Burkman, James R.

English

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)AMCIS 2000 Proceedings Americas Conference on Information Systems(AMCIS)2000User Satisfaction in Mandated Implementations: AStudy of Expectations, Contracts, and TrustJames R. BurkmanIndiana University, jburkman@indiana.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2000This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been acceptedfor inclusion in AMCIS 2000 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contactelibrary@aisnet.org.Recommended CitationBurkman, James R., "User Satisfaction in Mandated Implementations: A Study of Expectations, Contracts, and Trust" (2000). AMCIS2000 Proceedings. 397.http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2000/397User Satisfaction in Mandated Implementations:A Study of Expectations, Contracts, and TrustJames R. Burkman, Department of Accounting and Information Systems, Indiana University,jburkman@indiana.eduPrimary Research Area     Unmet user expectations regarding a new informationsystem have been successfully used to predict usersatisfaction.  This research proposes using a larger set ofexpectations based on the Equity-Implementation Model(Joshi, 1991) to strengthen the scope of unmetexpectations to include expectations related to changesbrought about by the implementation.  Additionally, themore emotionally salient concept of psychologicalcontract breach (Rousseau, 1995) is proposed to havestronger predictive ability for the determination of usersatisfaction than user expectations.  Finally, the effect ofpsychological contract breach on user satisfaction isexpected to be partially mediated by a change in trustlevels toward the relevant party, based on prior researchon employee contributions and psychological contractbreach (Robinson, 1996).Research Problem and Supporting Theory     Although much research in information systems (IS)has focused on the voluntary adoption andimplementation of an IS, less attention has been paid tothe implementation of systems for which the use ismandatory.  Unlike situations of voluntary IS usage, amandated implementation cannot rely on system use as aproxy for system success (Melone 1990, Delone andMcLean 1992).  A more acceptable measure of systemsuccess with mandated use is user satisfaction, which haslong been used in IS research as a surrogate for systemsuccess (Delone and McLean 1992; Melone 1990; Dolland Torkzadeh, 1988; Jenkins and Ricketts, 1986; Baileyand Pearson, 1983; Ives, et al., 1983).     One approach to understanding the process throughwhich user satisfaction with a new system is formed hasbeen through the study of user expectations.  Userexpectations about the system, which are unmet, havebeen empirically shown to have a significant negativeeffect on later measures of user satisfaction (Szajna andScamell, 1993; Lyytinen, 1988; Ginzberg, 1981).  Theunmet expectation research has been restrictive, however,with both the scope of the expectations measured andwith the lack of attention paid to the effects ofinterpersonal communication on expectations. Thisdissertation research is therefore motivated by thefollowing question:  what expectations are formed, andrelied upon, by end users during the implementation of anew information system, and how are these expectationsaffected by the other groups involved in theimplementation?     Expectations have been measured focusing primarilyon the IS and the outcomes produced by the IS.  But whatabout expectations formed as a response to the changeand turmoil of the implementation?  Surely the end-usersof a new system have relevant expectations that lateraffect satisfaction, such as changes in job power, tasks,ambiguity, autonomy, and other issues in addition tosystem-specific expectations.  Therefore, this dissertationfirst seeks to identify a broader set of expectations that areconsidered by the end-user throughout the implementationof a new IS.  This expectation set will be derived from theEquity-Implementation Model (Joshi, 1991), which isbased on equity theory (Adams, 1963; 1965; Walster et.al. 1978), and will incorporate expectations about the ISand IS related outcomes as a subset of the larger revisedset (Figure 1).  Additionally, each proposed expectationwill be weighted by its relevance to the user, using aseparate scale.  This has not been done in previous IS userexpectation research, with the result that equal weightshave been given for expectations as disparate asparticipation and training.     User expectations implicitly suggest the influence ofother people, past experience, education, etc.  But simplyasking about expectations does nothing to identifyrelevant sources that may have built up thoseexpectations, or targets of negative affect when theexpectations are unmet.  Recent work in psychologicalcontracts suggests that people hold perceptions ofpromises made by others as a contractual obligation.  Asemphasized by Rousseau and Tijoiwala (1998, p. 681)“The distinction between psychological contract andexpectation is of great practical significance, becauseviolating psychological contract-based obligations canengender more intense and emotionally salient reactionsthan does failing to live up to other forms ofexpectations”.  The elements of the psychological contractwill be operationalized in this dissertation as expectationswhich are relied upon due to the perception of implicit orexplicit promises made by another (Figure 1). Therefore,in the context of the revised set of expectations from theEquity-Implementation Model (Joshi, 1991), thisdissertation will compare the predictive ability ofpsychological contract breach against that of simpleunmet expectations for determining user satisfaction,2095hypothesizing that psychological contract breach will bethe stronger predictor.     Trust has been shown to have a complex relationshipwith psychological contract breach, with prior trustmediating the likelihood of a breach being perceived,prior trust moderating the impact of perceived breach onsubsequent trust, and subsequent trust moderating theeffect of breach on employee contributions (Robinson,1996).  However, this prior research has consideredpsychological contracts and trust only from theemployee’s perspective as held toward the “employer”.This dissertation will expand the understanding ofpsychological contract breach and trust by measuringchanges in trust levels held by end users toward specificother stakeholder groups (e.g. supervisors, management,IS personnel, outside vendors, etc.) following a perceivedpsychological contract breach.  Based on Robinson’s1996 research, these changes in trust levels are expectedto partially mediate the relationship betweenpsychological contract breach and user satisfaction(Figure 1).     In summary, the following major propositions areoffered:  P1 - The expanded set of expectations based onthe Equity-Implementation model will be a strongerpredictor of user satisfaction than a set focusing solely onthe IS and IS related outcomes; P2 – Perceivedpsychological contract breach will be a stronger predictorof user satisfaction than simple unmet expectations; P3 –a change in trust brought about by psychological contractbreach will partially mediate the relationship betweencontract breach and user satisfaction.Methodology     The primary research approach will be a field studyusing surveys developed from a combination of priorinstruments and relevant theory.  An organization willneed to be identified that is preparing to undertake alarge-scale mandatory IS implementation.     This research will be conducted in 5 steps:  surveydevelopment of instruments to measure expectations,perceived contract terms, and trust; pilot testing of thesesurveys; identification of relevant stakeholder groups andrich description of implementation through semi-structured interviews conducted at the field site; and tworounds of surveys - one sent prior to implementation andtraining but after a general orientation of the system hasbeen provided, and another sent eight weeks afterimplementation to allow sufficient time for expectationsand promises to be weighed against the perceivedoutcome of the implementation.     A specific instrument for measuring the dependentvariable - user satisfaction - has not yet been identified,although the Bailey and Pearson (1983) instrument asmodified by Ives et al. (1983), or the Doll and Torkzadeh(1988) instrument emerge as the most likely candidates.It is recognized here that the measurement of usersatisfaction must be held consistent with prior studies inorder to say much about the relative effects of the variousmeasures proposed here.Selected ReferencesDeLone, W. H., and McLean Ephraim R. "InformationSystems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable,"Information Systems Research (3:1), 1992, pp. 60-95.Doll, W. J., and Torkzadeh, G. "A Discrepancy Model ofEnd-User Computer Involvement," Management Science(35:10), 1989, pp. 1151-71.Ginzberg, M.J. “Early Diagnosis of MIS ImplementationFailure: Promising Results and Unanswered Questions,”Management Science (27:4), April 1981, pp. 459-478.Ives, B., Olson, M. H., and Baroudi, J. J. "TheMeasurement of User Information Satisfaction,"Communications of the ACM (26:10), 1983, pp. 785-93.Joshi, K. “A Model of Users’ Perspective on Change: TheCase of Information Systems TechnologyImplementation,” MIS Quarterly (15:2), June 1991, pp.229-242.Lyytinen, K. "Expectation Failure Concept and SystemsAnalysts' View of Information System Failures:  Resultsof an Exploratory Study,"  Information & Management(14), 1988, pp. 45-56.Melone, N.P. “A Theoretical Assessment of the User-Satisfaction construct in Information Systems Research,”Management Science (36:1), January 1990, pp. 76-91.Robinson, S.L. “Trust and Breach of the PsychologicalContract,” Administrative Science Quarterly, (41:4),December, 1996, pp. 574-599.Rousseau, D.M. Psychological Contracts inOrganizations: Understanding Written and UnwrittenAgreements, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1995.Rousseau, D.M. and Tijorwala, S.A. “AssessingPsychological contracts: Issues, Alternatives andMeasures,” Journal of Organizational Behavior (19),1998, pp. 679-695.Szjana, B. and Scammel, R.W. “The Effects ofInformation System User Expectations on TheirPerformance and Perceptions,” MIS Quarterly (17:4),December 1993, pp. 493-516.2096Terms ofPsychological ContractUser SatisfactionPerception of Implicit or Explicit PromiseChange in Trust Due to BreachEquity-ImplementationExpectationsIS-OrientedExpectationsFIGURE 1The Effects of an Expanded Expectation Set, Psychological Contracts, and Trust on User SatisfactionNote: Original unmet expectations model shaded2097

User Satisfaction in Mandated Implementations: A Study of Expectations, Contracts, and Trust

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1861&amp;context=amcis2000

User Satisfaction in Mandated Implementations: A Study of Expectations, Contracts, and Trust

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)