F. D. "User
Acceptance
of Information
Technology:
Toward a Unified
View,"
MIS
Quarterly (27:3), September
2003, pp.
425-478.
Venkatesh, V.,
and
Speier,
C.
"Computer
Tech
nology Training
in the
Workplace:
A
Longitudinal Investigation
of the Effect of
Mood," Organizational
Behavior and Human
Decision Processes
(79:1), July
1999, pp.
1 -28.
Venkatesh, V., Speier, C,
and
Morris,
M. G.
"User
Acceptance
Enablers in Individual
Decision
Making
About
Technology:
Toward an
Integrated
Model,"
Decision Sciences
(33:2),
Spring
2002, pp.
297-316.
Walsham,
G.
Interpreting
Information
Systems
in
Organizations,
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
New
York,
1993.
Webster,
J.
"Desktop Videoconferencing: Experi
ences of
Complete
Users, Wary
Users,
and
Non-Users,"
MIS
Quarterly (22:3), September
1998, pp.
257-286.
Weick,
K. E.
"Cognitive
Processes in
Organiza
tions,"
in Research in
Organizational
Behavior,
B. M. Staw
(Ed.),
JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT,
1979a, pp.
41-74.
Weick,
K. E.
Sensemaking
in
Organizations, Sage
Publications,
Thousand
Oaks, CA,
1995.
Weick,
K. E. The Social
Psychology
of
Organizing, McGraw-Hill, NewYork,
1979b.
Weick,
K. E.
"Technology
as
Equivoque:
Sense
making
in New
Technologies,"
in
Technology
and
Organizations,
P. S.
Goodman,
L. S.
Sproull
and Associates
(Eds.), Jossey-Bass
Publishers,
San
Francisco, 1990, pp.
1-44.
Xia, W.,
and
Lee,
G. "The Influence of Persua
sion,
Training,
and
Experience
on User
Percep
tions and
Acceptance
of IT
Innovation,"
in
Proceedings
of the 21st International Con
ference on Information
Systems,
W. J.
Orlikowski,
S.
Ang,
P.
Weill,
H. C.
Krcmar,
and
J. I DeGross
(Eds.),
Brisbane, Australia, 2000,
pp.
371-384.
Yates, J., Orlikowski,
W.
J.,
and
Okamura,
K.
"Explicit
and
Implicit Structuring
of Genres in
Electronic Communication: Reinforcement and
Change
of Social
Interaction," Organization
Science
(10:1), January-February
1999, pp.
83
103.
Yi,
M.
Y.,
and
Davis,
F. D.
"Developing
and
Validating
an Observational
Learning
Model of
Computer
Software
Training
and Skill
Acqui
sition,"
Information
Systems
Research
(14:2),
June
2003, pp.
146-169.
Zmud,
R. W. "Individual Differences and MIS
Success: A Review of the
Empirical
Litera
tures," Management
Science
(25:10),
October
1979, pp.
966-980.
Zuboff,
S. In the
Age
of the Smart Machine: The
Future of Work and
Power,
Basic
Books,
New
York,
1988.
About the Authors
'Jon
(Sean) Jasperson
is a Clinical Assistant
Professor for the Information and
Operations
Management Department
in the
Mays
Business
School at Texas A&M
University.
His research
interests include the
adoption,
use,
management,
and
implementation
of information
technology
in
556 MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jasperson
et
al./Post-Adoptive
Behaviors & IT-Enabled Work
Systems
organizational settings.
He received his Ph.D. from
Florida State
University.
Pamela E. Carter is an assistant
professor
in the
Management
Information
Systems Department,
College
of
Business,
Florida State
University.
Her
research interests include the diffusion of
complex
technologies, meanings
and
interpretations
of and
within information
systems, project management,
and information
systems
infrastructure
manage
ment. She received her Ph.D. from Florida State
University
and her MBA from the
University
of
Maryland.
Robert W. Zmud is
Professor,
Michael F. Price
Chair in MIS and
Director,
Division of
MIS,
Michael
F. Price
College
of
Business,
University
of
Oklahoma. His research interests focus on the
organizational impacts
of information
technology
and on the
management, implementation,
and
diffusion of information
technology.
He is a senior
editor with Information
Systems
Research and with
the Journal of
AIS,
and he
currently
sits on the
editorial boards of
Management Science,
Aca
demy
of
Management Review,
and Information
and
Organization.
He holds a Ph.D. from the
University
of Arizona and a M.S. from M.I.T.
MIS
Quarterly
Vol. 29 No.
3/September
2005 557
This content downloaded from 61.70.146.20 on Wed, 1 Jan 2014 07:15:49 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions