European Journal of Information Systems

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 333–360 | Cite as

Information quality, user satisfaction, and the manifestation of workarounds: a qualitative and quantitative study of enterprise content management system users

Empirical Research

Abstract

In this paper, we focus on a critical aspect of work in organizations: using information in work tasks which is provided by information systems (IS) such as enterprise content management (ECM) systems. Our study based on the IS success model, 34 interviews, and an empirical study of 247 ECM system users at a financial service provider indicates that it is appropriate to differentiate between contextual and representational information quality as two information quality dimensions. Furthermore, we reveal that in addition to system quality, the two information quality dimensions are important in determining end-user satisfaction, which in turn influences the manifestation of workarounds. Our study also finds that employees using workarounds to avoid an ECM system implemented several years is negatively related to individual net benefits of the ECM system. Hence, we conclude that when investigating large-scale IS such as ECM systems, it is important to differentiate among information quality dimensions to more deeply understand end-user satisfaction and the resulting manifestation of workarounds. Moreover, this research guides organizations in implementing the most appropriate countermeasures based on the importance of either contextual or representational information quality.

Keywords

user acceptance information systems success workarounds enterprise content management case study  field study 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Some parts of the qualitative study have been presented at the European Conference of Information Systems (ECIS) 2016 in Istanbul, Turkey (Laumer, 2016).

References

  1. Alalwan JA (2012) Enterprise content management research: a comprehensive review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 25(5), 441–461, doi:  10.1108/17410391211265133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alter S (2006) The work system method: connecting people, processes, and IT for business results. Work System Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alter S (2013) Work system theory: overview of core concepts, extensions, and challenges for the future. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 14(2), 1.Google Scholar
  4. Alter S (2014) Theory of workarounds. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 34(1), 55.Google Scholar
  5. Ansari SM, Fiss PC and Zajac EJ (2010) Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review 35(1), 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ash JS, Berg M and Coiera E (2004) Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 11(2), 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azad B and King N (2008) Enacting computer workaround practices within a medication dispensing system. European Journal of Information Systems 17(3), 264–278, doi:  10.1057/ejis.2008.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azad B and King N (2011) Institutionalized computer workaround practices in a Mediterranean country: an examination of two organizations. European Journal of Information Systems 21(4), 358–372, doi:  10.1057/ejis.2011.48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bagozzi RP (1979) The role of measurement in theory construction and hypothesis testing: toward a holistic model. Conceptual and theoretical developments in marketing 8, 15–32.Google Scholar
  10. Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator‐mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6), 1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beath C, Becerra-Fernandez I, Ross J and Short J (2012) Finding value in the information explosion. MIT Sloan Management Review 53(4), 18.Google Scholar
  12. Bhattacherjee A (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly 25(3), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhattacherjee A and Hikmet N (2007) Physicians’ resistance toward healthcare information technology: a theoretical model and empirical test. European Journal of Information Systems 16(6), 725–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Böhn M (2014) The market for ECM software. In Enterprise Content Management in Information Systems Research (Vom Brocke J and Simons A, Eds), pp. 23–36, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  15. Boudreau M-C and Robey D (2005) Enacting integrated information technology: a human agency perspective. Organization Science 16(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  16. Brazel JF and Dang L (2008) The effect of ERP system implementations on the management of earnings and earnings release dates. Journal of Information Systems 22(2), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brislin RW (1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1(3), 185–216, doi:  10.1177/135910457000100301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Broadhurst K, Wastell D, White S, Hall C, Peckover S, Thompson K, Pithouse A and Davey D (2009) Performing ‘initial assessment’: identifying the latent conditions for error at the front-door of local authority children’s services. British journal of social work.Google Scholar
  19. Campbell DT and Fiske DW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56(2), 81–105, doi:  10.1037/h0046016. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carmines EG and Zeller RA (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Calif.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chang JC-J and King WR (2005) Measuring the Performance of Information Systems: A Functional Scorecard. Journal of Management Information Systems 22(1), 85.Google Scholar
  22. Chin WW (1998a) Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly 22(1), 7–16, doi:  10.2307/249674.Google Scholar
  23. Chin WW (1998b) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research (Marcoulides GA, Ed), pp. 295–336, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  24. Chin WW, Gopal A and Salisbury WD (1997) Advancing the Theory of adaptive structuration: the development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Information Systems Research 8(4), 342–367, doi:  10.1287/isre.8.4.342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chin WW, Thatcher JB and Wright RT (2012) Assessing common method bias: problems with the ULMC technique. MIS Quarterly 36(3), 1003.Google Scholar
  26. Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  27. Cvach M (2012) Monitor alarm fatigue: an integrative review. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology 46(4), 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Davison RM and Ou CXJ (2013) Sharing knowledge in technology deficient environments: individual workarounds Amid corporate restrictions. Proceedings of the 2013 European Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  29. Delone W and Mclean E (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3(1), 60–95, doi:  10.1287/isre.3.1.60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Delone W and Mclean E (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dwivedi YK, Wastell D, Laumer S, Henriksen HZ, Myers MD, Bunker D, Elbanna A, Ravishankar MN and Srivastava SC (2014) Research on information systems failures and successes: status update and future directions. Information Systems Frontiers, doi:  10.1007/s10796-014-9500-y.Google Scholar
  32. Eckhardt A, Laumer S and Weitzel T (2009) Who influences whom? Analyzing workplace referents’ social influence on IT adoption and non-adoption. Journal of Information Technology 24(1), 11–24, doi:  10.1057/jit.2008.31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ferneley EH and Sobreperez P (2006) Resist, comply or workaround? An examination of different facets of user engagement with information systems. European Journal of Information Systems 15(4), 345–356, doi:  10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Flanagan JC (1954) The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin 51(4), 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1), 39–50, doi:  10.2307/3151312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gable GG, Sedera D and Chan T (2008) Re-conceptualizing information system success: the IS-impact measurement model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9(7), 1–32.Google Scholar
  37. Gasparas J and Monteiro E (2009) Cross-contextual use of integrated information systems. Proceedings of the 2009 European Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  38. Gasser L (1986) The integration of computing and routine work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 4(3), 205–225, doi:  10.1145/214427.214429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gilbert MR, Shegda KM, Chin K, Tay G and Koehler-Kruener H (2013) Magic quadrant for enterprise content management.Google Scholar
  40. Grahlmann KR, Helms RW, Hilhorst C, Brinkkemper S and Van Amerongen S (2011) Reviewing enterprise content management: a functional framework. European Journal of Information Systems 21(3), 268–286, doi:  10.1057/ejis.2011.41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gremler DD (2004) The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research 7(1), 65–89, doi:  10.1177/1094670504266138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hair JF (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  43. Hair JF (2014) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage, Thousand Oaks (California) [etc.].Google Scholar
  44. Halbesleben JRB, Savage GT, Wakefield DS and Wakefield BJ (2010) Rework and workarounds in nurse medication administration process. Health Care Management Review 35(2), 124–133, doi:  10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181d116c2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Harman HH (1976) Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  46. Henseler J, Ringle CM and Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–21.Google Scholar
  47. 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, doi:  10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ignatiadis I and Nandhakumar J (2009) The effect of ERP system workarounds on organizational control: An interpretivist case study. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 21(2), 3.Google Scholar
  49. Iivari J (2005) An empirical test of the DeLone-McLean model of information system success. ACM SIGMIS Database 36(2), 8–27, doi:  10.1145/1066149.1066152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Joshi K (1991) A model of users’ perspective on change: the case of information systems technology implementation. MIS Quarterly 15(2), 229, doi:  10.2307/249384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kim H-W and Kankanhalli A (2009) Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly 33(3), 567–582.Google Scholar
  52. Kim SS (2009) The integrative framework of technology use: an extension and test. MIS Quarterly 33(3), 513–538.Google Scholar
  53. Klaus T and Blanton JE (2010) User resistance determinants and the psychological contract in enterprise system implementations. European Journal of Information Systems 19(6), 625–636, doi:  10.1057/ejis.2010.39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Klaus T, Wingreen SC and Blanton JE (2010) Resistant groups in enterprise system implementations: a Q-methodology examination. Journal of Information Technology 25(1), 91–106, doi:  10.1057/jit.2009.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Koopman P and Hoffman R (2003) Work-arounds, make-work, and kludges. IEEE Intelligent Systems 18(6), 70–75, doi:  10.1109/MIS.2003.1249172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Koplowitz R, Rymer JR, Hammond JS and Brown V (2013) SharePoint enters its awkward teenage years. Customer struggles with social, cloud, and mobile signal A transition.Google Scholar
  57. Koppel R, Wetterneck T, Telles JL and Karsh B-T (2008) Workarounds to barcode medication administration systems: their occurrences, causes, and threats to patient safety. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 15(4), 408–423.Google Scholar
  58. Landis JR and Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159, doi:  10.2307/2529310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lapointe L and Rivard S (2005) A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly 29(3).Google Scholar
  60. Laumer S (2016) Information quality dimensions: two exploratory case studies with enterprise content management system users. In 24th European Conference on Information Systems, Paper 141, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  61. Laumer S, Beimborn D, Maier C and Weinert C (2013) Enterprise Content Management. Business & Information Systems Engineering 5(6), 449–452, doi:  10.1007/s12599-013-0291-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Laumer S, Maier C, Eckhardt A and Weitzel T (2014) Why are they grumbling about my new system? Theoretical foundation and empirical evidence of employee grumbling as a user resistance behavior. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  63. Laumer S, Maier C, Eckhardt A and Weitzel T (2015a) User personality and resistance to mandatory information systems in organizations. A theoretical model and empirical test of dispositional resistance to change. Journal of Information Technology 31(1), 67–82, doi:  10.1057/jit.2015.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Laumer S, Maier C, Eckhardt A and Weitzel T (2016) Work routines as an object of resistance during information systems implementations. Theoretical foundation and empirical evidence. European Journal of Information Systems 25(4), 317–343, doi:  10.1057/ejis.2016.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Laumer S, Maier C and Weitzel T (2015b) Successfully implementing enterprise content management: lessons learnt from a financial service provider. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2015), Fort Worth, Tx, USA.Google Scholar
  66. Lee YW, Strong DM, Kahn BK and Wang RY (2002) AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Information & Management 40(2), 133–146, doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00043-5 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Liang H, Saraf N, Hu Q and Xue Y (2007) Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Q 31(1), 59–87.Google Scholar
  68. Maier C, Laumer S, Eckhardt A and Weitzel T (2013) Analyzing the impact of HRIS implementations on HR personnel’s job satisfaction and turnover intention. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 22(3), 193–207, doi:  10.1016/j.jsis.2012.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Maier C, Laumer S, Eckhardt A and Weitzel T (2015a) Giving too much social support: social overload on social networking sites. European Journal of Information Systems 24(5), 447–464, doi:  10.1057/ejis.2014.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Maier C, Laumer S, Weinert C and Weitzel T (2015b) The effects of technostress and switching stress on discontinued use of social networking services: a study of Facebook use. Information Systems Journal 25(3), 275–308, doi:  10.1111/isj.12068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Marakas GM and Hornik S (1996) Passive resistance misuse: overt support and covert recalcitrance in IS implementation. European Journal of Information Systems 5(3), 208–219, doi:  10.1057/ejis.1996.26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Markus ML (1983) Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM 26(6), 430–444, doi:  10.1145/358141.358148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Martinko MJ, Zmud RW and Henry JW (1996) An attributional explanation of individual resistance to the introduction of information technologies in the workplace. Behaviour & Information Technology 15(5), 313–330, doi:  10.1080/014492996120085a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mcgann ST and Lyytinen K (2008) The improvisation effect: a case study of user improvisation and its effects on information system evolution. Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  75. Mckinney V, Yoon K and Zahedi FM (2002) The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: an expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research 13(3), 296–315, doi:  10.1287/isre.13.3.296.76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nahm AY, Rao SS, Solis-Galvan LE and Ragu-Nathan TS (2002) The Q-sort method: assessing reliability and construct validity of questionnaire items at a pre-testing stage. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 1(1 (Article 15)).Google Scholar
  77. Nordheim S and Päivärinta T (2006) Implementing enterprise content management: from evolution through strategy to contradictions out-of-the-box. European Journal of Information Systems 15(6), 648–662, doi:  10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nunnally JC (1967) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  79. Paivarinta T and Munkvold B (2005) Enterprise content management: an integrated perspective on information management. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 96, IEEE.Google Scholar
  80. Patterson ES, Rogers ML, Chapman RJ and Render ML (2006) Compliance with intended use of bar code medication administration in acute and long-term care: an observational study. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48(1), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pavlou PA, Liang H and Xue Y (2007) Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly 31(1), 105–136.Google Scholar
  82. Petrides LA (2004) Costs and benefits of the workaround: inventive solution or costly alternative. International Journal of Educational Management 18(2), 100–108, doi:  10.1108/09513540410522234.Google Scholar
  83. Petter S, Delone W and Mclean E (2008) Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems 17(3), 236–263, doi:  10.1057/ejis.2008.15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Petter S, Delone W and Mclean E (2012) The past, present, and future of “IS success”. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13(5), 341–362.Google Scholar
  85. Petter S, Delone W and Mclean E (2013) Information systems success: the quest for the independent variables. Journal of Management Information Systems 29(4), 7–62, doi:  10.2753/MIS0742-1222290401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pfaffenberger B (1992) Technological dramas. Science, Technology & Human Values 17(3), 282–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pitt LF, Watson RT and Kavan CB (1995) Service quality: a measure of information systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly 19(2), 173, doi:  10.2307/249687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Lee J-Y and Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5), 879–903, doi:  10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Polites GL and Karahanna E (2012) Shackled to the status quo: the inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Quarterly 36(1), 21.Google Scholar
  90. Polites GL, Roberts N and Thatcher J (2012) Conceptualizing models using multidimensional constructs: a review and guidelines for their use. European Journal of Information Systems 21(1), 22–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pollock N (2005) When is a work-around? Conflict and negotiation in computer systems development. Science, Technology & Human Values 30(4), 496–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Ragu-Nathan TS, Tarafdar M, Ragu-Nathan BS and Tu Q (2008) The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research 19(4), 417–433, doi:  10.1287/isre.1070.0165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rai A, Lang SS and Welker RB (2002) Assessing the validity of IS success models: an empirical testand theoretical analysis. Information Systems Research 13(1), 50–69, doi:  10.1287/isre.13.1.50.96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Richins ML (1987) A multivariate analysis of responses to dissatisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 15(3), 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ringle CM, Wende S and Becker J-M (2015) SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH.Google Scholar
  96. Rivard S and Lapointe L (2012) Information technology implementers’ responses to user resistance: nature and effects. MIS Quarterly 36(3), 897.Google Scholar
  97. Russell B (2007) ‘You Gotta lie to IT’: software applications and the management of technological change in a call centre. New Technology, Work and Employment 22(2), 132–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Safadi H and Faraj S (2010) The role of workarounds during an opensource electronic medical record system implementation. Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  99. Salisbury WD, Chin WW, Gopal A and Newsted PR (2002) Research report: Better theory through measurement-developing a scale to capture consensus on appropriation. Information Systems Research 13(1), 91–103, doi:  10.1287/isre.13.1.91.93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Selander L and Henfridsson O (2012) Cynicism as user resistance in IT implementation. Information Systems Journal 22(4), 289–312, doi:  10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00386.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Strong DM and Miller SM (1995) Exceptions and exception handling in computerized information processes. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 13(2), 206–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Strong DM 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
  103. Truex D, Baskerville R and Travis J (2000) Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods. Accounting, management and information technologies 10(1), 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Turel O (2014) Quitting the use of habituated hedonic information systems. European Journal of Information Systems.Google Scholar
  105. Tyrväinen P, Päivärinta T, Salminen A and Iivari J (2006) Characterizing the evolving research on enterprise content management. European Journal of Information Systems 15(6), 627–634, doi:  10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G and Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3), 425–478.Google Scholar
  107. Vogelsmeier AA, Halbesleben JR and Scott-Cawiezell JR (2007) Technology implementation and workarounds in the nursing home. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 15(1), 114–119, doi:  10.1197/jamia.M2378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Volkoff O, Strong DM and Elmes MB (2007) Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science 18(5), 832–848, doi:  10.1287/orsc.1070.0288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Vom Brocke J, Simons A, Herbst A, Derungs R and Novotny S (2011) The business drivers behind ECM initiatives: a process perspective. Business Process Management Journal 17(6), 965–985, doi:  10.1108/14637151111182710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Vom Brocke J, Sonnenberg C and Buddendick C (2014) Justifying ECM investments with the return on process transformation: the case of an ECM-driven transformation of sales processes at Hilti Corporation. In Enterprise Content Management in Information Systems Research (Vom Brocke J and Simons A, Eds), pp. 255–277, Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Williams LJ, Edwards JR and Vandenberg RJ (2003) Recent advances in causal modeling methods for organizational and management research. Journal of Management 29(6), 903–936, doi:  10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00084-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Williams MD, Dwivedi YK, Lal B and Schwarz A (2009) Contemporary trends and issues in IT adoption and diffusion research. Journal of Information Technology 24(1), 1–10, doi:  10.1057/jit.2008.30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wixom BH and Todd PA (2005) A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research 16(1), 85–102, doi:  10.1287/isre.1050.0042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Wright RT, Campbell DE, Thatcher JB and Roberts N (2012) Operationalizing multidimensional constructs in structural equation modeling: recommendations for IS Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 30(1), 23.Google Scholar
  115. Zeelenberg M and Pieters R (2004) Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction: a review and new findings on behavioral responses to regret and disappointment in failed services. Journal of Business Research 57(4), 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Information Systems and ServicesOtto-Friedrich University of BambergBambergGermany

Personalised recommendations