Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Figure 9.1
Three Models of the Link From Technology to Performance
Figure 9.1A
Utilization Focus
Technology
Characteristics
User Attitudes
Beliefs, (UIS,
usefulness, etc.)
Utilization
Performance
Impacts
Figure 9.1B
Fit Focus
Task
Characteristics
Task-
Technology
Fit
Technology
Characteristics
Utilization
Performance
Impacts
Figure 9.1C
Combining
Utilization and Fit
Task
Characteristics
Task-
Technology
Fit
Technology
Characteristics
User Attitudes,
Beliefs (UIS,
usefulness, etc.)
Utilization
Performance
Impacts
Reprinted by permission from Goodhue and Thompson (1995). Copyright 1995, Regents of the University of
Minnesota.
good because it will lead to more positive performance impacts. Grounded most importantly by
Davis et al.'s (1989) technology acceptance model (TAM), a great deal of excellent MIS research
has explored the factors leading to utilization of information technology.
The frequently cited Delone and McLean framework (1992) is generally consistent with this uti-
lization focus view. Interestingly, as can be seen by looking at the original model (reproduced in
Figure 9.2), Delone and McLean did not represent the causality between constructs in the usual way,
by line arrows from one construct to another. Rather, the causal connections were represented by
larger arrows that were not quite specific about exactly which constructs link to which other con-
structs. This is because at the time the article was published, there was still some ambiguity about
exactly what the connections were. The diagram was intentionally made a bit vague about causality.
In providing researchers with a catalog or taxonomy of critical constructs related to IS success,
Delone and McLean's framework is valuable beyond question. However, because the D&M
model is generally consistent with the utilization focus model shown in Figure 9.1A, it reinforces
the tendency of many IS researchers to think in terms of IS impact along these lines. As will be
argued shortly, this has some important drawbacks. Further, since objective measures of individ-
ual performance are often hard to come by in organizational settings, researchers often focus only
Search WWH ::




Custom Search