TASK-TECHNOLOGY FIT - Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations - page 173

with much corporate data accessible to all). As the gap between the requirements of a task and the
functionalities of a technology widens, TTF is reduced. Starting with the assumption that no sys-
tem provides perfect data to meet complex task needs without any expenditure of effort (i.e., there
is usually some non-zero gap), as tasks become more demanding or technologies offer less of the
needed functionality, TTF will decrease.
Utilization is the behavior of employing the technology in completing tasks. Measures such as
the duration of use, frequency of use, or the diversity of applications employed (Davis et al., 1989;
Thompson et al., 1991, 1994) have been used. However, the construct is arguably not yet well
understood, and efforts to refine the conceptualization should be grounded in an appropriate ref-
erence discipline (Trice and Treacy, 1988).
Since the lower portion of the TPC model in Figure 9.3 is derived from theories about attitudes
(beliefs or affect) and behavior, a reference discipline such as the theory of reasoned action
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) would seem an appropriate choice. Consider the utilization of a specific
system for a single, defined task in light of those theories. Beliefs about the consequences of use,
affect toward use, social norms, etc., would lead to the individual's decision to use or not use the sys-
tem. In this case, utilization should be conceptualized as the binary condition of use or no use. We
would not be interested in how long the individual used the system at this single, defined task, since
duration of use would be more a function of the size of the task and/or the TTF of the system, not
the choice to use the system. When thinking about a single defined task, using the system longer is
not indicative of improved performance—in fact the reverse! Longer duration of use in this case pre-
sumably means a poorer system (for this task), or less user familiarity with the technology.
If the focus is expanded to include a portfolio of some number of tasks (such as in a field study
of information use), then the appropriate conceptualization would be the proportion of times the
individual decided to use the system (the sum of the decisions to use the system, divided by the num-
ber of opportunities to use the system). Note that this is quite different from conceptualizing utiliza-
tion as the duration or frequency of use. To illustrate problems with using duration as the measure
of utilization, consider the following. A poor system might require a longer duration of use to
accomplish the same portfolio of tasks; a good system might encourage more duration of use as new
tasks are added to the portfolio (because of the effectiveness of the system). Likewise, this is quite
different from using frequency of utilization. In this conceptualization, an individual who used the
system three times out of four opportunities is a heavier user than one who used the system ten times
out of twenty opportunities. Since this is not how utilization is usually measured, it points up the fact
that conceptualizing and measuring utilization is more complicated than it might at first appear.
The antecedents of utilization can be suggested by theories about attitudes and behavior, as
described above. Note that both voluntary and mandatory use can be reflected in the model.
Mandatory use can be thought of as a situation where social norms to use a system are very strong
and overpower other considerations such as the beliefs about expected task performance, conse-
quences, and affect.
The impact of TTF on utilization is shown via a link between task-technology fit and beliefs
about the consequences of using a system. This is because TTF as perceived by the user should
be an important determinant of whether the system is believed to be more useful, more important,
or more advantageous than the alternative. All of these three beliefs have been shown to predict
utilization of systems (Davis et al., 1989; Hartwick and Barki, 1994; Moore and Benbasat, 1992),
though they are not the only determinants, as the model shows.
Performance impact in this context is measured by how well an individual accomplishes a
portfolio of tasks. Higher performance implies some mix of improved efficiency, improved effec-
tiveness, and/or higher quality.