Service Business

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 465–478 | Cite as

How socially derived characteristics of technology shape the adoption of corporate Web 2.0 tools for collaboration

  • Santiago Iglesias-Pradas
  • Ángel Hernández-García
  • Pedro Fernández-Cardador


Socially derived characteristics (perceptions of individuals about technology-related characteristics) of Web 2.0 tools are not generally taken into account when decisions are made about which systems to use for collaboration in corporate settings. This exploratory research studies the influence of these characteristics—perceived compatibility, social presence, and group supportability—in the adoption of corporate blogs and validates a theory-grounded model with data from 73 employees. The results show that social presence and users’ values influence perceived usefulness of corporate blogs and play an important role in their adoption, while existing work practices, prior experience and group supportability do not.


Corporate blogs Technology acceptance Knowledge management Web 2.0 Socially derived characteristics 


  1. Brown S, Dennis AR, Venkatesh V (2010) Predicting collaboration technology use: integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. J Manag Inf Syst 27(2):9–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlson JR, Zmud RW (1999) Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Acad Manag J 42(2):153–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chai S, Kim M (2010) What makes bloggers share knowledge? An investigation on the role of trust. Int J Inf Manag 30(5):408–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chin WW, Marcolin BL, Newsted PR (2003) A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf Syst Res 14(2):189–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35(8):982–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dennis AR, Reinicke BA (2004) Beta versus VHS and the acceptance of electronic brainstorming technology. MIS Q 28(1):1–20Google Scholar
  8. Dennis AR, Wixom BH, Vandenberg RJ (2001) Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group support systems via meta-analysis. MIS Q 25(2):167–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich JS (2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q 32(3):575–600Google Scholar
  10. Derks D, Fischer AH, Bos AER (2008) The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: a review. Comput Hum Behav 24(3):766–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downs GW, Mohr LB (1976) Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Adm Sci Q 21:700–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feather NT (1992) Values, valences, expectations, and actions. J Soc Issues 48(2):109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green SB (1991) How many subjects does It take to do a regression analysis. Multivar Behav Res 26(3):499–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haenlein M, Kaplan AM (2004) A beginner’s guide to partial least squares analysis. Underst Stat 3(4):283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  17. Hair JF, Christian M, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract 19(2):139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hassanein K, Head M, Ivanov A (2007) The role of social presence in establishing loyalty in e-service environments. Interact Comput 19:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsu CH, Lin J (2008) Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Inf Manag 45:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karahanna E, Straub DW (1999) The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use. Inf Manag 35(4):237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karahanna E, Agarwal R, Angst C (2006) Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Q 30(4):781–804Google Scholar
  22. Kock N (2004) The psychobiological model: towards a new theory of computer-mediated communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organ Sci 15(3):327–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee S, Hwang T, Hong-Hee L (2006) Corporate blogging strategies of the fortune 500 companies. Manag Decis 44(3):316–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee S-H, DeWester D, Park SR (2008) Web 2.0 and opportunities for small businesses. Serv Bus 2(4):335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee SM, Kim T, Noh Y, Lee B (2010) Success factors of platform leadership in web 2.0 service business. Serv Bus 4(2):89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGeoch JA, Irion AL (1952) The psychology of human learning. Longmans, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Moore GC (1989) An examination of the implementation of information technology for end users: a diffusion of innovations perspective. Doctoral Thesis Dissertation, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  28. Moore GC, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 2(3):192–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nunamaker JF, Dennis AR, Valacich JS, Vogel DR, George JF (1991) Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Commun ACM 34(7):40–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Onyechi GC, Abeysinghe G (2009) Adoption of web-based collaboration tools in the enterprise: challenges and opportunities. In: IEEE 2009 international conference on the current trends in information technology (CTIT): 1–6Google Scholar
  32. Oum S, Han D (2011) An empirical study of the determinants of the intention to participate in user-created contents (UCC) services. Expert Syst Appl 38(12):15110–15121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A (2005) SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). Accessed 6 Feb 2013
  34. Riordan MA, Kreuz RJ (2010) Cues in computer-mediated communication: a corpus analysis. Comput Hum Behav 26(6):1806–1817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Sarker S, Sahay S (2004) Implications of space and time for distributed work: an interpretive study of US-Norwegian systems development teams. Eur J Inf Syst 13(1):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarker S, Valacich JS, Sarker S (2005) Technology adoption by groups: a valence perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst 6(2):37–71Google Scholar
  38. Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Swan K, Shih LF (2005) On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. J Asynchronous Learn Netw 9(3):115–136Google Scholar
  40. Tornatzky LG, Klein KJ (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption– implementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 29(1):28–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wu J-H, Wang S-C (2005) What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inf Manag 42:719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Santiago Iglesias-Pradas
    • 1
  • Ángel Hernández-García
    • 1
  • Pedro Fernández-Cardador
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería de Organización, Administración de Empresas y EstadísticaUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations