Expanding the Criteria for Evaluating Socio-Technical Software

Abstract

Abstract-This paper compares two evaluation criterion frameworks for sociotechnical software. Research on the technology acceptance model (TAM) confirms that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are relevant criteria for users evaluating organizational software. However, information technology has changed considerably since TAM's 1989 inception, so an upgraded evaluation framework may apply. The web of system performance (WOSP) model suggests eight evaluation criteria, based on a systems theory definition of performance. This paper compares WOSP and TAM criterion frameworks in a performance evaluation experiment using the analytic hierarchy process method. Subjects who used both TAM and WOSP criteria preferred the WOSP criteria, were more satisfied with its decision outcomes, and found the WOSP evaluation more accurate and complete. As sociotechnical software becomes more complex, users may need (or prefer) more comprehensive evaluation criterion frameworks.

Examining the Moderating Role of Gender in Arabian Workers’ Acceptance of Computer Technology

“…Perceived usefulness refers to the degree to which a person believes that using the focal technology will enhance his or her performance, and perceived ease of use denotes the extent to which a person believes his or her use of the technology will be free of effort [Davis, 1989]. The cognitive criteria (i.e., perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use) can be mapped to the design criteria of functionality and usability [Whitworth, Banuls, Sylla, and Mahinda, 2008]. This parsimonious model has been examined empirically across a wide range of technology acceptance scenarios [Whitworth et al, 2008].…”

“…The cognitive criteria (i.e., perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use) can be mapped to the design criteria of functionality and usability [Whitworth, Banuls, Sylla, and Mahinda, 2008]. This parsimonious model has been examined empirically across a wide range of technology acceptance scenarios [Whitworth et al, 2008]. The collective findings suggest satisfactory utilities for explaining (predicting) user acceptance across different technologies, user populations, and organizational contexts [Davis et al, 1989;Venkatesh and Bala, 2008;Venkatesh and Davis, 2000].…”

A Preliminary Introduction to the OTAM: Exploring Users’ Perceptions of their on-going Interaction with Adopted Technologies

“…Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) postulates that people adjust their internal attitudes (Whitworth et al, 2007) to overcome stimuli that does not necessarily fit-in with what they feel should be true, and therefore limit any conflict between their expectations and experiences (Brown, Venkatesh & Goyal, 2007). Figure 6: Levels of Experience (group-case) results Karahanna & Straub (1999) contend that users' natural need to reduce this conflict, or cognitive dissonance, is achievable if they can rationalise their usage behaviour.…”

Success or Failure in Knowledge Management Systems: A Universal Issue,

“…Coiera (2007) is critical of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) concepts as they focus on individuals and the fit between task, technology, and individuals but ignore the organisational or task context. Many articles in the 1990s used the TAM model, or its extensions, as a substitute for sociotechnical models (Whitworth et al, 2008), thus concentrating closely on the software interaction with the organisational users. This limited view of the 42 E. Coakes, A.D. Amar, and M.L.…”

“…Coiera (2007) is critical of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) concepts as they focus on individuals and the fit between task, technology, and individuals but ignore the organisational or task context. Many articles in the 1990s used the TAM model, or its extensions, as a substitute for sociotechnical models (Whitworth et al, 2008), thus concentrating closely on the software interaction with the organisational users. This limited view of the sociotechnical mindset is followed by Dixon (1999) using the ITAM framework (Information Technology Acceptance Model); Tsinakis, Kouroubali (2009) using the FITT (fit between individuals, task and technology) framework; and Peute et al (2010), who use the UIS (User Interaction Satisfaction) concept.…”