Theory/Model: TTF
- Description
- Diagram
- Constructs
- Contexts
- Indicators by construct
Task-technology Fit
The Task-Technology Fit (TTF), proposed by Goodhue & Thompson (1995), states that user use and attitude towards technology lead to impacts on individual performance.
According to Dishaw & Strong (1999), the TFF model attempts to solve one of the main weaknesses of the Technology Acceptance Model in relation to the understanding of the use of information technologies. The weakness in question is the lack of focus on the task, since information technology Is the tool that the user uses to carry out their tasks. This weakness contributed to the variety in the results of IT evaluations (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). Although TAM's concept of utility is focused on tasks, the addition of more task features could provide a better model for IT use (D'Ambra, Wilson, & Akter, 2013).
According to Dishaw & Strong (1999) the TTF focuses on the correspondence between the user's task needs and the available information technology functionalities.
Goodhue and Thompson (1995) proposed the Technology-to-Performance Chain, where IT characteristics, tasks and individual users explain the use of the information system and individual performance.
References: (D'Ambra, Wilson, & Akter, 2013; Dishaw & Strong, 1999; Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
Note: This diagram only contains the constructs proposed in the original theory/model.
Note: This list contains not only the constructs proposed in the original theory/model but also the constructs proposed by the authors that applied the theory/model in a particular context.
Note: This list contains the contexts were the theory/model was used/applied.
| Data |
| Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) |
| Groupware System |
| Knowledge Management Technologies |
| Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio |
| Not Specified |
| Wiki Systems |
Note 1: This list contains not only the constructs proposed in the original theory/model but also the constructs proposed by the authors that applied the theory/model in a particular context.
Note 2: Are only presented the constructs that are described in the literature in terms of indicators.
Note 2: Are only presented the constructs that are described in the literature in terms of indicators.
- Construct: A Priori Attitudes
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Using the tool for creating a flowchart is a bad/good idea. Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) Using the tool for creating a flowchart is a foolish/wise idea. Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) I like/dislike the idea of using the tool for creating a flowchart. Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) Using the tool for creating a flowchart is unpleasant/pleasant. Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010)
- Construct: Authorization
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Data that would be useful to me are unavailable because I don’t have the right authorization. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) Getting authorization to access data that would be useful in my job is time consuming and difficult. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: Awareness of Local Contexts
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) When making the decision to adopt this wiki tool, I thought about how this wiki tool might help my study. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) When making the decision to adopt this wiki tool, I thought about how this wiki tool might change the way my study was done. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) When making the decision to adopt this wiki tool, I thought about how this wiki tool may be compatible with my assignment requirements. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Cognizance of Alternative Technologies
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I attended to alternative views regarding the wiki tool before making the adoption decision. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I was aware of other tools than this wiki tool before deciding to adopt it. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I paid attention to equivalent tools to fulfill my needs before deciding to adopt this wiki tool. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I thought about alternative tools to address my demands when deciding to adopt this wiki tool. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Disconfirmation
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Compared to my initial expectations, the ability of this wiki tool to improve my performance is ____. Likert 1-7, Much worse than expected to Much better than expected Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) Compared to my initial expectations, the ability of this wiki tool to increase my productivity is ____. Likert 1-7, Much worse than expected to Much better than expected Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) Compared to my initial expectations, the ability of this wiki tool to enhance my effectiveness is ____. Likert 1-7, Much worse than expected to Much better than expected Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) Compared to my initial expectations, the ability of this wiki tool to be useful for my work or study is ____. Likert 1-7, Much worse than expected to Much better than expected Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Documentation
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The content of the user manual is useful. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The index of the user manual is useful. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The user manual is current (up-to-date). Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The user manual is complete. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The user manual is easy to understand and follow. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: Ease of Use
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) It is easy to learn how to use the ERP system. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The ERP system I use is convenient and easy to use. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The description of the functions/ commands displayed on screen is clear to me. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The function/command names of the ERP are easy to remember. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: Engagement with the Technology
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I was engaged in investigating this wiki tool when making the adoption decision. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I gathered factual information about this wiki tool before making the adoption decision. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I got involved in exploring this wiki tool before I adopted it. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Environmental Uncertainty (Dynamism)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Market activities of your key competitors. Scale 1 to 7, Have become far more predictable to Have become far less predictable Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) The tastes and preferences of your customers in your principal industry. Scale 1 to 7, Have become far more stable and predictable to Have become much harder to forecast Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Rate of innovation of new operating processes and new products or services in your principle industry. Scale 1 to 7, Fallen dramatically to Dramatically increased Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Environmental Uncertainty (Heterogeneity)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Needed diversity in your production methods and marketing tactics to cater to your different customers. Scale 1 to 7, Diversity has dramatically decreased to Diversity has dramatically increased Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Environmental Uncertainty (Hostility)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Your principal industry’s downswings and upswings. Scale 1 to 7, Have become far more predictable to Have become far less predictable Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Market activities of your key competitors. (1=have become far more hostile; 4 = no change; 7 = have become far less hostile). Scale 1 to 7, Have become far more hostile to Have become far less hostile Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Market activities of your key competitors. (1= now affect the firm in far fewer areas; 4 = no change; 7 = now affect the firm in many areas, e.g., pricing, delivery, etc.). Scale 1 to 7, Now affect the firm in far fewer areas to Now affect the firm in many areas, e.g., pricing, delivery, etc.). Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Group Valence
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) To what extent does your group have a positive orientation toward the tool? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent does your group have a good feeling about the tool? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent does your group consider the tool acceptable for use? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) Indicate the extent of attractiveness of using the tool to your group? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010)
- Construct: Groupware Use
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Overall dependency on groupware. Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Average duration of use per day. Likert 1-7, rarely/less than 30 minutes/0.5~1 hour/1~2 hours/2~3 hours/3~4 hours/more than 4 hours Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Average frequency of use per day. Likert 1-7, rarely/once a day/2~4 times a day/4~6 times a day/6~8 times a day/8~10 times a day/more than 10 times Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013)
- Construct: Group’s Perceptions About the Complexity of the Technology
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) To what extent was the tool difficult for your group to use? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent are the features of the tool overly sophisticated? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010)
- Construct: Group’s Perceptions About the Task-Technology Fit
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Did you find the tool appropriate for the flowcharting task that your group was performing? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) Was the flowchart displayed in a readable and understandable format by the tool? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) Was the flowchart presented in a readable and useful format by the tool? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) Were the flowcharting symbols easily available within the tool? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) Were there too many flowcharting symbols available within the tool making it hard to understand which one to use in creating your own flowchart? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010)
- Construct: Group’s Strength of Adoption of the Technology
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) To what extent was your group convinced about using the above tool? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent is your group committed to the use of the above tool? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent does your group plan to regularly use the above tool? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010)
- Construct: Individual Adaptation Behaviors
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I communicated with colleagues in order to better understand how this system operates. Scale 0 to 10, Disagree to Agree Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) I communicated with IT specialists in order to better understand how this system operates. Scale 0 to 10, Disagree to Agree Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) I researched, on my own initiative, in order to increase my knowledge and my mastery of this system. Scale 0 to 10, Not at all to Very Much Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) I explored several information sources, on my own initiative, concerning this system. Scale 0 to 10, Not at all to Very Much Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) How much effort (in time and energy) did you spend to (disagree to agree) learn about this system? Scale 0 to 10, a Little to a Lot Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) I invested much effort (in time and energy) in order to better use this system. Scale 0 to 10, a Little to a Lot Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007)
- Construct: Individual Characteristics
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified
- Construct: Individual Performance Impact (Performance Impact of Computer Systems)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The company computer environment has a large, positive impact on my effectiveness and productivity in my job. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) IS computer systems and services are an important and valuable aid to me in the performance of my job. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Individual performance improvement after groupware adoption
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Time reduction in task completion. Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Easier task execution. Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Capability enhancement in executing tasks. Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013)
- Construct: Intention to Continue
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I intend to use this wiki tool in the near future. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I plan to use this wiki tool in the near future. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I predict that I will use this wiki tool in the near future. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Intention to Use
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I plan to use this wiki tool for my study. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I intend to use this wiki tool for my future work. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) It is very likely that I will use this wiki tool in the near future. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Internal Self-efficacy
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I could use this wiki tool to facilitate my work if there was no one around to tell me what to do. Likert 1-10, Not at all confident to Totally confident Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I could use this wiki tool to facilitate my work if I had never used a wiki system like it before. Likert 1-10, Not at all confident to Totally confident Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I could use this wiki tool to facilitate my work if I had only the online help for reference. Likert 1-10, Not at all confident to Totally confident Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Intra-group Conflict
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) To what extent did you and the other party disagree over alternatives? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent was the conflict you and the other party experienced directly related to the task? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent did you and the other party debate over some of the alternatives? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent did you and the other party advocate different points of view? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent were the differences you and the other party experienced task-related? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent did you and the other party disagree over alternative solutions proposed? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010)
- Construct: Perceived Individual Benefits
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Knowledge gained using this system will be helpful to me with other systems in the future. Scale 0 to 10, Disagree to Agree Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) Using this system allows me to be more efficient at my job. Scale 0 to 10, Disagree to Agree Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) Knowing how to use this system makes me more marketable. Scale 0 to 10, Disagree to Agree Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007)
- Construct: Perceived Organizational Benefits
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Overall, the benefits of this system for my organization are. Scale 0 to 10, Low to High Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) This system improved the operations of my organization. Scale 0 to 10, Disagree to Agree Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) This system improved the performance of my organization. Scale 0 to 10, Not at all to Very Much Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007)
- Construct: Perceived Usefulness (Adoption)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I think this wiki tool would allow me to accomplish my study assignments more quickly. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) Using this wiki tool could help improve the quality of my study. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) This wiki tool would give me greater control over my study. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) Using this wiki tool would enhance my effectiveness in my study. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Perceived Usefulness (Post-adoption)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Using this wiki tool helps me accomplish tasks more quickly. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) Using this wiki tool improves the quality of the work I do. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) Using this wiki tool gives me greater control over my work. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) Using this wiki tool enhances my effectiveness in my work. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Performance Impacts
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The ERP system helps me be more effective. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The ERP system has a positive impact on my productivity in my job. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The ERP is an important aid to me in the performance of my job. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The efficiency of the operations in my work. Scale 1 to 7, Very Low to Very High Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) The adherence to plan and budgets of my work. Scale 1 to 7, Very Low to Very High Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) The amount of work I produce. Scale 1 to 7, Very Low to Very High Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) Effectiveness of my interaction with people from other projects, teams or units. Scale 1 to 7, Very Low to Very High Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) The quality of my work. Scale 1 to 7, Very Low to Very High Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) The ability to meet the goals of my work. Scale 1 to 7, Very Low to Very High Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008)
- Construct: Prior experience
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) How long have you been using PBworks/Google Sites? Never used it before, less than 3 months, 3 to less than 6 months, 6 to less than 12 months, 1 to less than 2 years, 2 years or more Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Satisfaction
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) All things considered, I am_________ with my use of this wiki tool. Scaled 1 to 7, Extremely Displeased to Extremely Pleased Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) All things considered, I am_________ with my use of this wiki tool. Scaled 1 to 7, Extremely frustrated to Extremely content Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) All things considered, I am_________ with my use of this wiki tool. Scaled 1 to 7, Extremely Terrible to Extremely Delighted Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) All things considered, I am_________ with my use of this wiki tool. Scaled 1 to 7, Extremely Dissatisfied to Extremely satisfied Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Satisfaction (Process Satisfaction)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) How would you describe your group's problem-solving process? Confusing/Understandable. Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) How would you describe your group's problem-solving process? (efficient/inefficient). Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) How would you describe your group's problem-solving process? Coordinated/Uncoordinated. Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) How would you describe your group's problem-solving process? Fair/Unfair. Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) How would you describe your group's problem-solving process? Satisfying/Unsatisfying. Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010)
- Construct: Satisfaction (Solution Satisfaction)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) To what extent do you feel personally responsible for the correctness of the group solution? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent does the final solution reflect your inputs? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent are you confident that the group solution is correct? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) To what extent do you feel committed to the group's solution? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010) How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of your group's solution? Not Specified Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010)
- Construct: Satisfaction with IS (Accessibility)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I can get data quickly and easily when I need to. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) It is easy to get access to data that I need. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Satisfaction with IS (Compatibility)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) When it is necessary to compare or aggregate data from two or more different sources, there may be unexpected or difficult inconsistencies. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) There are times when supposedly equivalent data from two different sources is inconsistent. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Sometimes it is difficult or impossible to compare or aggregate data from two different sources because the data is defined differently. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Satisfaction with IS (Confusion)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) There are so many different systems or files, each with slightly different data, that is hard to understand which one to use in a given situation. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) The data are stored in so many different places and in so many forms, it is hard to know how to use it effectively. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Satisfaction with IS (Ease of Use of Hardware and Software)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) It is easy to learn how to use the computer systems that give me access to data. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) The computer systems that give me access to the data are convenient and easy to use. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Satisfaction with IS (Flexibility)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Our computer systems are too inflexible to be able to respond to my changing needs for data. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) When business requirements change, it is easy to change the selection and format of data made available by our computer systems. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) I am not getting as quick a turnaround as I need on requests for new reports or data. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Satisfaction with IS (Locatability)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) It is easy to locate corporate or divisional data on a particular issue, even if I have not used that data before. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) It is easy to find out what data the corporation maintains on a given subject. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Ease of determining what data is available and where. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Satisfaction with IS (System Reliability)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The data is subject to frequent system problems and crashes. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) I can count on the system to be “up” and available when I need it. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) The computer systems I use are subjected to unexpected or inconvenient down times, which makes it harder to do my work. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Satisfaction with IS support (Assistance)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I am getting the help I need in accessing and understanding the data. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) It is easy to get assistance when I am having trouble finding or using data. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Satisfaction with IS support (Authorization)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Data that would be useful to me is unavailable because I do not have the right authorization. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Getting authorization to access data that would be useful in my job is time consuming and difficult. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Data are safeguarded from unauthorized changes or use. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Satisfaction with IS support (Training)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) There is not enough training on how to find, understand, access, or use corporate or divisional data. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) I am getting the training I need to be able to use corporate or divisional data effectively in my job. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Support
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I am satisfied with the amount of support provided by vendor or other sources. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) I am satisfied with the availability of information systems staff for consultation. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: System Quality (Accuracy)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The system is accurate. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) I am satisfied with the accuracy of the system. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: System Quality (Content)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The ERP system provides the precise information I need. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The information contents provided by the ERP system meet my needs. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The ERP system provides reports that seem to be exactly what I need. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The ERP system provides sufficient information to my needs. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: System Quality (Currency)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The data provide by the ERP system is up-to-date enough for my purposes. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: System Quality (Format)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The output is presented in a useful format. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The information is clear. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: System Quality (Functionality)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The ERP system provides complete features I need. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) I am satisfied with the speed of interacting with the system. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) It is easy to detect possible errors in the ERP systems. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) It is easy to correct errors that happen in the ERP systems. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) It is easy to change the output format. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: System Quality (Meaning)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The exact definition of data fields relating to my tasks is easy to find out. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: System Quality (Right Level of Detail)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The ERP system maintains data at an appropriate level of detail for my group’s tasks. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: System Quality (Right data)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The ERP system available to me is missing critical data that are very useful to me in my job. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: System Quality (Timeliness)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The ERP system provides me the information I need in a timely manner. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: System Reliability
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The ERP system I use is subjected to unexpected or inconvenient down times which makes it harder to do my work. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) The ERP system I use is subject to frequent system problems and crashes. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: Task Characteristics
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Individual communication with each team member (e.g., through email systems). Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Communication and discussion with a number of team members at the same time (e.g., through bulletin board). Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Attainment, sharing, and assessment of knowledge and information. Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Documentation and systematic management and retention of documents. Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Workflow management (setting the task procedure by assigning roles and sequences). Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Personal Scheduling. Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013)
- Construct: Task Characteristics (Interdependence)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The problems I deal with frequently involve more than one business function. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) The business problems I deal with frequently involve more than one organization group. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Task Characteristics (Knowledge Tacitness)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The knowledge required for my task is easy to comprehensively document in manuals or reports. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) The knowledge required for my task is easy to comprehensively understand from written documents. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) The knowledge required for my task is easy to precisely communicate through written documents. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) The knowledge required for my task is easy to communicate without personal experience. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008)
- Construct: Task Characteristics (Nonroutineness)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I frequently deal with ad hoc, nonroutine business problems. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) I frequently deal with ill-defined business problems. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Frequently, the business problems I work on involve answering questions that have never been asked in quite that form before. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Frequently, in the mindset of using data to address some issue, I may decide to restate the problem and access slightly different data than I had at first planned. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Task Characteristics (Task Equivocality)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I frequently deal with ill-defined business problems. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) I frequently deal with ad-hoc, non-routine business problems. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) Frequently the business problems I work on involve answering questions that have never been asked in quite that form before. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task Characteristics (Task Interdependence)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) My work is often completed with staff from other departments. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) My work often involves sharing knowledge or information with other departments. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) The results of my work are dependent on the efforts of people from within my department. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) The knowledge and information I need is often subject to change. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) My work often involves using knowledge or information from other departments. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) The results of my work are dependent on the efforts of people from other departments. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) The business problems I deal with frequently involve more than one business function. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) The problems I deal with frequently involve more than one business function. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task Characteristics (Variety)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Frequently, my need for information arises on an irregular schedule and is not predictable in advance. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) There is a great deal of variety in the problems, issues, or questions for which I need data in my work. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Frequently, it is necessary to spend a fair amount of time thinking about how best to address a business problem before I begin an analysis. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Frequently, after I see what data are available or what the data say, I change my view of the problem and of what data are needed. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Task-Technology Adaptation Behaviors
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) How much effort (in time and energy) did you spend recommending or suggesting improvements to this system’s functionalities. Scale 0 to 10, a Little to a Lot Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) How much effort (in time and energy) did you spend recommending or suggesting improvements to this system’s interface. Scale 0 to 10, a Little to a Lot Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) How much effort (in time and energy) did you spend recommending or suggesting improvements to this system’s hardware. Scale 0 to 10, a Little to a Lot Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) How much effort (in time and energy) did you spend recommending or suggesting modifications to your tasks so that they better fit this system. Scale 0 to 10, a Little to a Lot Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) How much effort (in time and energy) did you spend recommending or suggesting modifications to this system so that it better fits your tasks. Scale 0 to 10, a Little to a Lot Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) Overall, how much effort (in time and energy) did you spend so that your system and your business processes fit each other? Scale 0 to 10, a Little to a Lot Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) Overall, how much effort (in time and energy) did you spend so that your system and your business processes would be in harmony with each other? Scale 0 to 10, a Little to a Lot Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The functionalities of the wiki tool were very compatible with the task. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) The functionalities of the wiki tool made the task easy. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) Using the wiki tool fit with the way I work. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) Using the wiki tool fit with my educational practice. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) In general, the functionalities of the wiki tool were best fit to the task. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Authorization)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Data that would be useful to me is unavailable because I don't have the right authorization. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) Getting authorization to access data that would be useful in my job is time consuming and difficult. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Compatibility)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) There are times when I find that supposedly equivalent data from two different sources is inconsistent. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) Sometimes it is difficult for me to compare or consolidate data from two different sources because the data is defined differently. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) When it's necessary to compare or consolidate data from different sources, I find that there may be unexpected or difficult inconsistencies. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Ease of Use /Training /Training)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) There is not enough training for me or my staff on how to find, understand, access or use the company computer systems. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) I am getting the training I need to be able to use company computer systems, languages, procedures and data effectively. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Ease of Use /Training/Ease of Use of Hardware & Software)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) It is easy to learn how to use the computer systems I need. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) The computer systems I use are convenient and easy to use. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Locatability)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) It is easy to find out what data the corporation maintains on a given subject. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) It is easy to locate corporate or divisional data on a particular issue, even if I haven't used that data before. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Locatability/Meaning)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The exact definition of data fields relating to my tasks is easy to find out. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) On the reports or systems I deal with, the exact meaning of the data elements is either obvious, or easy to find out. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Production Timeliness/Timeliness
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) IS, to my knowledge, meets its production schedules such as report delivery and running scheduled jobs. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) Regular IS activities (such as printed report delivery or running scheduled jobs) are completed on time. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Quality/Currency)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I can't get data that is current enough to meet my business needs. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) The data is up to date enough for my purposes. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Quality/Right Data)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The data maintained by the corporation or division is pretty much what I need to carry out my tasks. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) The computer systems available to me are missing critical data that would be very useful to me in my job. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Quality/Right Level of Detail)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The company maintains data at an appropriate level of detail for my group's tasks. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) Sufficiently detailed data is maintained by the corporation. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Relationship with Users/Consulting)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Based on my previous experience I would use IS technical and business planning consulting services in the future if I had a need. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) I am satisfied with the level of technical and business planning consulting expertise I receive from IS. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Relationship with Users/IS Interest and Dedication)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) IS takes my business group's business problems seriously. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) IS takes a real interest in helping me solve my business problems. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Relationship with Users/IS Performance)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) IS delivers agreed-upon solutions to support my business needs. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Relationship with Users/IS Understanding of Business)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The IS people we deal with understand the day-to-day objectives of my work group and its mission within our company. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) My work group feels that IS personnel can communicate with us in familiar business terms that are consistent. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Relationship with Users/Responsiveness)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) It often takes too long for IS to communicate with me on my requests. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) I generally know what happens to my request for IS services or assistance or whether it is being acted upon. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) When I make a request for service or assistance, IS normally responds to my request in a timely manner. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Task-Technology Fit (Systems Reliability)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I can count on the system to be "up" and available when I need it. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) The computer systems I use are subject to unexpected or inconvenient down times which makes it harder to do my work. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) The computer systems I use are subject to frequent problems and crashes. Not Specified Not Specified (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
- Construct: Technological Novelty Seeking
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I paid attention to differences of this new technology from any other technology I previously used. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I tended to figure out how this wiki tool was unique in relation to the tools that I am currently using (word processing tool). Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016) I was mindful about how this wiki tool differed from similar tools (e.g., word processing tool) I had used. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Wiki Systems (Sun & Fang, 2016)
- Construct: Technology Characteristics
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Individual communication with each team member (e.g., through email systems). Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Communication and discussion with a number of team members at the same time (e.g., through bulletin board). Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Attainment, sharing, and assessment of knowledge and information. Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Documentation and systematic management and retention of documents. Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Workflow management (setting the task procedure by assigning roles and sequences). Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013) Personal Scheduling. Likert 1-7, Extremely Large Extent to Extremely Small Extent Groupware System (Yang, Kang, Oh, & Kim, 2013)
- Construct: Technology Characteristics (Compatibility)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Using the K-portal is compatible with my work. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) Using the K-portal is completely compatible with my current situation. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) I think that using the K-portal fits well the way I like to work. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) Using the K-portal fits into my work style. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008)
- Construct: Technology Characteristics (Output Quality/Completeness)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) How you feel about the knowledge content provided by the K-portal in your company. Scale 1 to 7, Incomplete to Complete Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) How you feel about the knowledge content provided by the K-portal in your company. Scale 1 to 7, Inconsistent to Consistent Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) How you feel about the knowledge content provided by the K-portal in your company. Scale 1 to 7, Insufficient to Sufficient Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) How you feel about the knowledge content provided by the K-portal in your company. Scale 1 to 7, Inadequate to Adequate Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008)
- Construct: Technology Characteristics (Output Quality/Relevancy)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) How you feel about the knowledge content provided by the K-portal in your company. Scale 1 to 7, Useless to Useful Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) How you feel about the knowledge content provided by the K-portal in your company. Scale 1 to 7, Irrelevant to Relevant Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) How you feel about the knowledge content provided by the K-portal in your company. Scale 1 to 7, Hazy to Clear Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) How you feel about the knowledge content provided by the K-portal in your company. Scale 1 to 7, Bad to Good Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008)
- Construct: Technology Interaction Behaviors
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I use this system (or application) to solve various problems. Scale 0 to 10, Not at all to Very Much Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) I use this system (or application) to justify my decisions. Scale 0 to 10, Not at all to Very Much Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) I use this system (or application) to exchange with other people. Scale 0 to 10, Not at all to Very Much Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) I use this system (or application) to plan or follow up on my tasks. Scale 0 to 10, Not at all to Very Much Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) I use this system (or application) to coordinate activities with others. Scale 0 to 10, Not at all to Very Much Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) I use this system (or application) to serve customers. Scale 0 to 10, Not at all to Very Much Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) For accomplishing my tasks, this system is essential. Scale 0 to 10, Not at all to Very Much Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007) When you perform a task that you know the system supports, what percentage of time do you use the system? Percentage Not Specified (Barki, Titah, & Boffo, 2007)
- Construct: Training
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) There is not enough training for me or my staff on how to find, understand, access or use the ERP system. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006)
- Construct: User Satisfaction (Accuracy)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The data that I use or would like to use are accurate enough for my purposes. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) There are accuracy problems in the data I use or need. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: User Satisfaction (Currency)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) I cannot get data current enough to meet my needs. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) I need some data on the up-to-the-minute status of operations or events but cannot get it. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) The data is up-to-date enough for my purposes. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: User Satisfaction (Meaning)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) On the reports or systems I deal with, the exact meaning of data elements is either obvious or easy to find. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) The exact definition of data fields relating to my tasks is easy to find out. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) Data dictionaries or data directories are useful to me in locating or understanding the meaning of corporate or divisional data. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: User Satisfaction (Presentation)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The data that I need is displayed in a readable and understandable form. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) The data is presented in a readable and usefuls format. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: User Satisfaction (The Right Data)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The computer systems available to me are missing critical data that would be very useful to me in my job. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) The data maintained by the corporation or division is exactly what I need to carry out my tasks. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) It is more difficult to do my job effectively because some of the data I need is not available. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: User Satisfaction (The Right Level of Detail)
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Sufficiently detailed data is maintained by the corporation or division. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004) The company maintains data at an appropriate level of detail for my purposes. Scale 1 to 7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Data (Karimi, Somers, & Gupta, 2004)
- Construct: Utilization
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) Currently, I cannot accomplish my tasks without the ERP systems. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) If I have a choice to use any systems to perform my tasks, I still prefer to use the current system I use. Likert 1-7, Strongly Disagree to Agree Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Kositanurit, Ngwenyama, & Osei-Bryson, 2006) On the average, how frequently do you use the Kportal in your company? Never/almost never; Less than once a month; A few times a month; A few times a week; About once a day; Several times a day. Selection Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) On the average, how much time do you spend per week using the K-portal in your company? Never/almost never; Less than 1 h; 1–2 h; 2–4 h; 4–7 h; More than 7 h. Selection Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) Searching/retrieving knowledge. Scale 1 to 7, Not at All to a Great Extent Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) Synthesizing, summarizing or analyzing available knowledge. Scale 1 to 7, Not at All to a Great Extent Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008) Collaborating with colleagues for knowledge purpose. Scale 1 to 7, Not at All to a Great Extent Knowledge Management Technologies (Teo & Men, 2008)
- Construct: Voluntariness
Indicator Scale Context Reference(s) The group’s use of the flowcharting tool was voluntary. Scale 1 to 7, Mandatory Setting to Voluntary Setting Microsoft Word and Microsoft Visio (Sarker & Valacich, 2010)