Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating switching costs to information systems adoption: An empirical study on learning management systems

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When evaluating a new information system, users’ experiences with the prior system, as well as characteristics of the new system, may influence their adoption behavior. However, most existing research either focuses solely on assessment of the new system using information systems adoption theories, or focuses only on the extent and types of switching costs associated with the transition from the prior system to the new one. In addition, little research has examined system switching and adoption of new learning management systems. To address these gaps, this study develops a research model that integrates the theoretical perspectives of switching costs and information systems adoption. The model is developed and tested in the context of the adoption of learning management systems. The results indicate that emotional costs and reduced performance costs can significantly influence perceived switching value. Perceived switching value, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence have significant impacts on users’ intention to use the new learning management system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adeoti-Adekeye, W. B. (1997). The importance of managing information systems. Library Review, 46(5), 318–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawala, M., Hariharanb, G., Kishorec, R., & Raoc, H. R. (2005). Matching intermediaries for information goods in the presence of direct search: an examination of switching costs and obsolescence of information. Decision Support Systems, 41(1), 20–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akter, S., D’Ambra, J., & Ray, P. (2011). Trustworthiness in mHealth information services: an assessment of a hierarchical model with mediating and moderating effects using partial least squares (PLS). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), 62(1), 100–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, L. M., & Elam, J. J. (1992). New information systems leaders: a changing role in a changing world. MIS Quarterly, 16(4), 469–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro, T. (2004). Sunk costs and the depth and probability of technology adoption. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 52(3), 381–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Au, N., Ngai, E., & Cheng, T. (2008). Extending the understanding of end user information systems satisfaction formation: an equitable needs fulfillment model approach. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 43–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baloian, N., & Zurita, G. (2015). Achieving better usability of software supporting learning activities of large groups. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s10796-015-9580-3(forthcoming),.

  • Beck, R., Beimborn, D., Weitzel, T., & König, W. (2008). Network effects as drivers of individual technology adoption: analyzing adoption and diffusion of mobile communication services. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 415–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blut, L., Beatty, S. E., Evanschitzky, H., & BrockdaNewcastle, C. (2014). The impact of service characteristics on the switching costs - CustomerLoyalty link. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 275–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. A. (2008). Household technology adoption, use, and impacts: past, present, and future. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 397–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Predicting collaboration technology use: integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 9–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, T. A., Frels, J. K., & Mahajan, V. (2003). Consumer switching costs: a typology, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 109–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, T. A., Frels, J. K., & Mahajan, V. (2015). Consumer switching costs: a typology, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. A. (2000). Using internet technology to support flexible learning in business education. Information Technology and Management, 1(4), 329–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P.-Y., & Forman, C. (2006). Can vendors influence switching costs and compatibility in an environment with open standards? MIS Quarterly, 30, 541–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P.-Y., & Hitt, L. M. (2003). Measuring switching costs and the determinants of customer retention in internet-enabled businesses: a study of the online brokerage industry. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P.-y., & Hitt, L. M. (2006). Information technology and switching costs. Handbook on Economics and Information Systems, 1, 437–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, I. J., Yang, K.-F., Tang, F.-I., Huang, C.-H., & Yu, S. (2008). Applying the technology acceptance model to explore public health nurses’ intentions towards web-based learning: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(6), 869–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (1998a). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (1998b). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling (modern methods for business research). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The delone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, G. W., Simmons, J. K., & Anderson, J. C. (1974). Behavioral Reactions to the Introduction of a Management Information System at the U.S. Post Office: Some Empirical Observations. New York: McGraw-Hill: (Computers and Management in a Changing Society).

    Google Scholar 

  • Edward, M., & Sahadev, S. (2011). Role of switching costs in the service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction and customer retention linkage. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 23(3), 327–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferneley, E. H., & Sobreperez, P. (2006). Resist, comply or workaround? An examination of different facets of user engagement with information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 345–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, L., & Waechter, K. A. (2015). Examining the role of initial trust in user adoption of mobile payment services: an empirical investigation. Information Systems Frontiers, doi:10.1007/s10796-015-9611-0(forthcoming), 1–24.

  • Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the AIS, 4(7), 1–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiltinan, J. (1989). A Classification of Switching Costs with Implications for Relationship Marketing. In T. Childers, R. Bagozzi, & J. Peter (Eds.), Proceedings of the AMA Winter Educator’s Conference (pp. 216–220). IL: Marketing Theory and Practice, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gwinner, K., Gremler, D., & Bitner, M. J. (1998). Relational benefits in services industries: the customer’s perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, S. H., & Yang, J. (2012). Classification of switching intentions toward internet telephony services: a quantitative analysis. Information Technology and Management, 14(2), 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. In Upper saddle river. NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, M. A., & Quaddus, M. (2015). Developing and validating a hierarchical model of external responsiveness: a study on RFID technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hota, C., Upadhyaya, S., & Al-Karaki, J. N. (2015). Advances in secure knowledge management in the big data era. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(5), 983–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, J. S.-C. (2014). Understanding the role of satisfaction in the formation of perceived switching value. Decision Support Systems, 59, 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L.-Y., & Hsieh, Y.-J. (2012). Consumer electronics acceptance based on innovation attributes and switching costs: the case of e-book readers. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(3), 218–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, S.-Y., Tsai, J. C.-A., & Chuang, C.-C. (2014). Investigating primary health care nurses’ intention to use information technology: an empirical study in Taiwan. Decision Support Systems, 57, 331–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., Voort, H. V. D., & Veenstra, A. F. V. (2015). Failure of large transformation projects from the viewpoint of complex adaptive systems: management principles for dealing with project dynamics. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. A., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E. (2002). Why customers stay: measuring the underlying dimensions of services switching costs and managing their differential strategic outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 55, 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallas, P. (2013). Top 10 social networking sites by market share of visits [June 2013]. Dreamgrow. http://www.dreamgrow.com/top-10-social-networking-sites-by-marketshare-of-visits-june-2013/. Accessed 28 Dec 2013.

  • Khodakarami, F., & Chan, Y. E. (2014). Exploring the role of customer relationship management (CRM) systems in customer knowledge creation. Information Management, 51(1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H.-W. (2011). The effects of switching costs on user resistance to enterprise systems implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(3), 471–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H.-W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: a status Quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 567–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H.-W., & Perera, N. (2008). Software continuance from the Switching Costs Perspective: a Case of Web Browser. In Proceedings of Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Paper 13.

  • Kim, G., Shin, B., & Lee, H. G. (2006). A study of factors that affect user intentions toward email service switching. Information Management, 43(7), 884–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemperer, P. (1987). Markets with consumer switching costs. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(2), 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, Y.-F., Wu, C.-M., & Deng, W.-J. (2009). The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 887–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sena, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. (2000). The technology acceptance model and the world wide web. Decision Support Systems, 29(3), 269–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. C., Chung, N., & Lee, S. (2011). Exploring the influence of personal schema on trust transfer and switching costs in brick-and-click bookstores. Information Management, 48(4), 364–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, T.-C., Liu, C.-C., & Wang, F.-S. (2013). Empirical Study of Online Auction Seller Switching: The Case of Yahoo vs. Ruten in Taiwan (vol. 2013, p. Paper 258). In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS).

  • Lu, J., Yu, C.-S., & Liu, C. (2003). Learning style, learning patterns, and learning performance in a WebCT-based MIS course. Information Management, 40(6), 497–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matook, S. (2013). Conceptualizing means-end chains of user goals as networks. Information Management, 50(1), 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matos, C. A. D., Henrique, J. L., & Rosa, F. D. (2013). Customer reactions to service failure and recovery in the banking industry: the influence of switching costs. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(7), 526–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, J., & Elliott, K. M. (2009). Investigating structural relationships between service quality, switching costs, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 9(2), 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miltgen, C. L., Popovič, A., & Oliveira, T. (2013). Determinants of end-user acceptance of biometrics: integrating the "big 3" of technology acceptance with privacy context. Decision Support Systems, 56, 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagengast, L., Evanschitzky, H., Blut, M., & Rudolph, T. (2014). New insights in the moderating effect of switching costs on theSatisfaction-repurchase behavior link. Journal of Retailing, 90(3), 408–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nov, O., & Ye, C. (2009). Resistance to change and the adoption of digital libraries: an integrative model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), 60(8), 1702–1708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oztekin, A., Delen, D., Turkyilmaz, A., & Zaim, S. (2013). A machine learning-based usability evaluation method for eLearning systems. Decision Support Systems, 56(63–73).

  • Pogue, D. (2006). New Tricks of a Browser Look Familiar, New York Times.

  • Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., Williams, M. D., & Clement, M. (2015). Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s10796-015-9613-y(forthcoming).

  • Rau, D., & Haerem, T. (2010). Applying an organizational learning perspective to new technology deployment by technological gatekeepers: a theoretical model and key issues for future research. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(3), 287–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A H. H. W. S. D. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) beta. Hamburg: http://www.smartpls.de.

  • Schmitt, J. W., & Kozar, K. A. (1978). Management’s role in information systems development failures: a case study. MIS Quarterly, 2(2), 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Computers & Education, 71, 247–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shareef, M. A., Kumar, V., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Kumar, U. (2015). Service delivery through mobile-government (mGov): driving factors and cultural impacts. Information Systems Frontiers, Forthcoming.

  • Sharma, G., Qiang, Y., Wenjun, S., & Qi, L. (2013). Communication in virtual world: second life and business opportunities. Information Systems Frontiers, 15(4), 677–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibl, R., Lawley, M., & Debuse, J. (2013). Factors influencing decision support system acceptance. Decision Support Systems, 54(2), 953–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value and loyalty in relational exchange. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smet, C. D., Bourgonjon, J., Wever, B. D., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2012). Researching instructional use and the technology acceptation of learning management systems by secondary school teachers. Computers & Education, 58, 688–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spekman, R. E., & Strauss, D. (1986). An exploratory investigation of a buyers concern for factors affecting cooperative buyer-seller relationships. In K. Backhaus, & D. T. Wilson (Eds.), Industrial marketing (pp. 115–133). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, M. (2011). 9 reasons to switch from facebook to google + . PCWorld,

  • Sun, P.-c., Cheng, H. K., & Finger, G. (2009). Critical functionalities of a successful e-learning system - an analysis from instructors’ cognitive structure toward system usage. Decision Support Systems, 48, 293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Techatassanasoontorn, A. A., & Suo, S. (2011). Influences on standards adoption in de facto standardization. Information Technology and Management, 12(4), 357–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turel, O., Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2007). User acceptance of wireless short messaging services: deconstructing perceived value. Information Management, 44(1), 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyran, C. K., & Shepherd, M. (2001). Collaborative technology in the classroom: a review of the GSS research and a research framework. Information Technology and Management, 2(4), 395–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasudevan, H., Gaur, S. S., & Shinde, R. K. (2006). Relational switching costs, satisfaction and commitment: a study in the Indian manufacturing context. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 18(4), 342–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y.-S., Wu, S.-C., Lin, H.-H., & Wang, Y.-Y. (2011). The relationship of service failure severity, service recovery justice and perceived switching costs with customer loyalty in the context of e-tailing. International Journal of Information Management, 31(4), 350–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitten, D., & Wakefield, R. L. (2006). Measuring switching costs in IT outsourcing services. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 15(3), 219–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitten, D., Chakrabarty, S., & Wakefield, R. (2010). The strategic choice to continue outsourcing, switch vendors, or backsource: do switching costs matter? Information Management, 47(3), 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J.-H., & Wang, S.-C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information Management, 42(5), 719–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., Huang, W. W., Wang, H., & Heales, J. (2014). Enhancing e-learning effectiveness using an intelligent agent-supported personalized virtual learning environment: an empirical investigation. Information Management, 51(4), 430–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye, C., Seo, D., Desouza, K. C., Sangareddy, S. P., & Jha, S. (2008). Influences of IT substitutes and user experience on post-adoption user switching: an empirical investigation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), 59(13), 2115–2132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Powering E-learning in the new millennium: an overview of E-learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, K. Z. K., Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., & Chen, H. (2009). Understanding the role of gender in bloggers’ switching behavior. Decision Support Systems, 47(4), 540–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, K. Z. K., Cheung, C. M. K., & Lee, M. K. O. (2012). Online service switching behavior: the case of blog service providers. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13(3), 184–197.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Information Systems, The W. A. Franke College of Business, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA

    Yan Mandy Dang, Yulei Gavin Zhang & James Morgan

Authors
  1. Yan Mandy Dang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yulei Gavin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Mandy Dang.

Appendix. Measurement Items

Appendix. Measurement Items

Perceived switching value: Adapted from Kim (2011)

  • PSV1: Considering the time and effort that I had to spend in getting familiar with Blackboard Vista, the change from Blackboard Vista to Blackboard Learn is worthwhile.

  • PSV2: Considering the loss that I incurred when using Blackboard Vista, the change from Blackboard Vista to Blackboard Learn is of good value.

  • PSV3: Considering the hassle that I had to experience when using Blackboard Vista, the change from Blackboard Vista to Blackboard Learn is beneficial to me.

Emotional costs: Adapted from Kim and Perera (2008)

  • EMC1: I am more comfortable using Blackboard Vista compared with Blackboard Learn.

  • EMC2: I miss using Blackboard Vista after changing to Blackboard Learn.

  • EMC3: I feel regretful about changing from Blackboard Vista to Blackboard Learn.

Learning costs: Adapted from Kim and Perera (2008)

  • LRN1: Learning to use the features of Blackboard Learn, as proficient as I use Blackboard Vista, takes time.

  • LRN2: Understanding the features of Blackboard Learn takes time and effort.

  • LRN3: Even after switching, it takes effort for me to be proficient with Blackboard Learn.

Reduced performance costs: Adapted from Kim and Perera (2008)

  • RPF1: I can lose certain benefits when I change from Blackboard Vista to Blackboard Learn.

  • RPF2: Blackboard Vista can provide me with certain benefits that I cannot receive by using Blackboard Learn.

  • RPF3: By continuing to use Blackboard Vista, I could receive certain benefits that I could not receive when I switch to Blackboard Learn.

  • RPF4: There are certain benefits I cannot retain when I change from Blackboard Vista to Blackboard Learn.

Sunk costs: Adapted from Kim and Perera (2008)

  • SNK1: A lot of energy, time, and effort have gone into learning and getting proficient at Blackboard Vista.

  • SNK2: Overall, I have invested a lot into learning and getting proficient at Blackboard Vista.

  • SNK3. All things considered, I have spent a lot time and effort with Blackboard Vista.

  • SNK4. I have invested much in learning and getting proficient at Blackboard Vista.

Performance expectancy: Adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2003)

  • PE1: I found Blackboard Learn useful in conducting my learning-related activities.

  • PE2: Using Blackboard Learn enabled me to accomplish my learning-related activities more quickly.

  • PE3: Using Blackboard Learn increased my productivity.

Effort expectancy: Adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2003)

  • EE1: My interaction with Blackboard Learn was clear and understandable.

  • EE2: It was easy for me to become skillful at using Blackboard Learn.

  • EE3: I found Blackboard Learn easy to use.

  • EE4: Learning to operate Blackboard Learn was easy for me.

Facilitating conditions: Adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2003)

  • FC1: I have the resources necessary to use Blackboard Learn.

  • FC2: I have the knowledge necessary to use Blackboard Learn.

  • *FC3: Blackboard Learn is not compatible with other systems I use.

  • FC4: A specific person or group (such as the IT help service) is available for assistance with system difficulties.

Social influence: Adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2003)

  • SI1: People who influence my behavior (such as classmates, team members, and/or professors) think that I should use Blackboard Learn.

  • SI2: People who are important to me (in terms of my schoolwork) think that I should use Blackboard Learn.

  • SI3: The department, college, and/or university have been helpful in supporting the use of Blackboard Learn.

  • SI4: In general, the department, college, and/or university have supported the use of Blackboard Learn.

Behavioral intention: Adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2003)

  • BI1: I intend to use Blackboard Learn for my future learning-related activities.

  • BI2: I predict I would use Blackboard Learn for my future learning-related activities.

  • BI3: I plan to use Blackboard Learn for my future learning-related activities.

* FC3 is a reversed item.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dang, Y.M., Zhang, Y.G. & Morgan, J. Integrating switching costs to information systems adoption: An empirical study on learning management systems. Inf Syst Front 19, 625–644 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9618-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9618-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation