Development of Quality Expectations in Mobile Information Systems

  • Matti Koivisto


In a typical study on mobile information system (IS) adoption and use the established methods and theories like TAM have been extended to the mobile context. The holistic views of these theories unfortunately fail to give detailed advice on how to influence usage through design and implementation. Some scholars integrated quality concepts into the acceptance models. Quality is however a complex and multidimensional concept including not only the perceived but also the expected quality dimensions. In this paper the development of quality expectations related to mobile information systems is studied in a four year period (2003 – 2007). The analyses are based on the quality framework that consists of three parts of mobile IS supply chain. The results of the study highlight the importance of the quality expectations and they support the use of original intention determinants of TAM also in the mobile context. Further studies are still needed to integrate TAM with quality and satisfaction concepts in the mobile IS adoption and use studies.


Mobile Device Quality Dimension Mobile Service Technology Acceptance Model Quality Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Rogers E. M.,Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    F. D. Davis, ‘User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts”,Int. Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1993, pp. 475-87.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Fishbein M., and Ajzen I.,Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior : An introduction to theory and research, Addison-Wesley, Don Mills, Ontario 1975.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    D. L. Goodhue, and R. L. Thompson, “Task-technology fit and individual performance”.MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 1995, pp. 213-236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view”,MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 2003, pp. 425-478.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    B. Wixom, and P. Todd, “A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance”,Information Systems Research, 16(1), 2005, pp. 85-102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Chae and J. Kim, “Information quality for mobile Internet services: a theoretical model with empirical validation”,Electronic Markets, 12(1), 2002 , pp. 38-46CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Bovee, R. Srivastava, and B. Mak, “A conceptual framework and belief-function approach to assessing overall information quality”,International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18(1), 2003, pp. 51-74.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    W. J. Lee, T. U. Kim and J-Y. Chung, “User acceptance of the mobile Internet”,in Proc. 1 stInternational Conference on Mobile Business, Athens, Greece, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    W. R., King and J. He, “A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model”,Information & Management, 43(6), 2006, pp. 740-755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 1991, pp. 179-211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    P. E. Pedersen, “Adoption of mobile Internet services: An exploratory study of mobile commerce early adopters”,Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 15(2), 2005 pp. 203-222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    T. Ramayah, “Doing e-research with e-library: Determinants of perceived ease of use of e-library”,International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 1(4), 2005/2006, pp. 71-82Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    V. Venkatesh, and F. D. Davis, “A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test”,Decision Sciences 27(3), 1996, pp. 451-481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    V. Venkatesh, “Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model”,Information Systems Research, 11(4), 2000, pp. 342-366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. Lu, C-S Yu, C. Liu and J. Yao, “Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet”,Internet Research, 13(2), 2003, pp. 206-222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Amberg, M. Hirschmeier and J. Wehrmann, “The compass acceptance model for the analysis and evaluation of mobile services”,International Journal of Mobile Communications, 2(3), 2004, pp. 248 – 259.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Kaasinen E.,User acceptance of mobile services – value, ease of use, trust and ease of adoption, VTT Information Technology, 2005.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. H. Cheong and M-C. Park, “Mobile internet acceptance in Korea”,Internet Research, 15(2), 2005 pp. 125-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    R. R. Nelson. And P. A. Todd, “Antecedents of information and system quality: An empirical examination within the context of data warehousing”,Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(4), 2005, pp. 199 – 235.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    ISO 25000,Software product quality requirements and evaluation (Square), Guide to Square, International Organization for Standardization, 2005.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    ITU-T,Terms and definitions related to quality of service and network performance including dependability. Recommendation E.800, 1994Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    RACE,UMTS system structure document, issue 1.0. RACE 2066 Mobile Networks (MONET), CEC Deliverable No:R2066/LMF/GA1/DS/P/052/b1, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    ITU-T,Communications quality of service: A framework and definitions, Recommendation G.1000, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    M. Chae, and J. Kim, “What’s so different about the mobile Internet?”,Communications of the ACM, 46(12), 2003, pp. 240-247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    W. H. DeLone, and E. R. McLean, “Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable”,Information Systems Research, 3(1), 1992, pp. 60-95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    W. H. DeLone, and E. R. McLean, “Information systems success revisited”,in Proc. of the 35 th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaiji, 2002.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    3GPP,UMTS Bearer Service Attributes, 3rd Generation Partnership ProjectGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    P. Tarasewich, R. C. Nickerson and M. Warkentin, “Issues in Mobile e-commerce”,Communications of the AIS, 8, 2002, pp. 41-64.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    V. Venkatesh, and F. D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies.Management Science, 46(2), 2000, pp. 186-204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    M. Koivisto and A. Urbaczewski, The relationship between quality of service perceived and delivered in mobile Internet communications,Information Systems and E-Business Management, 2(4), 2004, pp. 309-323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matti Koivisto
    • 1
  1. 1.Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences50101 MikkeliFinland

Personalised recommendations