Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 101–114 | Cite as

Are business users social? A design experiment exploring information sharing in enterprise social systems

  • Tobias Mettler
  • Robert Winter
Open Access
Research Article

Abstract

In recent years, social technology has changed the ways people collaborate and communicate. With the blurring boundaries between work and personal life, business software vendors have begun to deliberate on the possibilities for enhancing the rather rigid and impersonal structures in enterprise systems (ES) by integrating social features. In doing so, they frequently assume that business users share the same interaction patterns as private users. In this paper, we challenge this belief and explore the factors that stimulate business users to share information in ES environments. By means of a design experiment, we show different use scenarios and explore business users’ attitudes toward open and unconditional information sharing in ES. Our results demonstrate that business users are less ‘social’ and that applying social features in ES is highly context dependent. Based on these findings, we offer recommendations for software vendors and researchers who are interested in the social enhancements of ES.

Keywords

business user design experiment enterprise social systems information sharing social design features 

Introduction

Since the emergence of the Internet, and particularly with the rise of social technologies, users have drastically changed the ways they interact with and appropriate value from technology (Allen, 2005; Benkler, 2006; Bonabeau, 2009). Inspired by platforms such as Facebook, Flickr, and Wikipedia, which have permeated nearly every aspect of our lives, the next wave of enterprise systems (ES) – commonly referred to as enterprise social systems (ESS) – promise a totally new user experience and value to enterprises (Chui et al., 2012). Building a bridge to the Internet and relying heavily on web technology, ESS are frequently less formal, less structured, and less hierarchical than traditional ES and allow for a greater freedom of interaction (Cook, 2010).

The applications of ESS range from the business-related use of social networks (Trier and Richter, 2015), blogs/micro-blogs (Zhao and Rosson, 2009; Zhang et al., 2010), and wikis for communicating and interaction with internal and external stakeholders of the company (Arazy et al., 2009; McAfee, 2009), to more specialized applications that attempt to leverage the newly available information from social technologies within traditional ES environments in order to improve service delivery efficiency, reputation, credibility, and consumer trust (Wang et al., 2007).

In contrast to ES, which are rather organization-wide software packages (Strong and Volkoff, 2010) focused on streamlining and automating existing organizational work routines toward best practice business processes (Davenport, 1998; Huang et al., 2009), and enabling access to company information in a more or less real-time environment (Nah et al., 2001; Dorantes et al., 2013), ESS therefore rather represent globally interconnected, interpersonal software packages that allows business users more spontaneous and flexible ways of knowledge-based operations (McAfee, 2009) and usually require a certain degree of open, unconditional information-sharing behavior in order to work appropriately (Tapscott and Williams, 2008).

Although prior literature has largely focused on explaining the nearly unbound potential of ESS for today’s companies, little is known about the actual compatibility of the underlying principles of enterprise and social software – respectively organization-wide vs inter-organizational and interpersonal ways of sharing information. Is it really possible to unite both world views? Are users in business contexts ready for a change of mind? In fact, evidence exists that the implementation and adaptation of both paradigms into a common system is not a trivial task (Li et al., 2009). Wang et al. (2011) note that ‘the two systems [ES and ESS] have rather different natures […] ERP and enterprise 2.0 systems are incompatible.’

Following this thread, it is the aim of this paper to enhance our understanding of the compatibility of the ‘social paradigm,’ which appears to be nearly uncontested by the extant literature on ESS. More precisely, we want to investigate the key phenomenon of information sharing in the ESS context by addressing the following research questions: (1) Are business users willing to openly and unconditionally share valuable business information in ESS? (2) Which factors positively or negatively influence business users to share their information in ESS?

In what follows, the next section reviews prior studies on the affordances of and tensions between social technologies and traditional ES. Recognizing the importance of information sharing for ESS to function properly, we then develop and test a set of hypotheses about business users’ motivations and doubts for voluntarily and openly sharing information with others on interconnected and interpersonal ESS. Based on the evidence we obtained from our design experiments, we then discuss the practical and theoretical implications of information sharing in ESS settings. We end with the description of limitations of the study and some considerations of possible future research directions.

Affordances and tensions between social technologies and traditional enterprise systems

In order to examine how a technology merges with an existing organizational setting for unfolding its potential, prior research has suggested to focus on the investigation of the affordances of an artifact as opposed to a consideration of pure technological features (Leonardi, 2011; Volkoff and Strong, 2013; Fayard and Weeks, 2014). In this view, the term ‘affordance’ can be understood as a relational concept that connects the materiality of a technological artifact with the subjective goals and perceptions of its users, such that the same technology may provide different affordances to different users albeit materiality exists independent from them (Treem and Leonardi, 2013). Accordingly, such an approach offers a way of theorizing about ESS, which acknowledges human behavior and the materiality of the IT artifact without being either socially or technologically deterministic (Ellison et al., 2015).

In the following sections we therefore compare the affordances of ES and social technologies to get a better understanding of the possible tensions that may emerge when combining both perspectives in an ESS setting.

An affordance perspective on traditional ES

Enterprise systems were developed and implemented under the assumption that organizations have objectives and that individuals working in organizations are purposeful and goal seeking, although their goals may differ from the ideal state (Kayas et al., 2008). To engage workers in instrumental rational action so that the company’s objectives are accomplished, a major affordance of ES is to provide greater control over employee’s work behavior and a company’s operations (Lowe and Locke, 2008; Maas et al., 2014). Many scholars have noted that the ES structuredness and formality are key enablers for increasing organizational control. For instance, Sia et al. (2002) found that ES afford managers a greater ability to verify procedural adherence of internal processes by gathering, tracking, reporting, and analyzing structured information. Clark (2012) extended this view by describing the potentials of leveraging the information in ES for additionally improving external processes control (e.g. outsourcing partners).

Together with greater control, ES also afford an increase in efficiency of operations and productivity, as well as information sharing between distinct departments and divisions. Prior research has highlighted this particular affordance of ES in several studies (Lau, 2004; Hendricks et al., 2007; Park and Park, 2015). Whether through process, functional, or layout standards, regulated and normalized information collection, exchange, and presentation has been of utmost importance for attaining superior efficiency (Gattiker and Goodhue, 2004; Rachuri et al., 2008).

Standardized information collection and exchange has also largely improved interoperability within and partially also across firms (Vernadat, 2007; Bharadwaj et al., 2013). ES built upon rule-based systems, agent architectures, inference engines, and other technologies have helped to overcome semantic heterogeneities such that information sharing – to some extent – could be automatized.

Lastly, ES has allowed companies to align strategic, informational, and operational needs (Bendoly and Jacobs, 2004; Velcu, 2010; Mamoghli et al., 2015). Because institutional structures develop cumulatively over time as organizations interact with their environment, ES have supported this constant alignment by vertically, horizontally, and technically integrating – to a large extent – structured information for ultimately improving decision support capability as well as control over recipients and timing of information exchange (Seethamraju and Seethamraju, 2009; Trinh et al., 2012).

An affordance perspective on social technologies

With the proliferation of the social paradigm and the fact that the Web 2.0 has permeated almost every part of our private and business life, more recent studies have also started to explore the organizational affordances of social technologies (Majchrzak et al., 2013; Treem and Leonardi, 2013; Ellison et al., 2015).

The reviewed literature revealed that a key affordance of social technologies is to make behaviors, preferences, relationships, and knowledge unrestrictedly perceptible to others (Cross et al., 2003; Leonardi, 2014). According to Treem and Leonardi (2013), this increased visibility has the potential to present information communally, which means contributions can be easily located and viewed by other co-workers, as well as even generate meta-knowledge that is not available in any traditional ES knowledge repository or elsewhere. In addition, posts, comments, status updates, votes, revisions, and other forms of information sharing frequently afford improved transparency of ongoing organizational activities (Zhao and Rosson, 2009).

An additional affordance of social technologies is the ability to make information accessible to co-workers without restrictions or expiration date. Many scholars have noted that persistence is a major characteristic of social technologies since they afford a robust way of communicating, which is hard to destroy or compromise (Treem and Leonardi, 2013), and in most instances also permit new ways of content creation and storage beyond structured forms as used predominantly in ES (Ellison et al., 2015).

Since persistence and visibility enable information-sharing practices that persist over time, and as such can cause consequences long after the initial point of sharing, social technologies frequently allow users to modify or revise content they have already communicated, including straightforward acts such as editing a spelling error or deleting content (Treem and Leonardi, 2013). The affordance of editability, such as implemented in open-editing and consensus-seeking structures in social technologies, thereby not only facilitates employees to edit, revise, and alter organizational content, but also considerably enhance the quality of shared information (Arazy et al., 2009).

By definition, social technologies enable the creation and disclosure of social connections. In doing so, associations are established between individuals or between individuals and content. In its original form, social technologies afford users to articulate person-to-person relationships as well as the belonging to a group (Ellison et al., 2015). In addition, research revealed that social technologies could also be used for making a claim on or establishing an explicit association with shared information. Following Treem and Leonardi (2013), these explicit associations regarding the source, quality, and usefulness of information may foster novel participatory and collaborative forms of working and improve content use in organizations.

Tensions between ES and social technology: The ESS melting pot dilemma

Merging the two systems and worldviews creates tensions, which in one way or another influences information-sharing behavior of business users (Allen, 2005). Conversely, information sharing is a crucial prerequisite for ESS to function properly (Carbone et al., 2012). Before we have a closer look at the determinants of information sharing, we will now examine the tensions between ES and social technologies in more detail (cf. Figure 1).
Figure 1

Affordances and tensions between social technologies and enterprise systems.

Prior research has shown that increased information sharing generally has the potential to improve a company’s productivity, flexibility, innovation, and learning (Lee et al., 2000; Fu-Ren et al., 2002; Wu, 2008). Consequently, the belief that information sharing is a standard, correct, and socially expected behavior at work has long been an underlying assumption of many research studies and a sufficient reason not to question otherwise (Wittenbaum et al., 2004). It is not surprising, therefore, that research in the area of social software also frequently follows this belief. For instance, Bruno et al. (2011) argue that social software is built according to the ideas of egalitarianism, weak ties, co-production, and collaboration with the intention of ‘encouraging a maximum of contributors and of getting the best solution by fusing a high number of contributions.’ More enthusiastically, Cyphers (2008) states that social software will empower business users to become ‘fearless and willing to engage with co-workers, customers, vendors, and executives to find solutions and create systems that are for the good of the whole.’ This is in contrast to the rather conditional information exchange practices in ES.

As we have demonstrated in the previous section, a motivation to use social technologies is the increased visibility, persistence, and externalization of existing or emergent associations. However, this contrasts the urge for organizational control. ES comprise many governance mechanisms, which not only restrict how information is generated and presented, but also how users may access and distribute information. Accordingly, the use of social technologies may create a tension in that ES formal socialization efforts, based on strict control of information doled out to employees, may become undermined by widespread informal communication (Zhao and Rosson, 2009).

According to Wang et al. (2011), this informality will enhance harmonious, social interaction. But the possibilities to persistently edit, revise, and alter organizational information may diminish efficiency and possibly also interoperability, since information will be rather weakly structured, semantically loaded, continuously changing, and therefore difficult to integrate in well-structured ES environments (Bruno et al., 2011). These spontaneous, informal social interactions between individuals and content additionally create a tension related to the rather well-planned and centralized efforts to align organizational functions and processes within and across a firm (Bendoly and Jacobs, 2004; Mamoghli et al., 2015).

Determinants of information sharing in ess settings

Without doubt, ESS open up many new opportunities for companies to share and make use of information within and across their own boundaries. As we will describe in the next sections, the application of social features by Internet-enabled ESS, such as social bookmarking and rating of suppliers, establishes many improvements compared with traditional, not socially enhanced ES. However, the previously discussed tensions may influence a business user’s willingness of information sharing, the kind of information that is shared, and expectancy of the returns from information sharing.

Relatively little research has explored the concept of information sharing in the context of ESS. Although a number of studies suggest that information sharing in business contexts follows different rules from those in private life, the reasons for differing behaviors are still unclear (Du et al., 2012; von Krogh, 2012).

In this section we therefore describe the major determinants of information sharing in ESS settings. A better understanding of this phenomenon is important because it may allow software vendors and ESS companies to establish more effective incentive mechanisms that are specifically designed to encourage the sharing of highly business-relevant information (Manatsa and McLaren, 2008).

Organizational ownership of information

Constant et al. (1994) have shown that information sharing in business contexts is significantly affected by organizational norms, intellectual property rights, and other forms of organizational control. Whereas in private life, the information that is shared typically belongs to oneself, organizational norms emphasize the idea that information, even if produced by an employee on his or her own, still remains the property of the company and as such must be used and protected for the greater good of the organization. As Constant et al. (1994) state: ‘This norm implies that an information outcome of work such as an idea, process, invention, document, or computer program that an employee creates or acquires at work or using organizational resources actually belongs to the employer rather than to the employee.’

Empirical evaluation of their model attested that employees have different attitudes about different types of information sharing. The study results implied that expertise is perceived less as an organizational possession than is information as a product. However, more recent research has shown that perceptions of self-ownership and organizational ownership frequently coexist (Kwan and Cheung, 2006). Regardless of the type of information that is shared, Jarvenpaa and Staples (2001) found that employers are more likely to assign organizational ownership to their work when they have a propensity to share.

Although it remains controversial how employees form their beliefs on information ownership, it seems reasonable to posit that organizational norms and intellectual property rights may negatively influence information-sharing behavior in ESS. In other words, the stronger an employee feels that the information he or she is supposed to share belongs to the company, the greater are his or her concerns about actually disclosing the information in ESS. The negative impact of restrictive organizational ownership norms on information sharing is also supported by empirical findings from Constant et al. (1994) and Jarvenpaa and Staples (2001). This reasoning leads to the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1(a):

  • Organizational ownership norms are negatively related to information sharing in ESS.

In contrast, however, organizational norms could also unleash positive effects. Findings in the area of data governance suggest that the production, retention, and retirement of user-generated content are heavily influenced by the existence of and the company’s ability to assert organizational standards (Khatri and Brown, 2010). Furthermore, when organizational norms are reinforced by monetary and nonmonetary incentives, it was found that the quality of information sharing significantly increased with both individualistic and collectivistic employees (Wolfe and Loraas, 2008). Following this rationale, organizational ownership norms may motivate users to improve the quality of the information they share in ESS. We therefore hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1(b):

  • Organizational ownership norms are positively related to the quality of user-generated information in ESS.

Reciprocity and social cohesion

Information sharing takes both time and effort. Whereas in the social software context, information sharing is frequently assumed to be self-motivational, hedonic, or altruistic (Hsu and Lin, 2008; Chai et al., 2011), evidence from the ES context instead suggests economically motivated or egoistic behavior, which often leads to collective irrationality (Chen and Hung, 2010). A popular example that is often discussed in this stream of research is the public goods dilemma, referring to a situation in which certain individuals consume a shared resource without contributing to its provision. According to Wasko and Faraj (2000), organizational information can also be considered a public good, and as such, a temptation for individuals to free-ride exists. The lack of sufficient extrinsic or intrinsic rewards to compensate self-interested individuals for the costs of information sharing thus becomes a common barrier to that sharing (Huber, 2001).

However, research on organizational knowledge exchange has shown that reciprocity and social cohesion have opposite effects on self-interested information-sharing behavior. Contrary to altruistic behavior, which internalizes unconditional kindness, reciprocity can be understood as the tendency to be more cooperative in response to a previous or a future condition. Positive reciprocity emerges in response to a friendly action, negative reciprocity in fear of a retaliatory action. In both cases, empirical evidence exists that reciprocity may serve as a strong motivational mechanism to expedite information sharing (Kankanhalli et al., 2005). Furthermore, multiple research studies have observed that although information sharing in online networks typically occurs through weak ties, users who regularly help others – hence build strong associations with others (see previous section) – appear to receive support more quickly when they ask for it. By reason of regular interaction, these weak social ties become more substantial and may attract or attach a person to a peer group. These ties can even lead to what is called social cohesion or contagion, referring to a phenomenon in which individuals’ preferences and actions are influenced by interpersonal contact, impacting the aggregate diffusion and spread of behaviors, ideas, or epidemics (Carless and De Paola, 2000).

A number of studies on social cohesion have shown that there is an important link between positive interpersonal experiences – for example, those induced by reciprocal actions – and individual levels of involvement in the network (Friedkin, 2004).

In line with Chui et al. (2012), we thus expect the influences of reciprocal and socially cohesive behavior to positively affect information sharing in ESS. This leads to the second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2(a):

  • Reciprocity and social cohesion are positively related to information sharing in ESS.

Moreover, peer pressure and exposure – due to increased visibility and persistence – may also motivate individuals to share and generate high-value information (Ghosh and McAfee, 2011), especially in non-anonymous professional service networks in which information can be traced back to the person who shared it. In this sense, we expect that reciprocity and social cohesion may also enhance the quality of information shared within an ESS. This is captured by the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2(b):

  • Reciprocity and social cohesion are positively related to the quality of user-generated information in ESS.

Quality of shared information

As discussed earlier, voluntarily contributing data, information, or media is one of the key ideas of social software. Compared with ES, in which the exchanged information is rather structured and transactional or analytical in nature (Kelle and Akbulut, 2005), the shared information in ESS can take many forms such as product or service reviews, comments on news articles or blog posts, and responses on discussion boards or question-answer forums, and it can have extremely varying levels of quality. Particularly, the quality issue is more pertinent in the context of unstructured, business-critical reviews and ratings because these influence trust and future congenial collaboration with others.

A large body of research in the domain of supply chain management has therefore addressed the question of if and how information sharing is connected to information quality (Li and Lin, 2006). A number of studies suppose a strong interrelation between information sharing and information quality. Hartono et al. (2010), for instance, found that sharing high-quality information among supply chain partners was positively related to both the supply chain’s operational performance and the firm’s overall performance. Nicolaou et al. (2013) note that sharing information within an enterprise network can enhance collaboration – as long as the information is accurate and timely. Because firms generally perceive information disclosure as a loss of power and control (Zhao and Rosson, 2009), it is therefore important to improve the quality of the information being shared so that it is as accurate as possible and presents a value-add to a rather protectionist information-sharing behavior (Li and Lin, 2006). In other words, the better the quality of the information shared within an ESS, the more likely it is that users will also adopt a positive sharing attitude. Hence, these arguments suggest that the quality of user-generated information is a critical determinant of information sharing in ESS. We therefore hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3:

  • The quality of user-generated information is positively related to information sharing in ESS.

Privacy concerns

The influence of privacy concerns on information-sharing behavior has largely been explored in social software and e-commerce (Smith et al., 2011; Conger et al., 2013). In particular, it has been shown that the vast majority of private users have limited-to-reasonable trust in online networks (Conti and Sobiesk, 2007) and that privacy risks negatively affect users’ attitudes toward self-disclosure (Krasnova et al., 2010). As shown by Malhotra et al. (2004), risk and trusting beliefs critically determine information sharing in private settings.

Although the type of information that is exchanged is different in business contexts, multiple studies have found that lack of trust and concerns about disclosing business-sensitive information hinder voluntary and open inter-organizational interchange (Li et al., 2006). Studies have shown that privacy concerns are higher when the business relationship is more casual and short term (Du et al., 2012). Moreover, additional studies have found evidence that business users are also more worried about security breaches (Morris et al., 2014) or the sharing and use of information by unauthorized employees (Morabito, 2014), possibly jeopardizing the reputation of the firm. Accordingly, privacy concerns could constitute a major inhibiting factor for information sharing in ESS. The above arguments therefore lead to our last hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4:

  • Privacy concerns are negatively related to information sharing in ESS.

Research approach

In order to answer our research questions and test our hypotheses, this study primarily uses a design experiment methodology, as suggested by Mettler et al. (2014), to collect user perceptions based on practical, real-life scenarios. Our design experiment consists of two parts: The first part of our design experiments gives business users the opportunity to gather how social design features can be integrated naturally into an ESS scenario. This is important because traditional ES users may not be familiar with the use of social software in an organizational setting. Moreover, it provides this research with the necessary contextual anchoring as it helps to recognize under which conditions a business user is more or less disposed to share information.

The second part of the experiment aims at obtaining a more general understanding of business users’ attitudes toward sharing in ESS and, in doing so, serves us to test the previously formulated hypotheses (cf. Figure 2).
Figure 2

Overall research model of this study.

Experimental setting

For our design experiment, we created multiple clickable and navigable mockups based on the user interface of SAP Business ByDesign (BBD). We used BBD because it is an example of a fully integrated, on-demand ES that relies heavily on web technology and as such is extensible by web services and accessible by a simple web browser. Having said this, it is imaginable that traditional processes could be easily redesigned toward using socially and Internet-enabled features. Figure 3 illustrates a possible use scenario (‘supplier recommendations’) in the context of supplier base management.
Figure 3

Possible realization of Internet-enabled supplier recommendations with SAP Business ByDesign.

More specifically, this example shows the integration of two design features that are widely used in social media and e-commerce websites: Instead of relying on the company’s own experiences with a supplier, the implementation of a social reputation score, as used, for example, on eBay, Klout, PeerIndex and the like, allows a purchasing manager to rate and see how other companies perceive a supplier’s performance. By means of an additional social bookmarking or tagging feature, the purchasing manager may add, annotate, and share additional information about a supplier, which can be helpful for other companies to better comprehend why a particular rating decision was made.

Similar mockups were designed for other functional areas of traditional ES, such as campaign management, human resources, logistics, and travel management. In addition, much emphasis was placed on selecting and describing diverse use scenarios that addressed both structured (III+IV) and unstructured (I+II) and both operational (I+III) and strategic (II+IV) forms of information sharing (cf. Figure 4). Each mockup was also accompanied by a detailed description of the purpose, scope, and possible functioning. The intention was to give users of traditional ES a better understanding of (a) the type of information that is shared within ESS and (b) the possible benefits and risks that come with the implementation of Internet-enabled design features in ESS.
Figure 4

Selection of possible ESS use scenarios covered in this study.

Data collection and procedure

The design experiment ran for 6 months (November 2009 to April 2010), during which time 166 users were asked to click through the design mockups and to subsequently answer the online questionnaire. Participants were recruited through thematic promotional releases in magazines (15.0%), a link on the researchers’ website (19.9%), and mailed letters (65.1%). Approximately 50.6% of the users had accumulated over 25 years of practical experience, working mainly in mechanical engineering (23.8%) or manufacturing (23.4%) companies. Most participants were executives (33.1%) or mid-level managers working in procurement (22.3%), production (13.9%), or logistics (12.7%). All demographic characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Sample characteristics (n=166)

Characteristic

N

%

Characteristic

N

%

Line of businessa

  

Job type

  

 Automotive

25

11.7

 Executive

55

33.1

 Construction

18

8.4

 IT

7

4.2

 Electrical engineering

12

5.6

 Logistics

21

12.7

 Manufacturing

50

23.4

 Procurement

37

22.3

 Mechanical engineering

51

23.8

 Production

23

13.9

 Metal processing

20

9.3

 R&D

10

6.0

 Plastics

10

4.7

 Sales

13

7.8

 Other

28

13.1

   

Experience in business

  

Experience in position

  

 25 years or less

82

49.4

 5 years or less

49

29.5

 Over 25 years

84

50.6

 Over 5 years

117

70.5

Country of origin

  

Supplier base

  

 Germany

107

64.5

 <100

46

27.7

 Italy

20

12.0

 100–200

44

26.5

 Spain

37

22.3

 201–500

38

22.9

 Switzerland

2

1.2

 >500

38

22.9

Company size

  

Monthly transactions

  

 <15

14

8.5

 <100

63

38.0

 15–50

15

9.1

 100–200

24

14.5

 51–250

54

32.7

 201–500

31

18.7

 251–1000

45

27.3

 500–5000

35

21.1

 >1000

38

23

 >5000

13

7.8

aNote: Multiple selections were possible.

In order to explore as many use scenarios as possible and to test for significant differences regarding formal (i.e. more likely restricted and conditional) or rather social implementations of information sharing (i.e. more likely open and altruistic), we decided to define two experimental groups.

Based on random assignment, one group of users (47.6%) was provided with design mockups and descriptions that implied a self-motivational, hedonic, or altruistic realization of the use scenarios – that is, a setting in which information is openly shared without any rewards. The second group of users (52.4%) received the same design mockups, but the use scenario descriptions differed in that any information sharing was strictly anonymous and, to some extent, rewarded with monetary or nonmonetary incentives. After each mockup, the participants were asked via pop-up window whether they wanted to adopt such a use scenario or not. We used a 5-point Likert scale anchored with ‘1=very likely’ and ‘5=very unlikely’ for this rating.

In the second part of the experiment, all participants had to answer the same set of questions so that we could determine which factors positively or negatively influence users to share their information in ESS. To operationalize the constructs, we derived measurement items that either had been applied and validated in prior research or the wording for which was modified in order to fit the context of this study. By means of a structured sorting exercise as suggested by Moore and Benbasat (1991) with 15 volunteers, a number of items with low inter-item correlations within a construct were eliminated. The final list of items is presented in Table 2. A 5-point Likert scale anchored with ‘1=strongly agree’ and ‘5=strongly disagree’ was used for ordinal items, with all constructs in the study modeled as being reflective.
Table 2

Construct operationalization

Construct

Item

Item text

Attitude toward information sharing (self-developed)

AIS1

I’m open to sharing information on ESS

 

AIS2

I find it useful to share information on ESS

 

AIS3

Overall, sharing information on ESS will generally improve my decision-making

Privacy concerns (partly based on Malhotra et al., 2004)

PC1

I feel uneasy sharing my work experiences and company-owned information on ESS

 

PC2

I don’t find it secure enough to share my information on ESS

 

PC3

Overall, I find it risky to share information on ESS

Organizational ownership norms (partly based on Constant et al., 1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2001)

OON1

I feel that organizational ownership norms hinder my sharing information on ESS

 

OON2

I would share information on ESS more openly if the information belonged to me

 

OON3

Organizational ownership norms force me to adhere to a certain standard of information quality

Reciprocity and social cohesion (partly based on Carless and de Paola, 2000)

RSC1

Sharing information on ESS will not only be helpful to others but also help me in reaching my performance goals

 

RSC2

For me, sharing work experiences is important for relating with peers of other companies

 

RSC3

In my profession, everybody looks out for each other; sharing information is normal

Quality of shared information (self-developed)

IQ1

I feel that the quality of information in an ESS is superior to that in closed systems

 

IQ2

Overall, I feel more motivated to share when the quality of shared information on the ESS is good

 

IQ3

I feel reluctant to share my experiences when the quality of shared information on the ESS is low (Reversed)

Data analysis

We used descriptive statistics along with box plots to analyze the first part of the experiment. For the second part, we applied partial least squares (PLS) analysis using SmartPLS software, version 2.0 for modeling construct dependencies and estimating quality criteria and effect sizes. A major advantage of using PLS, compared with other statistical techniques, is the fact that it does not depend on having multivariate normally distributed data and can be used with relatively small sample sizes (Chin, 1998). We chose PLS in order to overcome problematic model identification issues since it is a powerful method for analyzing complex models using smaller samples with few distributional assumptions (Ringle et al., 2012). Applying PLS, however, means specifying two distinct models, a structural model that describes the relationships or paths among structural dimensions and a measurement model that links the constructs with a set of operational measures. It is common to first examine the reliability and validity of the measurement model and second to test the significance of the structural model.

For the former, a number of quality criteria were considered. The coefficient Cronbach’s alpha (α) was applied to determine the reliability of the operationalized constructs. According to Cortina (1993), the values for α should be greater than or equal to 0.8 for a good scale, 0.7 for an acceptable scale, and 0.6 for a scale that will be used for exploratory purposes. As can be observed from Table 3, all constructs met these requirements.
Table 3

Reliability and inter-construct correlations

Construct

AIS

LR

OON

PC

IQ

Cronbach’s alpha

Composite reliability

AVE

Attitude toward information sharing (AIS)

1.00

    

0.75

0.81

0.59

Privacy concerns (PC)

0.33

1.00

   

0.74

0.80

0.58

Organizational ownership norms (OON)

0.31

0.26

1.00

  

0.75

0.81

0.58

Reciprocity and social cohesion(RSC)

0.33

0.35

0.15

1.00

 

0.78

0.81

0.59

Quality of shared information (IQ)

0.27

0.27

0.21

0.31

1.00

0.74

0.76

0.52

Because α is biased against short scales of two or three items, which typically leads to an underestimation of reliability, we also examined the internal consistency of the constructs using the composite reliability measure. Following Chin (1998), values should be greater than 0.6 for exploratory purposes and greater than 0.7 for an adequate confirmatory model. All of the measured constructs did comply with this criterion as well.

Convergent validity can be examined in terms of item loadings and average variance extracted (AVE). AVE captures the amount of explained variance relative to the total amount of variance and is considered sufficient if it is equal to 0.5 or more (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), which was the case with our measurement model. With regard to the item loadings, values greater than 0.7 are considered acceptable (Hulland, 1999). As shown in Table 4, our item loadings are admissible.
Table 4

Item loadings and cross-loadings

Item

Mean

SD

AIS

LR

OON

PC

IQ

AIS1

2.33

0.73

0.76

0.51

0.09

0.41

0.31

AIS2

2.20

0.50

0.74

0.53

0.21

0.47

0.32

AIS3

2.70

0.86

0.80

0.50

0.38

0.39

0.65

PC1

2.02

0.50

0.58

0.78

0.19

0.37

0.32

PC2

2.65

0.96

0.51

0.77

0.24

0.33

0.54

PC3

2.38

1.01

0.41

0.73

0.15

0.37

0.48

OON1

2.16

0.72

0.19

0.13

0.75

0.07

0.38

OON2

1.97

0.66

0.23

0.19

0.79

0.05

0.39

OON3

2.11

0.84

0.27

0.25

0.75

0.19

0.39

RSC1

2.89

0.83

0.57

0.46

0.08

0.87

0.28

RSC2

2.86

0.96

0.30

0.23

0.13

0.70

0.10

RSC3

3.04

0.96

0.33

0.32

0.17

0.74

0.30

IQ1

2.49

0.85

0.43

0.44

0.44

0.23

0.72

IQ2

2.30

0.79

0.48

0.46

0.34

0.22

0.80

IQ3

2.06

0.92

0.31

0.33

0.32

0.22

0.70

Note: Bold values are loadings of items on their own construct, while others are cross-loadings.

Lastly, discriminant validity is given when the square root of the AVE for each construct is larger than its corresponding inter-construct correlation coefficients and the individual item loadings are above 0.5 for their associated constructs (Chin, 1998). From Table 3, it can be observed that the inter-construct correlations were very low. Although the extracted variance per construct was at the lower acceptable end, discriminant validity is still assured.

Having established measurement validity and reliability, we estimated each path coefficient’s significance in accordance with Bollen and Stine (1992) by applying the bootstrapping sampling method with 500 resamples. PLS does not generate an overall goodness-of-fit index for the proposed research model because it does not attempt to minimize residual item covariance or make any distributional assumptions. Consequently, the R-squared (R2) values and structural paths’ t-values were examined instead (Chin, 1998). Effect sizes were calculated by means of the SmartPLS path weighting scheme. The results are discussed in detail in the next section.

Results

The results of the first part of our design experiment are illustrated in Figure 5. The box-plot diagram shows the differences in information-sharing willingness across test groups and use scenarios.
Figure 5

Contextual anchoring: Differences in information-sharing willingness across test groups and use scenarios.

Overall, no clear preference for using social design features in structured (III and IV) or unstructured (I and II) use scenarios was found. However, it does appear that there was a tendency to prefer using social design features in operational (I and III) rather than in strategic (II and IV) use scenarios. Interestingly, use scenarios that incorporated social design features for ratings and reviews were rated less positively than were scenarios that contained more self- expressional features such as blogs/micro-blogs or wikis.

Distinctive differences in information-sharing willingness were, however, identified between the two test groups. It was found that the users who were given the design mockups and descriptions that implied a completely self-motivational, altruistic, and open realization of the use scenarios (group 2) were generally less inclined to share information. On the contrary, the users who received the use scenario descriptions that suggested strictly anonymous information exchange (group 1) tended to be more positive about disclosing information.

In general, the responses of the first group indicated that the participants were less willing to share information compared with the group that was promised a reward as compensation for their time and effort in sharing information. Only in a few cases, such as the use scenarios ‘employee benefits programs’, ‘recruiting recommendations’ or ‘employee reviews,’ participants, who were assigned to the group with the rather altruistic and open suggestions of the use scenarios, were slightly more positive.

Table 5 presents the results of the second part of our design experiment – that is, hypothesis evaluation concerning the determinants that positively or negatively influence business users to share their information in ESS. As can be seen, the t-values obtained for the tested relationships ranged from 0.52 to 5.78, indicating that not all paths were significant. Notably, our design experiment revealed that the relationship between organizational ownership and attitude toward information sharing in ESS was not significant. This is interesting because it could mean that today’s organizational ownership norms either do not overly restrict sharing behavior or that business users simply care less than has been previously reported (e.g. Constant et al., 1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2001). Nevertheless, organizational ownership norms have an extremely high impact on the quality of shared information (P=0.48, t=5.78, P<0.001), which in turn directly influences information-sharing attitudes (P=0.23, t=2.17, P < 0.05). In addition, reciprocity and social cohesion also had reasonable positive effects on the quality of the shared information (P=0.25, t=3.37, P<0.01) and on information-sharing attitudes (P=0.29, t=3.40, P<0.01). Despite these positive influences, our research model also showed a strong impact of privacy concerns on attitudes toward sharing information in ESS (P=0.39, t=5.90, P<0.001). Figure 6 graphically summarizes the results of our structural model estimation. The implications of the obtained results are more thoroughly discussed in the following section.
Table 5

Standardized path coefficients, t-values and hypothesis evaluation

Hypothesis

Path description

Path coefficient (P)

t-value

Result

H1a

Organizational ownership→Attitude toward information sharing

0.05

0.52

Not significant

H1b

Organizational ownership→Quality of shared information

0.48

5.78

Significant***

H2a

Reciprocity and social cohesion→Attitude toward information sharing

0.29

3.40

Significant**

H2b

Reciprocity and social cohesion→Quality of shared information

0.25

3.37

Significant**

H3

Quality of shared information→Attitude toward information sharing

0.23

2.17

Significant*

H4

Privacy concerns→Attitude toward information sharing

0.39

5.90

Significant***

Note: Significance at *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001.

Figure 6

Results of structural model estimation with significance at *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001.

Discussion

The results of our experiment revealed that business users in an enterprise environment are more self-interested and calculating than are private users in regard to sharing information. This contrasts with the general idea of social software, which frequently follows the concept that information is voluntarily and openly shared for the sake of self-expression and social engagement (McAfee, 2009). Consequently, we believe that the notion of being ‘social’ within the concept of ESS needs to be revisited or at least be contextualized more precisely. Social software functionalities can certainly be fruitfully integrated into ES for improving collaboration and communication within and across enterprise departments (e.g., as more flexible ways to share knowledge, for chitchatting, or to engage with colleagues), thus being in line with the very reasons that ES were designed for. We believe, however, that the value of applying social design features in ES is highly context-dependent when enterprise-sensitive information is shared (e.g., ratings and reviews of customers and suppliers, experiences with internal or external service providers, company-specific cost or revenue information). For such use scenarios, our results showed that reciprocity and the quality of information to be obtained as compensation were strong motivators for business users to utilize social design features or not. In contrast, privacy concerns greatly reduced business users’ positive attitudes toward information sharing. It is therefore not surprising that the analysis also revealed a strong preference of business users to remain anonymous and to be rewarded for the potential risks they took when sharing information in our use scenarios. It is, however, worth noting that the assumed risks were not necessarily related to the infringement of organizational ownership or intellectual property norms. Significantly, business users simply found it unsafe to share business-critical information with others in an ESS environment.

Implications for practice

Despite the mentioned concern that there is a need for a more contextualized and practical definition of the term ESS, our experiment has demonstrated that business users – depending on the specific use scenario – could imagine actively using globally interconnected and interpersonal ESS, even for sharing enterprise-sensitive information. Following on this, we see three specific, actionable implications of the current study.

First, if business users really should be using social features in ES, software vendors need to consider actively incentivizing and motivating them. Our experiment showed that business users are more willing to share when they are promised some type of reward. This does not necessarily mean that a financial exchange mechanism needs to be designed. Current research has provided evidence that gamification and reputation-based incentives could also be beneficially applied in enterprise environments in order to positively influence user behavior (Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011; Maan, 2013).

Second, software vendors need to take privacy concerns seriously and have a strong intuition in selecting and designing secure and privacy-preserving ESS use scenarios. In addition, a clear description of how and where the information is stored and who (within and outside of the company) will be able to retrieve and possibly modify it is also recommended. This may help to reduce privacy concerns, which based on our study findings had a major influence on business users’ information-sharing behavior in the ESS context.

Third, software vendors need to consider group dynamics when implementing ESS use scenarios. As with the private use of social software, our analysis revealed that social cohesion and reciprocity also had a positive effect on business users’ information-sharing behavior. However, although social group effects can certainly be used as triggers for improving information-sharing behavior, they can also raise additional concerns. Our analysis indicates that in particular, use scenarios that implemented socially enhanced ratings and reviews were less well received. In this sense, any use scenario that possibly jeopardizes personal relationships with other users or companies should be approached with great caution. This may also explain the strong preference of business users for using anonymous rather than open information-sharing procedures.

Implications for theory and research

The results of this study also suggest a range of relevant implications for future research. As already mentioned earlier, there is a need to further shape the concept of ESS. Our study explored different ways that social design features can be integrated into ES environments and studied the corresponding user reactions to these use scenarios. Although our results suggest that business users are influenced by a number of factors in their decisions to accept or reject ESS use scenarios, we did not determine which exact combinations of use scenario characteristics (e.g., structured vs unstructured or strategic vs operational sharing) or social features (e.g., weblogs, wikis, reputation systems) could also be of relevance for these decisions. Accordingly, future research could more closely investigate users, use scenarios, and instantiations of social design features in ES environments in order to better comprehend the scope and use-specific value of ESS. This may certainly facilitate a more accurate definition and limitation of the meaning and a possible approximation of varying connotations of ESS.

Moreover, a more general reflection with respect to the compatibility of the social and business world is required. Our study showed that business users’ motivations might differ from those of private users, which will undoubtedly affect how social design features are used and how value is appropriated. Thus, there is also the exigency for more practical case studies and empirical evidence on how ESS are designed, adapted, and used in different industrial and nonindustrial settings in order to better determine the commonalities and possible differences in social technology usage and to capture the potential for businesses.

Limitations and conclusion

In this paper, we have suggested that investigating business users’ underlying motivations and doubts about information sharing may represent a useful starting point for better understanding why ESS possibly are not unfolding their full potential. We have shown that the willingness to share information in ESS is limited, particularly with enterprise-sensitive information such as employee, product and service reviews or supplier and customer base ratings; that reciprocity, social cohesion, and high-quality user-generated information positively affect information sharing in ESS; and that privacy concerns have a strong negative effect, whereas organizational ownership norms do not directly influence information sharing in ESS.

From a practical perspective, our findings may be helpful to further improve the design of ESS and inspire new ways to incentivize participation and sharing in the business context.

This paper also presents a promising avenue for exploring potential further theoretical considerations related to the implementation and adoption of ES and ESS.

This study is of course not without limitations. In order to familiarize business users with the idea of ESS in general, and with using social design features for sharing enterprise-sensitive information in particular, we created a number of clickable and navigable mockups. In doing so, our experiment only measured the business user’s first-time experience or perception based on a possible realization of an ESS. Our experiment did not, however, measure actual, long-lasting experiences in real use environments. Furthermore, the validity of our findings is limited to ESS use scenarios in which sharing enterprise-sensitive information is a central component. We thus did not focus on use scenarios that supported other aims such as retrieval, filtering, or extraction of information using social design features. In addition, because of the novelty of the ESS concept and the lack of prevailing reference studies, the majority of the scales and the items on the corresponding user survey were self-developed and are thus exploratory. Arguably, further evaluations should also include considerations regarding the criticality of the shared information, which we did not consider in our experiment. Finally, also further technological developments have happened since our initial data collection in 2009–2010. Accordingly, it is possible that our design experiments do not cover all the possibilities for integrating social design features in ESS that are available today.

With the results of our study in mind, it can be assumed that in the future, the integration of social design features in ES environments could be viable and could provide business users with additional value over traditional ES solutions. We believe that the presented use scenarios for interpersonal and globally interconnected ESS are a first approximation of what will not only be technically feasible but also socially accepted and demanded by prospective business users.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the editors and reviewers of this paper for their insightful comments that have greatly improved its content and presentation. They also want to acknowledge Andrea Giessmann for her support of data collection and Hanna Krasnova for her comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. The authors would also like to extend their gratitude to Dr. Albert Bühler-Reindl-Fonds of the University of St. Gallen for their financial support.

References

  1. Allen, J.P. (2005). Value Conflicts in Enterprise Systems, Information Technology & People 18 (1): 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arazy, O., Gellatly, I., Soobaek, J. and Patterson, R. (2009). Wiki Deployment in Corporate Settings, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 28 (2): 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bendoly, E. and Jacobs, F.R. (2004). ERP Architectural/Operational Alignment for Order‐Processing Performance, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24 (1): 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O.A., Pavlou, P.A. and Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital Business Strategy: Toward a next generation of insights, MIS Quarterly 37 (2): 471–482.Google Scholar
  6. Bollen, K.A. and Stine, R.A. (1992). Bootstrapping Goodness-of-Fit Measures in Structural Equation Models, Sociological Methods & Research 21 (2): 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonabeau, E. (2009). Decisions 2.0: The power of collective intelligence, MIT Sloan Management Review 50 (2): 45–52.Google Scholar
  8. Bruno, G., Dengier, F., Jennings, B., Khalaf, R., Nurcan, S., Prilla, M., Sarini, M., Schmidt, R. and Silva, R. (2011). Key Challenges for Enabling Agile BPM with Social Software, Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 23 (4): 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carbone, F., Contreras, J., Hernández, J.Z. and Gomez-Perez, J.M. (2012). Open Innovation in an Enterprise 3.0 Framework: Three case studies, Expert Systems with Applications 39 (10): 8929–8939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carless, S.A. and De Paola, C. (2000). The Measurement of Cohesion in Work Teams, Small Group Research 31 (1): 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chai, S., Das, S. and Rao, H.R. (2011). Factors Affecting Bloggers’ Knowledge Sharing: An investigation across gender, Journal of Management Information Systems 28 (3): 309–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, C.-J. and Hung, S.-W. (2010). To Give or to Receive? Factors Influencing Members’ Knowledge Sharing and Community Promotion in Professional Virtual Communities, Information & Management 47 (4): 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chin, W.W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling, in G.A. Macoulides (ed.) Modern Methods for Business Research, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 295–336.Google Scholar
  14. Chui, M., Manyika, J., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., Sarrazin, H., Sands, G. and Westergren, M. (2012). The Social Economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies, Seoul et al.: McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, J.W. (2012). The Strategic Role of Business Intelligence in the Extended Enterprise: BI configurations for control affordances in outsourcing, in 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (Maui, HI, USA, 2012); Chicago: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 4199–4208.Google Scholar
  16. Conger, S., Pratt, J.H. and Loch, K.D. (2013). Personal Information Privacy and Emerging Technologies, Information Systems Journal 23 (5): 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Constant, D., Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1994). What's Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes About Information Sharing, Information Systems Research 5 (4): 400–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conti, G. and Sobiesk, E. (2007). An Honest Man Has Nothing to Fear: User perceptions on web-based information disclosure, in 3rd Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2007); New York: ACM, pp. 112–121.Google Scholar
  19. Cook, N. (2010). Enterprise 2.0: How social software will change the future, Burlington: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Cortina, J.M. (1993). What is Coefficient Alpha? Examination of Theory and Applications, Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (1): 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P. and Parker, G. (2003). Making Invisible Work Visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration, California Management Review 44 (2): 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cyphers, M. (2008). Web 2.0, Creating a Culture Change [WWW document] http://dcwebdesigners.blogspot.ch/2008/08/web-20-creating-culture-change.html (accessed 12 August 2015).
  23. Davenport, T.H. (1998). Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System, Harvard Business Review 76 (4): 121–131.Google Scholar
  24. Dorantes, C.-A., Li, C., Peters, G.F. and Richardson, V.J. (2013). The Effect of Enterprise Systems Implementation on the Firm Information Environment, Contemporary Accounting Research 30 (4): 1427–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Du, T.C., Lai, V.S., Cheung, W. and Cui, X. (2012). Willingness to Share Information in a Supply Chain: A partnership-data-process perspective, Information & Management 49 (2): 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ellison, N.B., Gibbs, J.L. and Weber, M.S. (2015). The Use of Enterprise Social Network Sites for Knowledge Sharing in Distributed Organizations: The role of organizational affordances, American Behavioral Scientist 59 (1): 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fayard, A.-L. and Weeks, J. (2014). Affordances for Practice, Information and Organization 24 (4): 236–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equition Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Friedkin, N.E. (2004). Social Cohesion, Annual Review of Sociology 30 (1): 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fu-Ren, L., Sheng-hsiu, H. and Sheng-Cheng, L. (2002). Effects of Information Sharing on Supply Chain Performance in Electronic Commerce, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 49 (3): 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gattiker, T.F. and Goodhue, D.L. (2004). Understanding the Local-Level Costs and Benefits of ERP through Organizational Information Processing Theory, Information & Management 41 (4): 431–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ghosh, A. and McAfee, P. (2011). Incentivizing High-Quality User-Generated Content, in 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (Hyderabad, India, 2011); New York: ACM, pp. 137–146.Google Scholar
  33. Hartono, E., Li, X., Na, K.-S. and Simpson, J.T. (2010). The Role of the Quality of Shared Information in Interorganizational Systems Use, International Journal of Information Management 30 (5): 399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hendricks, K.B., Singhal, V.R. and Stratman, J.K. (2007). The Impact of Enterprise Systems on Corporate Performance: A study of ERP, SCM, and CRM system implementations, Journal of Operations Management 25 (1): 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hsu, C.-L. and Lin, JC.-C. (2008). Acceptance of Blog Usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation, Information & Management 45 (1): 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huang, S.Y., Huang, S.-M., Wu, T.-H. and Lin, W.-K. (2009). Process Efficiency of the Enterprise Resource Planning Adoption, Industrial Management and Data Systems 109 (8): 1085–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huber, G.P. (2001). Transfer of Knowledge in Knowledge Management Systems: Unexplored issues and suggested studies, European Journal of Information Systems 10 (2): 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management Research: A review of four recent studies, Strategic Management Journal 20 (2): 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Staples, D.S. (2001). Exploring Perceptions of Organizational Ownership of Information and Expertise, Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (1): 151–183.Google Scholar
  40. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. and Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An empirical investigation, MIS Quarterly 29 (1): 113–143.Google Scholar
  41. Kayas, O., McLean, R., Hines, T. and Wright, G. (2008). The Panoptic Gaze: Analysing the interaction between enterprise resource planning technology and organisational culture, International Journal of Information Management 28 (6): 446–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kelle, P. and Akbulut, A. (2005). The Role of ERP Tools in Supply Chain Information Sharing Cooperation, and Cost Optimization, International Journal of Production Economics 93–94: 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Khatri, V. and Brown, C.V. (2010). Designing Data Governance, Communications of the ACM 53 (1): 148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K. and Hildebrand, T. (2010). Online Social Networks: Why we disclose, Journal of Information Technology 25 (2): 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kwan, M.M. and Cheung, P.-K. (2006). The Knowledge Transfer Process: From field studies to technology development, Journal of Database Management 17 (1): 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lau, L.K. (2004). A Successful ERP Implementation Plan: Issues and challenges, in L.K. Lau (ed.) Managing Business with SAP: Planning, implementation and evaluation, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, pp. 126–134.Google Scholar
  47. Lee, H.L., So, K.C. and Tang, C.S. (2000). The Value of Information Sharing in a Two-Level Supply Chain, Management Science 46 (5): 626–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leonardi, P.M. (2011). When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies, MIS Quarterly 34 (1): 147–167.Google Scholar
  49. Leonardi, P.M. (2014). Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a theory of communication visibility, Information Systems Research 25 (4): 796–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Li, J., Sikora, R., Shaw, M.J. and Woo Tan, G. (2006). A Strategic Analysis of Inter Organizational Information Sharing, Decision Support Systems 42 (1): 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Li, S. and Lin, B. (2006). Accessing Information Sharing and Information Quality in Supply Chain Management, Decision Support Systems 42 (3): 1641–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Li, X., de Vrieze, P. and Lai, X. (2009). When Social Software Meets Business Process Management, in 4th International Conference on Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology (Seoul, Korea, 2009); Chicago: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 238–243.Google Scholar
  53. Lowe, A. and Locke, J. (2008). Enterprise Resource Planning and the Post Bureaucratic Organisation: ‘Formalization’ as trust in the system versus ‘solidarity’ as trust in individuals, Information Technology & People 21 (4): 375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Maan, J. (2013). Social Business Transformation through Gamification, International Journal of Managing Information Technology 5 (3): 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Maas, J.-B., van Fenema, P.C. and Soeters, J. (2014). ERP System Usage: The role of control and empowerment, New Technology, Work and Employment 29 (1): 88–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G.C. and Azad, B. (2013). The Contradictory Influence of Social Media Affordances on Online Communal Knowledge Sharing, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (1): 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model, Information Systems Research 15 (4): 336–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mamoghli, S., Goepp, V. and Botta-Genoulaz, V. (2015). Aligning ERP Systems with Companies’ Real Needs: An ‘operational model based’ method, Enterprise Information Systems advance online publication 25 February, doi: 10.1080/17517575.2015.1014432.Google Scholar
  59. Manatsa, P.R. and McLaren, T.S. (2008). Information Sharing in a Supply Chain: Using agency theory to guide the design of incentives, Supply Chain Forum – An International Journal 9 (1): 18–26.Google Scholar
  60. McAfee, A. (2009). Enterprise 2.0: New collaborative tools for your organizations toughest challenges, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Mettler, T., Eurich, M. and Winter, R. (2014). On the Use of Experiments in Design Science Research: A proposition of an evaluation framework, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 34 (1): 223–240.Google Scholar
  62. Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation, Information Systems Research 2 (2): 192–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Morabito, V. (2014). IT Consumerization, Trends and Challenges in Digital Business Innovation, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Morris, B., Kleist, V.F., Dull, R.B. and Tanner, C.D. (2014). Secure Information Market: A model to support information sharing, data fusion, privacy, and decisions, Journal of Information Systems 28 (1): 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nah, F. F.-H., Lau, J. L.-S. and Kuang, J. (2001). Critical Factors for Successful Implementation of Enterprise Systems, Business Process Management Journal 7 (3): 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nicolaou, A.I., Ibrahim, M. and van Heck, E. (2013). Information Quality, Trust, and Risk Perceptions in Electronic Data Exchanges, Decision Support Systems 54 (2): 986–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Park, J. and Park, J. (2015). Enterprise Resource Planning and Efficiency: Evidence from the Korean property/casualty insurance companies, Managerial Finance 41 (4): 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rachuri, S., Subrahmanian, E., Bouras, A., Fenves, S.J., Foufou, S. and Sriram, R.D. (2008). Information Sharing and Exchange in the Context of Product Lifecycle Management: Role of standards, Computer-Aided Design 40 (7): 789–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012). A Critical Look at the Use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly, MIS Quarterly 36 (1): iii–xiv.Google Scholar
  70. Seethamraju, R. and Seethamraju, J. (2009). Enterprise Systems and Business Process Agility – A case study, Chicago: IEEE Computer Society Press. 1–12.Google Scholar
  71. Sia, S.K., Tang, M., Soh, C. and Boh, W.F. (2002). Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems as a Technology of Power: Empowerment or panoptic control?, The DataBase for Advances in Information Systems 33 (1): 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith, H.J., Dinev, T. and Xu, H. (2011). Information Privacy Research: An interdisciplinary review, MIS Quarterly 35 (4): 989–1015.Google Scholar
  73. Strong, D. and Volkoff, O. (2010). Understanding Organization-Enterprise System Fit: A path to theorizing the information technology artifact, MIS Quarterly 34 (4): 731–756.Google Scholar
  74. Tapscott, D. and Williams, A.D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything, New York: Portfolio.Google Scholar
  75. Treem, J.W. and Leonardi, P.M. (2013). Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association, in C.T. Salmon (ed.) Communication Yearbook, New York: Routledge, pp. 143–189.Google Scholar
  76. Trier, M. and Richter, A. (2015). The Deep Structure of Organizational Online Networking – An actor-oriented case study, Information Systems Journal 25 (5): 465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Trinh, T.P., Molla, A. and Peszynski, K. (2012). Enterprise Systems and Organizational Agility: A review of the literature and conceptual framework, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 31 (8): 167–193.Google Scholar
  78. Velcu, O. (2010). Strategic Alignment of ERP Implementation Stages: An empirical investigation, Information & Management 47 (3): 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vernadat, F.B. (2007). Interoperable Enterprise Systems: Principles, concepts, and methods, Annual Reviews in Control 31 (1): 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Volkoff, O. and Strong, D.M. (2013). Critical Realism and Affordances: Theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes, MIS Quarterly 37 (3): 819–834.Google Scholar
  81. von Krogh, G. (2012). How Does Social Software Change Knowledge Management? Toward a Strategic Research Agenda, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21 (2): 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wang, F.-Y., Carley, K.M., Zeng, D. and Mao, W. (2007). Social Computing: From social informatics to social intelligence, IEEE Intelligent Systems 22 (2): 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wang, Y., Greaseley, A. and Thanassoulis, E. (2011). Combining ERP Systems with Enterprise 2.0, in P. Powell and R. Martinho (eds.) Enterprise Information Systems, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2000). It Is What One Does: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9 (2–3): 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wittenbaum, G.M., Hollingshead, A.B. and Botero, I.C. (2004). From Cooperative to Motivated Information Sharing in Groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm, Communication Monographs 71 (3): 286–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wolfe, C. and Loraas, T. (2008). Knowledge Sharing: The effects of incentives, environment, and person, Journal of Information Systems 22 (2): 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wu, W.-P. (2008). Dimensions of Social Capital and Firm Competitiveness Improvement: The mediating role of information sharing, Journal of Management Studies 45 (1): 122–146.Google Scholar
  88. Zhang, J., Qu, Y., Cody, J. and Wu, Y. (2010). A Case Study of Micro-Blogging in the Enterprise: Use, value, and related issues, in SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, GA, USA, 2010); New York: ACM, pp. 123–132.Google Scholar
  89. Zhao, D. and Rosson, M.B. (2009). How and Why People Twitter: The Role That Micro-Blogging Plays in Informal Communication at Work, in ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work (Sanibel Island, FL, USA, 2009); New York: ACM, pp. 243–252.Google Scholar
  90. Zichermann, G. and Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by Design, Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Mettler
    • 1
  • Robert Winter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information Management, University of St.GallenSt.GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations