Start Date
12-17-2013
Description
It is frequently observed in information systems (IS) research that technologies are used for multiple uses (i.e., heterogeneously). Quantitative IS use theories, including acceptance and task–technology fit models and their revisions, however do not take heterogeneity into account and address IS use on a general level. We present a study (N=116) on Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software’s heterogeneous use. We demonstrate that Excel does not have one generally agreed-upon purpose of use but instead several important uses, each user exhibiting a different interpretation and pattern of use. Perceived usefulness (PU) and extent of use (U) receive different values depending on the purpose of use that is addressed, leading to PU–U correlations ranging between -.39 and .45 in the extremes. We find that the ambiguity on what PU and U measure is a serious threat to the existing IS use theories’ validity. We discuss the implications and suggest corrective actions.
Recommended Citation
Salovaara, Antti; Öörni, Anssi; and Sokura, Bertta, "Heterogeneous Use for Multiple Purposes: A Point of Concern to IS Use Models’ Validity" (2013). ICIS 2013 Proceedings. 24.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2013/proceedings/HumanBehavior/24
Heterogeneous Use for Multiple Purposes: A Point of Concern to IS Use Models’ Validity
It is frequently observed in information systems (IS) research that technologies are used for multiple uses (i.e., heterogeneously). Quantitative IS use theories, including acceptance and task–technology fit models and their revisions, however do not take heterogeneity into account and address IS use on a general level. We present a study (N=116) on Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software’s heterogeneous use. We demonstrate that Excel does not have one generally agreed-upon purpose of use but instead several important uses, each user exhibiting a different interpretation and pattern of use. Perceived usefulness (PU) and extent of use (U) receive different values depending on the purpose of use that is addressed, leading to PU–U correlations ranging between -.39 and .45 in the extremes. We find that the ambiguity on what PU and U measure is a serious threat to the existing IS use theories’ validity. We discuss the implications and suggest corrective actions.