Information Technology Adoption: Do Performance Objectives and Incentive Structures Make a Difference?

  • Brenda EschenbrennerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9751)


User adoption of information technology (IT) is important to organizations to maximize their return on investment. However, if appropriate support is not structured to encourage this endeavor, subsequent IT usage may be problematic. Of the various types of organizational support, performance objectives may be structured to influence user IT learning and adoption efforts. Although previous research has addressed adopting IT and deciding when to learn IT, research has not looked at the impact that performance objectives, along with the appropriate incentives, can have on this endeavor. This research study proposes to explore this issue to lend insights into the influence that performance objectives and incentive structures can have on a user’s decision to learn and adopt IT, as well as subsequent performance outcomes. The potential contribution includes suggestions for appropriate support structures to establish that contribute to IT adoption and proficient IT usage.


Information technology Performance objectives Incentive structures IT learning IT adoption 


  1. 1.
    Goodhue, D.L.: Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Manag. Sci. 41(12), 1827–1844 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mauldin, E.: An experimental examination of information technology and compensation structure complementarities in an expert system context. J. Inf. Syst. 17(1), 19–42 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaudry, A., Pinsonneault, A.: Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Q. 29(3), 493–524 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chow, C.W., Van der Stede, W.A.: The use and usefulness of nonfinancial performance measures. Manag. Account. Q. 7(3), 1–8 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sprinkle, G.B.: The effect of incentive contracts on learning and performance. Account. Rev. 75(3), 299–326 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loraas, T., Wolfe, C.J.: Why wait? Modeling factors that influence the decision of when to learn a new use of technology. J. Inf. Syst. 20(2), 1–23 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W., Samuel, S.: Changes in the institutional environment and the institutions of governance: extending the contributions of transaction cost economics within the management control literature. Account. Organ. Soc. 28(5), 417–442 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spekle, R.: Explaining management control structure variety: A transaction cost economics perspective. Account. Organ. Soc. 26(4/5), 419–442 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Widener, S.K.: An empirical investigation of the relation between the use of strategic human capital and the design of the management control system. Account. Organ. Soc. 29(3/4), 377–401 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williamson, O.E.: The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coletti, A.L., Sedatole, K.L., Towry, K.L.: The effect of control systems on trust and cooperation in collaborative environments. Account. Rev. 80(2), 477–500 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karsten, R.: An analysis of IS professional and end user causal attributions for user-system outcomes. J. End-User Comput. 14(4), 51–73 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malhotra, D., Murnighan, J.K.: The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Adm. Sci. Q. 47(3), 534–559 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goodhue, D.L., Thompson, R.L.: Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Q. 19(2), 213–236 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Nebraska at KearneyKearneyUSA

Personalised recommendations