Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When users are IT experts too: the effects of joint IT competence and partnership on satisfaction with enterprise-level systems implementation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Enterprise-level information systems (IS) are fundamental to businesses. Unfortunately, implementing these large-scale systems is a complex and risky endeavor. As a result, these initiatives must tap the expertise and active involvement of both the IS department and the enterprise's functional areas. Past studies focusing on IS implementation teams consistently identify the IS department as the source of technical expertise and leadership, while functional department team members are typically relegated to the role of business experts. However, unlike the past, many business professionals are knowledgeable about information technology (IT) and are increasingly capable of contributing to IS implementations from a technical perspective as well as a business perspective. This study examines how IT competence held by both the IS department and the user department stakeholders contributes to user satisfaction with the enterprise-level system implementation. Specifically, this research introduces a theoretically grounded construct, joint IT competence, which emerges when the IS department and user department stakeholders integrate their individually held IT competences. The study's results empirically demonstrate that joint IT competence is a key driver of user satisfaction in enterprise-level IS implementations. Although not as significant as joint IT competence, results show that partner-based leadership between the IS department and user stakeholders also influences user satisfaction with IS implementations.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akkermans H and van Helden K (2002) Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: a case study of interrelations between critical success factors. European Journal of Information Systems 11 (1), 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson-Lehman R, Watson HJ, Wixom BH and Hoffer JA (2004) Continental airlines flies high with real-time business intelligence. MIS Quarterly Executive 3 (4), 163–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arias E, Eden H, Fischer G, Gorman A and Scharff E (2000) Transcending the individual human mind – creating shared understanding through collaborative design. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 7 (1), 84–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong JS and Overton TS (1977) Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach J and Stark D (2004) Link, search, interact: the co-evolution of NGOs and interactive technology. Theory, Culture, and Society 21 (3), 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassellier G, Benbasat I and Reich BH (2003) The influence of business managers’ IT competence on championing IT. Information Systems Research 14 (4), 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassellier G, Reich BH and Benbasat I (2001) Information technology competence of business managers: a definition and research model. Journal of Management Information Systems 17 (4), 159–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen K and Lennox R (1991) Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin 110 (2), 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SA, Chervany NL and Reinicke BA (2007) What matters when introducing new information technology. Communications of the ACM 50 (9), 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research (MARCOULIDES GA, Ed), pp 295–336, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW, Marcolin BL and Newsted PR (2003) A partial least squares latent variable modelling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research 14 (2), 189–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Haan M (2002) Distributed cognition and the shared knowledge model of the Mazahua: a cultural approach. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 13 (1/2), 31–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delone WH and McLean ER (1992) Information system success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3 (1), 60–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos A and Siguaw JA (2006) Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management 17, 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enns HG, Huff SL and Golden BR (2003) CIO influence behaviors: the impact of technical background. Information & Management 40 (5), 457–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faraj S and Sproull L (2000) Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science 46 (12), 1554–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flor NV and Hutchins EL (1991) Analyzing distributed cognition in software teams: a case study of team programming during perfective software maintenance. In Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop (JONEMANN-BELLIVEAU J, MOHER TG and ROBERTSON SP, Eds), pp 36–64, Ablex, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub DW and Boudreau MC (2000) Structural equation modelling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 4 (7), 1–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (1996) Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science 7 (4), 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green KW, Inman RA, Brown G and Willis TH (2005) Market orientation: relations to structure and performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 20 (6), 276–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg JD and Dickelman GJ (2000) Distributed cognition: a foundation for performance support. Performance Improvement 39 (6), 18–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC and Mason PA (1984) Upper echelon: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review 9 (2), 191–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman HH (1976) Modern Factor Analysis 3rd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson JC (1990) Plugging into strategic partnerships: the critical IS connection. Sloan Management Review 3 (3), 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E and Klausen T (1996) Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Communication and Cognition at Work (MIDDLETON D and ENGESTROM Y, Eds), pp 15–34, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ives B and Olson MH (1984) User involvement and MIS success: a review of research. Management Science 30 (5), 586–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis CB, Mackenzie SB and Podsakoff PM (2003) A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 30, 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang JJ, Klein G and Chen H (2006) The effects of user partnering and user non-support on project performance. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 7 (2), 68–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch LJ (1997) Portfolios of control modes and IS project management. Information Systems Research 8 (3), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch LJ and Beath CM (1996) The enactments and consequences of token shared and compliant participation in information systems development. Accounting Management and Information Technologies 6 (40), 221–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko DG, Kirsch LJ and King WR (2005) Antecedents of knowledge transformation from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementations. MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 59–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar K and van Hillegersberg J (2000) ERP experiences and evolution. Communications of the ACM 43 (4), 22–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon TH and Zmud RW (1987) Unifying the fragmented models of information system implementation. In Critical Issues in Information Systems Research (BOLAND RJ and HIRSCHEIM RA, Eds), pp 227–251, Wiley, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasher DR, Ives B and Jarvenpaa SL (1991) USAA–IBM partnership in information technology: managing the image project. MIS Quarterly 15 (4), 551–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence M and Low G (1993) Exploring individual user satisfaction within user-led development. MIS Quarterly 17 (2), 195–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchand DA, Kettinger WJ and Rollins JD (2001) Information Orientation: The Link to Business Performance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Cannon-Bowers JA and Salas E (2004) Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: equifinality and normative comparisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 (1), 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E and Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (2), 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath RG, MacMillan IC and Venkataraman S (1995) Defining and developing competence: a strategic process paradigm. Strategic Management Journal 16 (4), 251–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell VL (2006) Knowledge integration and information technology project performance. MIS Quarterly 30 (4), 919–939.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson KM and Cooprider JG (1996) The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly 20 (4), 409–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell S, Tansley C and Huang J (2004) Social capital and knowledge integration in an ERP project team: the importance of bridging and bonding. British Journal of Management 15, S43–S57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaug O and Gronhaug K (1994) Competences as resources in firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 (1), 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppard J (2007) The conundrum of IT management. European Journal of Information Systems 16 (4), 336–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppard J, Lambert R and Edwards C (2000) Whose job is it anyway?: organizational information competencies for value creation. Information Systems Journal 10 (4), 291–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins R (1993) Person-plus: a distributed view of thinking and learning. In Distributed Cognitions (SALOMON G, Ed), Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petter S, Straub D and Rai A (2007) Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 31 (4), 623–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM and Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12 (4), 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranganathan C, Watson-Manheim MB and Keeler J (2004) Bringing professionals on board: lessons learned on executing IT-enabled organizational transformation. MIS Quarterly Executive 3 (3), 151–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringle CM, Wende S and Will A (2005) SmartPLS 2.0.M3. www.smartpls.de.

  • Ross JW, Beath CM and Goodhue DL (1996) Developing long-term competitiveness through IT assets. Sloan Management Review 38 (1), 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross JW and Weill P (2002) Six IT decisions your IT people shouldn’t make. Harvard Business Review 80 (11), 84–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon G (1993) Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smylie MA, Conley S and Marks H (2002) Building leadership into the roles of teachers. In The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century (MURPHY J, Ed), pp 162–188, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somers TM and Nelson K (2001) The impact of critical success factors across the stages of enterprise resource planning implementations. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34) (Sprague R, Ed), 3–7 January, Maui, Hawaii (CD-ROM).

  • Spillane J, Halverson R and Diamond J (2004) Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 36 (1), 3–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramani MR, Henderson JC and Cooprider J (1999) Linking IS–user partnerships to IS performance: a socio-cognitive perspective. MISRC Working Paper, pp 1–37, University of Minnesota.

  • Teece DJ, Pisano G and Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18 (7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V and Morris MG (2000) 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), 115–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade M and Hulland J (2004) The resource-based view and information systems research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly 28 (1), 107–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5 (2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler BC, Marakas GM and Brickley P (2002) From back office to boardroom: repositioning global IT by educating the line to lead at British American Tobacco. MIS Quarterly Executive 1 (1), 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woszczynski AB and Whitman ME (2003) The problem of common method variance in IS research. In The Handbook of Information Systems Research (WHITMAN ME and WOSZCZYNSKI AB, Eds), pp 66–77, Idea Group Inc, Hershey, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi MY and Davis FD (2003) Developing and validating an observational learning model of computer software training and skill acquisition. Information Systems Research 14 (2), 146–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J and Patel VL (2006) Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. Pragmatics & Cognition 14 (2), 333–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, School of Business and Economics College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, U.S.A.

    Joshua M Davis

  2. Management Information Systems Department, Fogelman College of Business and Economics, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, U.S.A.

    William J Kettinger

  3. Management Science Department, Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, U.S.A.

    Dimitar G Kunev

Authors
  1. Joshua M Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William J Kettinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dimitar G Kunev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table A1

Table a1 Construct characteristics
Full size table

Appendix B

Measurement items

Joint IT competence (measured using both the IS department and the user base)

illustration

figure b

At the time the technology was implemented, we believed that

  1. 1

    Our unit had individual(s) with ‘expert’ knowledge of the technology.

  2. 2

    Our unit had individual(s) who were in a formal/informal position to provide special information, regarding either the following technology itself, or regarding applications of the technology.

  3. 3

    Our unit had individual(s) who could plan and implement the technology.

  4. 4

    Our unit had individual(s) who could carry out various parts of the assessment and evaluation procedure of the technology.

Partnership-led implementation (measured using both the IS department and the user base)

Using the scale below, please circle the number that best describes your view at the time the technology was implemented. Please select only one option. The seven possible responses are presented below:

At the time the technology was implemented, we believed that

  1. 1

    IS department completely controlled the implementation of the technology.

  2. 2

    IS department led the major decision-making; and user department(s)'s opinions were minimally accepted by the IS department.

  3. 3

    IS department led the major decision-making, but user department(s)'s opinions were strongly reflected in the decisions made.

  4. 4

    IS department and user department(s) had equal decision-making power; both parties equally shared the responsibilities and duties of the implementation.

  5. 5

    User department(s) led the major decision-making, but the IS department's opinions were strongly reflected in the decisions made.

  6. 6

    User department(s) led the major decision-making, but they occasionally requested minimal technical expertise or advice from the IS department.

  7. 7

    User department(s) completely controlled the implementation of the technology.

User satisfaction (measured using only the user base)

illustration

figure a

Now that the following technology is implemented and in use, we believe that

  1. 1

    Our unit is satisfied with the operation and uses the technology.

  2. 2

    Our unit is satisfied with our involvement and participation in the operation and ongoing development of the technology.

  3. 3

    Our unit is satisfied with the support and services for the technology.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, J., Kettinger, W. & Kunev, D. When users are IT experts too: the effects of joint IT competence and partnership on satisfaction with enterprise-level systems implementation. Eur J Inf Syst 18, 26–37 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.4

Keywords

Search

Navigation