TASK-TECHNOLOGY FIT - Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations - page 171

(Davis and Kotteman, 1994; Pentland, 1989). Or they might use or not use a system for a host of
reasons (habit, social influences, politics, resistance to change, etc.) not related to performance
impacts in their explicit tasks.
DeLone and McLean suggest a second way in which fit could be incorporated in the existing mod-
els in their retrospective look at the D&M model ten years after its first publication (DeLone and
McLean, 2003). They suggest that “use” in general is not a predictor of performance (or net benefits ,
as they prefer to call it), but that we must move to consider “appropriate use.” However, defining
appropriate use is problematic. We could define it as that use which leads to net benefits, but this
would make the link between use and net benefits tautological. Delone and McLean suggest that
appropriate use might be the extent to which the full functionality of the system is used for the
intended purposes (p. 16). However, in the context of the Pentland study, this would include use of the
spreadsheet and database capabilities of the system, which we now know would reduce performance.
It could be argued that more recent utilization focus models incorporate the general con-
cept of task-technology fit by including usefulness (Seddon, 1997) or performance expectation
(Venkatesh et al., 2003) as a key predictor of utilization. Usefulness and performance expectation
are probably closely related to task-technology fit, but even assuming that link, those models only
include one of the two paths through which TTF contributes to performance. Even the modifica-
tion suggested by Seddon (1997) shows the behavior of utilization as the only direct predictor of
performance impacts. If we could assume that all systems were an excellent fit to the tasks they
were used for, the utilization-focused models would be fine. But both Seddon (1997) and
Venkatesh et al. (2003) completely ignore the reality that more use of a poorly fitting system
(which can and does happen) will reduce performance.
The contention here is that both the utilization-focus model in Figure 9.1A and the DeLone and
McLean models are lacking a critical construct—task-technology fit. The more straightforward
approach to addressing the blind spot is to recognize that, for a technology to provide positive per-
formance impacts, it must be used, and it must be a good fit for the tasks. Such a recognition must
be reflected in our conceptual models. For example, in Figure 9.1C, the two perspectives are
combined to show both the attitudes to behavior links and the impacts of task-technology fit. Of
course, this solution carries the implication that one cannot ever predict performance impacts of
information systems without an analysis of the tasks, and of the functionalities of the technology
relevant to the tasks. But then how could one ever expect to predict performance impacts without
such a consideration? While this produces its own set of conceptual and measurement issues, at
least it focuses us on the critical constructs that will truly predict benefits.
A THIRD MODEL: TTF AND THE TECHNOLOGY TO PERFORMANCE CHAIN
Goodhue and Thompson (1995) have presented a more detailed model of the combination of the
two theories applied to individuals, which they call the technology to performance chain (TPC),
shown in Figure 9.3. By capturing the insights of both lines of research (recognizing that tech-
nologies must both be utilized and fit the task they support to have a positive performance
impact), the TPC gives a more accurate picture of how technologies, user tasks, and utilization
relate to changes in performance. The major features of the full model are described below.
Technologies are viewed as tools used by individuals in carrying out their tasks. In the context of
information systems research, technology refers to computer systems (hardware, software, and data)
and user support services (training, help lines, etc.) provided to assist users in their tasks. The model
is intended to be general enough to focus on either the impacts of a specific system or the more gen-
eral impact of the entire set of systems policies and services provided by an IS department.