task−technology fit for mobile information systems … · task−technology fit for ... and the...

Task−Technology Fit for Mobile Information Systems

Judith GebauerUniversity of Illinois at Urbana−Champaign

Michael J. Shaw Michele L. GribbinsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana−Champaign University of Illinois at Urbana−Champaign

Abstract

Mobile information systems (IS) hold great promise to support organizational processes.Clear guidelines, however, of how to design effective mobile IS in support of organizationalprocesses have not been developed. Based on earlier research that emphasizes the importanceof fit between organizational tasks and technology and that develops fit profiles for specifictask−technology combinations, this paper develops a task−technology fit (TTF) profile formobile IS to support managerial tasks. We suggest a three−way match between dimensionsof managerial tasks, mobile IS, and the mobile use context. We find that use situationscharacterized by high distraction and poor quality of network connection are particularlychallenging for the design of mobile IS, and that the user interface requires particularattention. The proposed conceptual model of task−technology fit provides guidelines for thedesign of effective mobile IS and for future research studies.

This working paper replaces 2005 Working Paper #05−0119Published: 6/26/2006URL: http://www.business.uiuc.edu/Working_Papers/papers/06−0107.pdf

http://www.business.uiuc.edu/Working_Papers/papers/06-0107.pdf

Task−Technology Fit for Mobile Information Systems

Judith GebauerUniversity of Illinois at Urbana−Champaign

Michael J. Shaw Michele L. GribbinsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana−Champaign University of Illinois at Urbana−Champaign

Abstract

Mobile information systems (IS) hold great promise to support organizational processes.Clear guidelines, however, of how to design effective mobile IS in support of organizationalprocesses have not been developed. Based on earlier research that emphasizes the importanceof fit between organizational tasks and technology and that develops fit profiles for specifictask−technology combinations, this paper develops a task−technology fit (TTF) profile formobile IS to support managerial tasks. We suggest a three−way match between dimensionsof managerial tasks, mobile IS, and the mobile use context. We find that use situationscharacterized by high distraction and poor quality of network connection are particularlychallenging for the design of mobile IS, and that the user interface requires particularattention. The proposed conceptual model of task−technology fit provides guidelines for thedesign of effective mobile IS and for future research studies.

Published: 6/26/2006Entered: June 26, 2006.

1

Task-Technology Fit for Mobile Information Systems

Judith Gebauer, Michael J. Shaw, Michele L. Gribbins

{gebauer|mjshaw|mgribbin}@uiuc.edu

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

College of Business

Department of Business Administration

350 Wohlers Hall

1206 South Sixth Street

Champaign, IL 61820

Last updated: June 21, 2006

Abstract

Mobile information systems (IS) hold great promise to support organizational processes. Clear guidelines,

however, of how to design effective mobile IS in support of organizational processes have not been

developed. Based on earlier research that emphasizes the importance of fit between organizational tasks

and technology and that develops fit profiles for specific task-technology combinations, this paper

develops a task-technology fit (TTF) profile for mobile IS to support managerial tasks. We suggest a

three-way match between dimensions of managerial tasks, mobile IS, and the mobile use context. We find

that use situations characterized by high distraction and poor quality of network connection are

particularly challenging for the design of mobile IS, and that the user interface requires particular

attention. The proposed conceptual model of task-technology fit provides guidelines for the design of

effective mobile IS and for future research studies.

Keywords: Mobile information systems, managerial tasks, task-technology fit

2

Motivation

The relationships among technology, organizational processes, and performance are of great

interest to organizational researchers (Orlikowski 2000). Technologies now exist that enable employees

to “stay close to their local situations while engaging in global activities critical to their company’s

sustainability (Malhotra and Majchrazk 2005).” One such technology is mobile information systems (IS).

The ubiquitous nature of mobile IS provide new opportunities, issues and challenges (Lyytinnen and Yoo

2002a, 2002b) to organizations as they adopt these new technologies into their processes with the hopes

of enhancing performance. While mobile IS that are deployed to support an increasingly mobile

workforce promise to improve organizational processes (Balasubramaniam, Peterson, and Jarvenpaa

2002; Computerworld 2003), many questions remain concerning technology development, applications

and business models (Agrawal, Chari, and Sankar 2003; Smith, Kulatilaka, and Venkatraman 2002;

Tarasewich, Nickerson, and Warkentin 2002; Zhang, Yuan, and Archer 2003). In particular, the

requirements of mobile IS to adequately support mobile professionals have not been identified

systematically.

This paper integrates earlier research in the areas of organizational tasks, mobile technology, and

task-technology fit in order to develop a profile of task-technology fit (TTF) for mobile IS, with the intent

to contribute to the effectiveness and success of mobile IS in organizational settings. More specifically,

we hope to identify areas where the deployment of mobile IS can be considered particularly promising or

difficult to achieve due to the use context. Our results help assess and explain the success of mobile IS

applications within organizations, while providing conceptual guidelines for system development. In

addition, our systematically derived propositions comprise a research framework that can guide future

research studies. In the following, we first discuss our conceptual bases of earlier research publications of

task-technology fit, managerial tasks and mobile IS. We then develop a profile of task-technology fit for

mobile IS, discuss the implications of our propositions, draw a number of conclusions, and point out

avenues for future research.

3

Two Theories of Task-Technology Fit

Two largely independent theories of TTF have emerged. The first, initiated by Goodhue and

Thompson (1995), established TTF as an important concept in assessing and explaining IS success. The

second, initiated by Zigurs and Buckland (1998), developed a systematic profile for the task-technology

combination of group tasks and group support systems (GSS). While Goodhue and Thompson (1995)

focused on individuals’ use of IS and presented a primarily positivistic research approach applicable to IS

in general, Zigurs and Buckland (1998) focused on groups’ use of IS and formulated fit profile applicable

specifically to GSS. Both streams are reviewed next.

Task-Technology Fit to Explain IS Success

Goodhue and Thompson (1995) proposed a comprehensive technology-to-performance model

that included characteristics of information technology, tasks, and of the individual user as explanatory

variables for technology use and for individual performance. A simpler version of the technology-to-

performance model, referred to as the TTF model, found moderate empirical support for the direct links

between task and technology characteristics and user-perceived TTF. Results confirmed that TTF and

usage together better explained the impact of information technology on individual performance (i.e.,

user-perceived accomplishment of individual tasks) than usage alone.

Related studies broadly confirmed the relevance of the TTF construct to assess the value of an IS

(Goodhue 1995) and to assess and predict system usage (Dishaw and Strong 1998) and individual

performance (Goodhue et al. 2000). Staples and Seddon (2004) confirmed that the technology-to-

performance model can explain performance for both mandatory and voluntary use settings. Different

aspects of TTF have been confirmed relevant for IS in general (Ferratt and Vlahos 1998, Goodhue 1995,

Goodhue 1998, Goodhue et al. 1997, and Goodhue and Thompson 1995), as well as for specific

technologies (Dishaw and Strong 1998, 1999; Goodhue et al. 2000), and for a variety of tasks (Dishaw

and Strong 1998, 1999; Ferrat and Vlahos 1998; Goodhue 1995, 1998; Goodhue and Thompson 1995;

Goodhue et al. 1997, 2000; Majchrzak, Malhotra and John 2005; Staples and Seddon 2004).

4

In summary, we note that this stream of research corroborated the relevance of the TTF concept

in explaining and predicting IS success for individual performance. Since no systematic bias has been

identified regarding the relevance of TTF for different types of IS, we assume that TTF is a valid

construct to explain the success of mobile IS, yet we also take note of the need to include into the analysis

the particularities of mobile technology as compared to non-mobile technology, such as the individual use

context. The basic idea of TTF has been considered in mobile IS research studies (Gebauer and Shaw

2004, Junglas and Watson 2003, Liang and Wei 2004), but has not been integrated systematically. A

limiting aspect to our research objective is the fact that Goodhue and Thompson (1995) focused more on

the relevance of the TTF concept to explain individual performance. The systematic analysis of

requirements to achieve fit for particular combinations of tasks and technology, however, achieved less

attention, an aspect that is addressed by the second stream of research.

Task-Technology Fit for Group Support Systems

Building on earlier research work on organization and group processes, Zigurs and Buckland

(1998) developed a theory of TTF to support the development and deployment of GSS to support group

tasks. Assuming that a good fit between tasks and technology would result in good group performance,

the authors defined fit as “ideal profiles composed of an internally consistent set of task contingencies and

GSS elements that affect group performance (p. 323).” Performance was viewed generically as the

accomplishment of group goals to be operationalized for individual task situations. Five categories of

group tasks were identified (simple, problem, decision, judgment, and fuzzy) as well as three technology

support dimensions (communication, process structuring, information processing support). Finally, a set

of fit profiles was developed (e.g., “Simple tasks should result in the best group performance … when

done using a GSS configuration that emphasizes communication support”), which was later tested and

largely confirmed by Zigurs et al. (1999).

Research studies building on Zigurs and Buckland’s (1998) theory of TTF generally sought to

improve the support of collaborative and group tasks to be conducted in various circumstances, with a

variety of group support technologies (Barkhi 2001-2002, Dennis, Wixom and Vandenberg 2001,

5

Massey, Montoya-Weiss, Hung and Ramesh 2001, Murty and Kerr 2004, Sussman, Gray, Perry and Blair

2003). Jahng, Jain and Ramamurthy (2000) applied a similar concept in the area of electronic commerce,

but overall, Zigurs and Buckland’s (1998) theory of TTF has mostly been applied to collaborative

technologies. Research has found that not all tasks that a group might undertake are best supported by

collaborative technologies (see Malhotra and Majchrzak 2004; Wittenbaum, Hollingshead and Botero

2004).

Towards a Profile of TTF for Mobile IS

To develop a profile of TTF for mobile IS, we apply the concept of task-technology fit to

managerial tasks, supported by IS in a mobile use context, using task performance as a proxy of system

success. Similar to Zigurs and Buckland (1998), we consider TTF as pre-defined profiles, which we

develop in a three step process. Profiles have the benefit of being specific about the suggested areas of

application and the identification of potential problems while outlining a research agenda. We first look at

the main constructs and then describe the steps to derive TTF for mobile IS.

Managerial tasks

As managers are among the most mobile employees in organizations and many current

applications of mobile technology do in fact target managers (Computerworld 2003), a focus on

managerial tasks is warranted for the analysis of mobile IS. Managerial research studies have frequently

used two dimensions to describe managerial tasks: task non-routineness (ranging from low to high) and

task interdependence (ranging from low to high). In the context of mobile IS, a third dimension, time-

criticality (ranging from low to high), appears to be relevant.

Task Non-Routineness

The concept of task non-routineness has a long history in management research. Anthony (1965)

categorized managerial activities based on the degree of (non-)routineness (operational control,

managerial control, strategic planning), followed by Gorry and Scott Morton (1971) who linked the

degree of structure with different organizational levels of managerial decision making and stated that

lower degrees of structure (routineness) are associated with higher levels of management. In an analysis

6

of how humans solve problems, Simon (1960) found the level of structure (routineness) of a task to be

manifested in characteristics such as repetitiveness and novelty, and to determine the ease with which

managerial decision making can be programmed (automated) or requires judgment and intelligent,

adaptive, problem-oriented action. Perrow (1967) described organizational technologies according to the

number of exceptions to be handled and the degree to which a search procedure is analyzable (i.e., relying

on past experiences and previously developed concepts and routines) or unanalyzable (i.e., not logical or

unanalytic, often reverting to intuition, chance, and guesswork). According to Perrow (1967), non-routine

technology is best applied to situations with large numbers of exceptions and unanalyzable search results,

while routine technology is best applied to situations with few exceptions and analyzable search results.

Van de Ven and Ferry (1980) distinguished between two dimensions of task structure: task variability

(e.g., number of exceptions), and task difficulty (e.g., analyzability and predictability). Ahuja and Carley

(1999) classify tasks by their analyzability and variety, defining task analyzability as “the extent to which

a task can be broken down into small, well-defined components” and task variety as “the extent to which

there is variation in the task over time.” Since in practice, task variety and difficulty (analyzability) were

correlated and difficult to distinguish, some researchers have combined the two variables into a single

dimension, termed task-non-routineness (Daft and Macintosh 1981, Karimi et al. 2004), a concept that we

follow in the current paper.

Based on previous research studies of management, we view task non-routineness as the level of

structuredness, analyzability, difficulty and predictability of a task. Tasks of low non-routineness (high

routineness) include the processing of travel expenses or the procurement of standard items, whereas

tasks of high non-routineness are typically more difficult to accomplish (e.g., strategic planning, solving

of unique problems, and managerial decision-making). The completion of non-routine tasks are a

common challenge for distributed teams (Majchrzak, Malhotra and John 2005).

Task Interdependence

Identified as a second dimension of managerial tasks (Goodhue and Thompson 1995, Karimi et

al. 2004), task interdependence has been defined as the exchange of output between segments within a

7

subunit and with other organizational units (Fry and Slocum 1984). Interdependence requires

coordination between activities (Malone and Crowston 1994) and, thus, lends itself well to technological

support. Research on task interdependence dates back to Thompson (1967) who was concerned with

different mechanisms to achieve organizational coordination. Thompson (1967) proposed that different

types of interdependence (e.g., pooled, sequential, reciprocal) existed that required different coordination

mechanisms (e.g., standardization, plan, and mutual adjustment) depending on the technologies applied in

an organization. For example, when interdependence increased from pooled to sequential to reciprocal,

coordination mechanisms should change from rules to standardization to mutual adjustment, as the later

required a greater amount of communication as a means for coordination (Thompson 1967). Thompson’s

(1967) three interdependency types are thought to contain “increasing degrees of contingency,

coordination difficulty, and cost” (Barki and Pinsonneault 2005).

We include task interdependence into our analysis as the degree to which a task is related to other

tasks and organizational units, and as a result the extent to which coordination with other organizational

units is required (Thompson 1967). The level of interdependence determines the user’s need to obtain

access to an IS to perform a task as part of a larger whole, which has a direct impact on users’

performance and an indirect impact on the performance of others (Gebauer and Shaw 2004). Highly

interdependent tasks, such as the development of an advertising campaign, require process actors to

interact extensively to generate the desired outcome, while a task having no interdependence, such as

telemarketing, can be executed entirely by one person (Wageman and Gordon 2005). Interdependence

can be operationalized with the number of regular communication channels and partners that a user

interacts with, the pattern of interaction between tasks and resources that are consumed and produced

jointly or individually (Crowston 2003), or the level of connectedness (e.g., Gantt-diagram).

Time Criticality

Time criticality, defined as the importance with which a task needs to be performed promptly

(urgency) depicts the dynamics of managers’ work environments and tasks. Even though time criticality

has generally received limited attention by scholars of organization science, the ability of organizations to

8

respond quickly to changing market requirements has been discussed in management and strategy

research (D’Aveni 1994, Bradley and Nolan 1998). For example, Straub and Karahanna (1998) found that

the urgency (time-criticality) of communication tasks influence communicators’ preferred type of media

(synchronous vs. asynchronous) selected to support the task.

The concept of time-criticality has also captured the attention of scholars of mobile IS. Junglas

and Watson (2003) described time-dependency as relevant to mobile commerce, while Balasubramaniam,

Peterson and Jarvenpaa (2001) mentioned time criticality as an important dimension of mobile systems.

Liang and Wei (2004) suggested that mobile commerce was well suited for emergency and time-critical

services (similar: Yuan and Zhang 2003), while Siau, Lim and Shen (2001) stated that mobile

technologies provide immediacy. Jarvenpaa, Lang, Takeda, and Tuunainen (2003) found that users’ value

of mobile devices and services revealed their desire to obtain rapid feedback. Venkatesh, Ramesh and

Massey (2003) concluded that time-criticality as a trigger for use might be more important in wireless

than in wired environments, which could explain why time-criticality has not found more consideration in

organization literature. In practice, support for urgent tasks (e.g., notification of emergency situations) has

been among the earliest applications of mobile technologies (Ammenwerth, Buchauer, Bludau and Haux

2000).

Mobile IS

Research on mobile IS has evolved in recent years. Scholars have provided conceptual overviews

of the industry value chain (Barnes 2002), identified development and research issues (Tarasewich,

Nickerson and Warkentin 2002, Varshney, Malloy, Jain and Ahluwalia. 2002, Varshney and Vetter

2001), conceptualized business models for telecommunication services providers, devices and

applications (Haaker et al. 2004, Varshney and Vetter 2001), identified strategies for system development

(Kemper and Wolf 2003, Krogstie et al. 2004), and detailed development cost and infrastructure standards

(Balasubramaniam et al. 2001). To develop a profile of TTF for mobile IS, we focus on studies that

emphasize the user perspective, and characterize mobile IS along three dimensions: functionality, user

interface, and adaptability (similar: Siau and Shen 2003). Functionality is conceptualized to be applicable

9

to both mobile and non-mobile IS, whereas user interface and adaptability are conceptualized with a

particular focus on mobile IS.

Functionality

The use of functionality to characterize technology is in line with earlier applications of the

theory of TTF, as Goodhue and Thompson (1995) used functionality as one proxy for their technology

construct, while Cooper and Zmud (1990) recognized the functional differences between two systems.

Dishaw and Strong (1998, 1999) applied a functional view of technology stating that “software will be

used if the functions available to the user support the activities of the user (1998, p. 109) ”. Zigurs and

Buckland (1998) used functionality to define GSS technology “as a set of communication, structuring,

and information processing tools that are designed to work together to support the accomplishment of

group tasks.” Malhotra and Majchrzak (2004) identify four different types of support provided by

information technologies for distributed groups: task coordination, external connectivity, distributed

cognition, and interactivity.

We view functionality to refer to the capabilities of the mobile IS. Based on the notion that mobile

IS combine traditional computing functionality with interpersonal communication functionality

(Balasubramaniam et al. 2001, Krogstie et al. 2004, Sarker and Wells 2003, Varshney et al. 2002, Yuan

and Zhang 2003), we categorize mobile IS functionality according to two dimensions, namely (1)

whether the main focus is on interpersonal interaction or on computing, and (2) whether the direction of

the interaction between the user and the system is one-way or two-way interactive (reciprocal)

(Balasubramaniam et al. 2001). The resulting classification scheme includes four functionalities (Gebauer

and Shaw 2004, similar: Yuan and Zhang 2003), as described and exemplified in Table 1.

<<Table located at end of paper>>

User interface of mobile IS

As a second factor, the user interface includes a set of features that together describe the

experience to use an IS (“look & feel”). While functionality as a characteristic of IS can generally apply

to both mobile and non-mobile technologies, the user interface is more of an idiosyncratic factor, insofar

10

as mobile technologies bring attention back to the devices used to access and utilize functionality. No

longer can we assume that a stationary computer with a standard monitor and keyboard is used. While

mobile devices, such as cellular phones, personal digital assistants, laptops, pocket and tablet PCs, and

one- or two-way pagers, can all be considered more portable than their stationary counterparts,

considerable differences exist in terms of form factors (e.g., size, weight, output and input devices) and

other system elements (e.g., processor and battery performance, storage capacity, bandwidth

requirements, menu structures, and user dialogue). Developments are ongoing and new devices and

applications reach the market constantly (Computerworld 2003, Durlacher 1999, Scudder 2002, Yuan and

Zhang 2003).

Many researchers have stressed the importance of the user interface for the design of mobile IS

(Balasubramaniam et al. 2001, Barnes 2003, Chan, Fang, Brzezinski, Zhou, Xu, and Lam 2002, Krogstie

et al. 2004, Lee and Benbasat 2004, Siau et al. 2001, Siau and Shen 2003, Smith et al. 2002, Tarasewich

2003b, Tarasewich et al. 2002, Varshney et al. 2002, Varshney and Vetter 2001, Yuan and Zhang 2003).

Acknowledging the complexity and breadth of the user interface, we will exemplify the requirements for

the user interface as related to individual use situations and include menu-structures, user dialogue and

help features, setup requirements, bandwidth requirements, and system performance into the analysis. The

user interface of mobile IS is both a limiting and an enabling factor that requires careful management (Al-

Hawamdeh 2004), and additional research on the requirements and impacts of the user interface of mobile

IS is needed.

Adaptability

The possibility to adapt mobile IS to various use situations is a differentiator and a key enabler

for mobile commerce business models (Balasubramaniam et al. 2001, Kini and Thanarithiporn 2004, Lee

and Benbasat 2004, Yuan and Zhang 2003). Two forms of adaptation can be distinguished: an adaptation

of the application to the physical location of use (i.e., location-awareness) and an adaptation of the

application to the individual user and use situation (i.e., personalization). Rao and Minakakis (2003)

discussed requirements and business models for location-based services, and examples of location-aware

11

mobile IS have been provided in Computerworld (2003). Junglas and Watson (2003) identified two

characteristics of tasks that are relevant with respect to adaptability: (1) location-dependency (i.e.,

situations in which the users’ location is important), and (2) identity-dependency (i.e., situations in which

the users’ identity matters). We also suggest the inclusion of features that allow for consistency

throughout changing use conditions, such as when a user is moving between locations and as a result may

experience service disruptions.

In the following, we view adaptability as the ability of a mobile IS to adapt to varying

circumstances, such as use locations (location-based services), use situations (disruption management),

and users (personalization). A device with high adaptability would provide services specific to the user

and its location, while devices with little or no adaptability would not.

Mobile Use Context

Ubiquity, allowing for the reaching of users anywhere and anytime as well as providing anywhere

and anytime access to information resources, has been identified as a defining factor of mobile IS

(Junglas and Watson 2003, Kemper and Wolf 2002, Kini and Thanarithiporn 2004, Siau et al. 2001,

Tarasewich et al. 2002, Varshney et al. 2002, Yuan and Zhang 2003). The desirable situation of ubiquity,

however, is often limited in several ways (Gebauer and Shaw 2004). To account for limitations, it has

been suggested to include the individual use-context into the design of mobile IS (Siau et al. 2001),

acknowledging that generally, the use-context in a mobile environment tends to be less stable than a home

or office environment (Tarasewich 2003a). Building on Chan et al.’s (2002) characterization of usability,

we focus on user distraction, network connection quality, and user mobility.

Distraction

Distraction has been mentioned as a factor characterizing the use-situations of mobile IS. Lee and

Benbasat (2004) found that users tended to multi-task when using mobile commerce applications, while

Tarasewich (2003a) stated that mobile users tended to have more distractions competing for their

attention. Chan et al. (2002) found that users had limited time and cognitive resources to spare for

performing tasks in mobile environments. Tarasewich (2003a) pointed out that mobility can lead to

12

frequently changing use-contexts and safety issues (e.g., driving) limiting users attention (Tarasewich

2003a).

In the following, we conceptulize distraction as the level of interference with the use of the

mobile system caused by activities and people in the use environment. Consequently, a high level of

interference caused by a large number of activities or people demanding a user’s attention cause a high

level of distraction, while a low number of activities or people suggests a low level of distraction. We also

consider a user to be distracted in a case where outside noise (e.g., a construction site) prevents the user

from picking up the signal of an incoming call or message.

Connection Quality

Network connectivity has been identified as a critical issue to the success of mobile IS and mobile

commerce. Varshney and Vetter (2001) identified network reliability as a technical requirement for

mobile applications to work properly. Chan et al. (2002) and Siau et al. (2001) suggested that wireless

network connections typically provide less bandwidth and tend to be less stable and predictable than

wired network connections. Kini and Thanarithiporn (2004) found access speed and availability drive the

adoption of mobile commerce, while Balasubramaniam et al. (2001) and Varshney et al. (2002) found that

network coverage and reliability impacted the usefulness and feasibility of mobile IS. Kim and Steinfield

(2004) found that connection quality impact user satisfaction and continued intention to use mobile

services. In our study, connection quality includes factors such as network availability, bandwidth, and

stability. High connection quality suggests that usage is not limited by network connections, while low

connection quality suggests that usage is affected by network connections.

Mobility

Mobile IS requires the mobility of at least one participating party (Balasubramaniam et al. 2001).

Krogstie et al. (2004) identified several types of mobility, including spatial, temporal and contextual

mobility. Sarker and Wells (2003) used the modality of mobility (type and extent) to assess mobile

services adoption and use. We define mobility as the extent to which a mobile IS is being used at different

geographic locations or while the user is in motion. Mobility refers to location changes over long

13

distances (e.g., by car, train or airplane) and short distances (e.g., moving from an outside construction

site to an inside office). A high level of mobility suggests that the user changes locations frequently and

that the locations are very different from each other (e.g., noisy vs. quiet environments, widely varying

access requirements across different countries), while a low level of mobility suggests that the user rarely

changes locations during use and that the locations of use are very similar to each other. We consider

mobility to be particularly relevant as it is related to the other use variables of distraction and network

connection quality. As a user moves between locations, the availability and quality of the network

connection can become a usage issue (Chan et al. 2002, Tarasewich et al. 2002) and a user’s level of

distraction can be impacted.

Fit

Researchers have used a variety of measures to assess the fit between tasks and technologies.

Goodhue and Thompson (1995) identified eight dimensions of fit as perceived by the users, including

measures for the quality and accessibility of data, ease of system use, system reliability, and the

relationship between the IS group and system users. The model measured separately the influences of task

and technology on fit. Dishaw and Strong (1999) computed the level of fit by matching available

functionality with the functionality required and/or anticipated by users to complete various tasks. Zigurs

and Buckland (1998) viewed fit as viable alignments (i.e., ideal profiles) of task and technology and

confirmed TTF by testing the performance effects of the task-technology alignments (Zigurs et al. 1999).

Junglas and Watson (2003) used a pre-determined profile of TTF to the characteristics of mobile

IS (ubiquity and uniqueness) and task characteristics (dependency on time, location, and identity). Results

showed an impact of TTF on technology use and an impact of use on performance. To assess the

commercial and managerial viability of mobile commerce applications, Liang and Wei (2004) presented a

fit-viability framework where TTF was roughly the match between task requirements and three attributes

of mobile commerce applications: location-sensitivity, time-criticality, and personalization, whereas

Gebauer and Shaw (2004) conceptualized fit as user-perceived usefulness in a study of success factors

and impacts of a mobile e-procurement system.

14

Similar to Zigurs and Buckland (1998), we apply a systematic approach to determine TTF as a

predefined profile, assuming that a good fit between tasks and technology has a positive impact on

performance and on technology success. As with Zigurs and Buckland (1998), we view performance

generically as the ability to reach stated task goals, to be operationalized in greater detail for individual

use situations. While Zigurs and Buckland’s (1998) TTF profile included the two independent constructs

of group tasks and GSS, we consider three independent constructs, and use a three-step process to

determine fit between managerial tasks and mobile IS, moderated by the mobile use context (Figure 1).

<<Figure located at end of paper>>

In the first step of analysis, we conceptualize the fit between managerial tasks and the IS

independent of the use context, i.e., in principle applicable to a mobile and non-mobile IS (Fit 1). Fit 1 is

the construct most similar to the various concepts of TTF developed elsewhere. In the second step of

analysis, we focus on the features of a mobile IS to determine its feasibility in a mobile use context (Fit

2). The second step is performed largely independent of a particular task. In the third and final step, we

join Fit 1 and Fit 2 to derive task-technology fit for mobile IS in support of managerial tasks (Fit 3). One

of the results of the analysis is the insight that the greater the differences between the mobile use context

and an ideal (non-mobile) use context, the more limited the support provided by a mobile IS for a given

task, and the more demanding the requirements of the IS (e.g., the user interface).

Fit 1: Managerial tasks and IS

To conceptualize fit between a managerial task and an IS independent of the (mobile) use context,

we abstract from the technology features related specifically to mobility. We, thus, focus on system

functionality only and omit the dimensions of the user interface of the mobile system and of adaptability.

Task Non-Routineness: Media-richness theory provides a good basis to derive requirements for

the ideal support of managerial tasks depending on the level of task non-routineness. Introduced by Daft

and Lengel (1984) the concept of media richness links managerial tasks with different types of

information and communication technology best suited to provide support. Daft and Lengel (1984)

described the range of managerial tasks from simple to complex and proposed that rich media (e.g., the

15

telephone and face-to-face meetings) were needed to process complex tasks (e.g., setting organizational

goals, strategies, communicate managerial intentions, and manage employee motivation), while media

low in information richness (e.g., written information sources, technical manuals and mathematical

formulas) were best to handle simple tasks (e.g., inventory control).

Applications of Daft and Lengel’s (1984) media richness theory to information and

communication systems have largely confirmed the theory. Leonard, Brands, Edmonson, and Fenwick

(1998) found that virtual development team members generally preferred and used richer media for more

complex tasks. Lim and Benbasat (2000) found that task analyzability (Perrow 1967) influenced the type

(richness) of information representation that was most appropriate for equivocality reduction (Daft and

Lengel 1984) and perceived usefulness of an IS (e.g., rich representations, rather than less rich

representations, helped decision makers cope with less analyzable tasks). Malhotra and Majchrzak (2004)

and Majchrazk, Rice, King, Malhotra and Ba (2000) argue that the level of routineness (non-routineness)

of a task determines the technology support required by the task.

We view IS that allow for interactive communication and flexible information access as

information rich, whereas systems that predominantly structure and automate data processing are

perceived as information poor. Consequently, we propose the following:

Proposition 1a: Managerial tasks of low non-routineness (i.e., high routineness) should

result in best performance when using an IS that emphasizes data processing.

Proposition 1b: Managerial tasks of high non-routineness should result in best

performance when using an IS that emphasizes communication and information access.

Task-Interdependence: Straus and McGrath (1994) and Andres and Zmud (2002) found that

highly interdependent tasks required richer information exchanges to clarify task assignments and project

requirements, develop effective task performance strategies, make decisions, and obtain performance

feedback. These results are in line with Thompson’s (1967) suggestion that the higher the level of

interdependence, the more difficult and less standardized the suggested form of coordination (see also

Daft and Lengel 1984).

16

We conclude that communication is better suited than structured data processing to support

situations of high interdependence given the higher degree of media-richness (information access is

somewhat in the middle). We also propose that notification is well suited to support situations of high

interdependence, as this functionality can help alert team members of waiting tasks and prompt their

completion. While situations of high task interdependence lead to added coordination requirements and

presumably complicate IS-based support, situations of low task interdependence generally do not result in

added coordination requirements. Thus, we focus on the case of high interdependence and propose the

following:

Proposition 2: Managerial tasks of high interdependence should result in best

performance when using an IS that emphasizes notification and communication.

Time Criticality: To support time-critical tasks, notification applications (e.g., the use of numeric

pagers for emergency alerts) were among the earliest applications of mobile IS. Gebauer and Shaw (2004)

found that notification helps management users cope with immediacy requirements.

We propose that in cases where a task needs to be performed promptly, notification of the team

members about the waiting task is particularly critical and useful. As the requirements to support non

time-critical tasks tend to be less specific than the situation of highly time-critical tasks, we focus on time-

critical tasks.

Proposition 3: Managerial tasks that are highly time-critical should result in best

performance when using an IS that emphasizes notification.

Table 2 summarizes the proposed match between managerial task characteristics and IS

functionality. The cells in Table 2 that are marked with “X” indicate the IS functionality that fit best with

the task-characteristics as outlined above, and the corresponding propositions are indicated in parentheses.

The logic of Fit 1 is such that each individual task characteristic (non-routineness, interdependence and

time criticality) relates to Proposition 1a or 1b, plus possibly also to Proposition 2 and to Proposition 3,

with each proposition stating the basic requirements of the task with respect to IS functionality.


17

Since every task has some level of non-routineness, a focus on particular functionality is

recommended according to Propositions 1a and 1b. In cases where a task is in addition highly

interdependent with other tasks, Proposition 2 is applied to recommend the provisioning of notification

and communication functionality to enable coordination. Furthermore, in cases where high time-criticality

applies, Proposition 3 is applied recommending the provisioning of notification functionality. Further

research is required to determine the relative strengths of the impacts of the three propositions on task

performance.

Fit 2: Mobile IS and mobile use context

We now focus on the impacts of mobile use context dimensions on the feasibility of mobile IS. In

addition to functionality, we now include the features specific to mobile IS, i.e., user interface and

adaptability. The underlying assumption is that compared to the “ideal” work situation presumably found

in traditional, stationary office environments, the feasibility of mobile IS is limited inasmuch as the

mobile use context is characterized by high user distraction and mobility, and a low level of network

quality.

Our analysis is largely based on earlier studies that have acknowledged the relevance of the task

context for the development and deployment of mobile IS, and on our own observations. We

acknowledge a relative lack of rigorous empirical studies on the feasibility of mobile IS to support various

individual use contexts, effectively leaving the validation and verification of each proposition a research

challenge on its own, together comprising a full research agenda.

Level of distraction high: Studies support the notion that situations of distraction require careful

consideration of the design of mobile applications in terms of functionality and user interface. Lim and

Benbasat (2004) stated that mobile settings limit user attention and pose specific interface design

requirements (e.g., form factors). Chan et al. (2002) found that inappropriate mobile IS design caused

information overloading as too much demand was placed on the user’s memory and that transactions

could not be too complicated if users were distracted or if connections could break. For tasks that required

18

much time for decision making and extensive information exchange (e.g., trip planning), desktop-

computers were the most appropriate platform.

We conclude that in addition to a carefully designed user interface (e.g., providing clear visual

cues), simple system functionality (notification, communication) can help make up for the limited

attention span of a distracted mobile user. In addition, verification features to acknowledge that a sent

message has actually been received and viewed by the user should be useful. The following propositions

summarize our recommendations for use situations of high distraction.

Proposition 4a: A mobile use context generally characterized by high user-distraction

should be supported by notification functionality in combination with verification, and by

communication functionality for best overall task performance.

Proposition 4b: A mobile use context generally characterized by high user-distraction

should result in suboptimal task performance when primarily supported by information

access functionality and by data processing functionality.

Proposition 4c: A mobile use context generally characterized by high user-distraction

should be supported by a specially designed user interface, e.g., providing targeted cues

and requiring minimal attention, for best overall task performance.

Quality of network connection low: The quality of a wireless network connection can be low or

even non-existent because of limited coverage, bandwidth, or network instability. Poor network quality is

problematic as it is the network connection that allows the user to access the regular corporate

information infrastructure. Poor network connections can hinder the usefulness, feasibility and success of

mobile IS (Beulen and Streng 2002, Chan et al. 2004, Gebauer and Shaw 2004, Varshney et al. 2002).

We propose that of all functionalities, notification combined with verification to the sender as to

whether the message has been received by the mobile user is the easiest to provide in cases of limited

network connectivity. Providing more complex information access and data processing functionalities as

well as communication functionality is more difficult (Chan et al. 2002). The recommendations for the

19

user interface in situations of poor connection quality include limitations of required up- and download-

times and bandwidth, as well as indicators of connection quality.

Proposition 5a: A mobile use context generally characterized by low quality of network

connection should be supported by notification functionality in combination with

verification for best overall task performance.

Proposition 5b: A mobile use context generally characterized by low quality of network

connection should result in suboptimal task performance when primarily supported by

communication, information access and data processing functionalities.

Proposition 5c: A mobile use context generally characterized by low quality of network

connection should be supported by applications with a specially designed user interface,

e.g., including limited bandwidth requirements and indicators of network quality, for best

overall task performance.

User Mobility: Situations of mobility present a challenge primarily because they create changes

of the level of user distraction, and regarding the availability and stability of network connection

(Balasubramaniam et al. 2001, Tarasewich et al. 2002). The adaptability and location-awareness of a

mobile application can be particularly helpful to support IS use in varying locations and use situations

(Liang and Wei 2004, Rao and Minakakis 2003). Chan et al. (2002) found that users on the move were

not always aware when their signal strength was weakening or when it was too low for connections.

Similarly, adaptability of an IS could provide for changing ring-mechanisms, depending on whether the

user is outside or inside, for an automatic adjustment to local time, and for location-based services, such

as help to find a hotel, in addition to allowing others to locate the moving user. Finally, it is recommended

that in the case of high mobility, the user interface of a mobile IS should allow for the continuation of

tasks that were disrupted due to sudden changes of network quality and user distraction.

Proposition 6a: A use context generally characterized by high user-mobility should be

supported by a user interface that can accommodate changes in the levels of user

distraction and of the quality of network connection for best overall task performance.

20

Proposition 6b: A use context generally characterized by high user-mobility should be

supported by adaptability (location-awareness and customization) of the mobile IS for

best overall task performance.

Table 3 summarizes the results of the previous discussion regarding the requirements of mobile

IS to support a mobile user. The table highlights that use situations of high user distraction and low

quality of network connection are particularly difficult to support, given restrictions on the feasible range

of particular functionalities, in addition to requirements of the user interface. Support requirements for

situations of high user mobility are primarily defined by the user interface and adaptability without

restrictions of the feasible range of functionalities. In comparison, we assume that a mobile use context

characterized by low user distraction, high quality of network connection, and low mobility does not lead

to requirements on functionality, user interface, and adaptability beyond what is required to support a user

in a regular, stationary use context.


Fit 3: TTF for Mobile IS

Based on the previous discussion, we are now ready to derive TTF for mobile IS to support

managerial tasks in mobile use contexts (Fit 3), based on a combination of Fit 1 (Propositions 1 to 3) and

Fit 2 (Propositions 4 to 7) and using a procedure of some resemblance with the mathematical procedure of

matrix multiplication. The result is depicted in Table 4 where each column represents a summary of one

row in Table 2 (i.e., Fit 1 between managerial task and IS functionality) and each row represents a

summary of one row in Table 3 (i.e., Fit 2 between mobile IS and mobile use context). Consequently,

each cell in Table 4 contains the combined requirements of Fit 1 and of Fit 2, thus summarizing the

proposed TTF profile for mobile IS to support managerial tasks in a mobile use context. The ratings of -,

0, and + refer to the level of overlap of system functionality that is required by the task and system

functionality that is realistically feasible in a given mobile use context, ranging from no overlap, to some

overlap to complete overlap, respectively.


21

Discussion

We have derived a number of propositions for TTF of mobile IS, based on previous research in

management, mobile technology and IS (TTF). As depicted in Table 4, the mobile use context effectively

limits the feasibility of certain task-technology combinations. Two issues are highlighted. First, each use

condition likely to occur in a mobile use context (high distraction, low quality of network connection, and

high user mobility) adds to the requirements of an effective and powerful user interface of mobile IS.

Second, the feasibility in the functional scope of mobile IS is limited in particular in use situations of high

distraction and of low quality of network connections. As a result, the significance of an effective user

interface and of the difficulties to support situations of high distraction and of low quality of network

connections becomes even more obvious.

In order to derive a full profile of fit requirements for a particular combination of a mobile IS,

managerial task, and mobile use context, all cells in Table 4 that are located at the intersection of a

column representing an applicable task characteristic and of a row representing an applicable

characteristic of the mobile use context have to be included into the analysis. For example, let us assume a

manager travels to locations where the preferred mobile carrier does not provide adequate network

coverage (low quality of network connection). Let us also assume the manager is expected to receive and

approve purchasing requests from her staff, i.e., the task at hand is characterized by high routineness, high

interdependence and possibly high time-criticality. According to Table 4, the requirements summarized in

the row representing low quality of network connection (row #2) applies, as well as the columns

representing high task routineness (column #1), high interdependence (column #3), and high time-

criticality (column #4) apply. The content of the resulting three cells can be summarized as follows.

• Fit 3 calls for data processing, communication, and notification to support a task of high

routineness (P1a), high interdependence (P2) and high time criticality (P3), yet allows primarily

for notification in combination with verification because of low quality of network connection

(P5a, P5b).

22

• Additional user interface requirements include measures to account for the limited quality of

network connection (e.g., limited bandwidth requirements, indicators of network quality) (P5c).

The conceptual model, thus, indicates difficulties with achieving an overall fit for the situation

just described. In particular, the feasibility of the functional requirements seems to be problematic,

resulting in considerable requirements of the user interface. In an extreme case, a full set of task

requirements pertaining to non-routineness (high, low), high interdependence and high time-criticality has

to be combined with the full set of restrictions stemming from the mobile use context, including high

distraction, low quality of network connection, and high mobility. The difficulties of such an undertaking

are obvious.

As argued by Orlikowski, technology use involves a “repeatedly experienced, personally ordered

and edited version of the technology artifact, being experienced differently by different individuals and

differently by the same individuals depending on the time or circumstance (2000).” Thus, an additional

factor that is noteworthy is user experience. Previous mobile IS experience has been mentioned as

relevant to system success (Gebauer and Shaw 2004). Beulen and Streng (2002) found that familiarity

with mobile applications had an increasing impact on the success (perceived usefulness) of the mobile IS

over time. Khalifa and Cheng (2002) found the role of exposure (e.g., trial, communicating with and

observing others) on the intention of adopting mobile commerce to be significant. Schwarz et al. (2004)

proposed that the compatibility of prior experience with prior expertise would help determine overall

compatibility of the technology and perceived ease of use. Despite the current importance of the lack of

previous experience with the new technology, we have not included experience as a factor to determine

the ideal profile of task-technology fit, based on the assumption that the relevance of (limited) experience

will decrease over time when users become more familiar with both mobile devices and applications.

Still, we recognize that the support of inexperienced users generally adds to the requirements of usability

because limiting form factors of mobile devices tend to make usage more difficult especially for

inexperienced users. We, thus, suggest that a carefully designed user interface is even more critical to

support a novice user in a mobile environment than it would be in a traditional, wired PC-environment. In

23

sum, we emphasize that situations of limited user experience further increase the requirements of a

powerful and effective user interface.

Even though the model presented in the current paper does not provide concrete guidelines of

how to manage the various conflicts and tradeoffs between task, technology and use context

characteristics required for optimal task support, the model does provide a valuable basis for more

informed decision making. In that sense, we provide more than a checklist of requirements and of

stumbling blocks as the model can help identify the limits of IS management and help find alternatives.

For example, a decision to equip the manager just described with a mobile electronic procurement system

(data processing functionality) provides adequate support for the task at hand (Fit 1), but results in a poor

fit with the individual use context (Fit 2). Alternative solutions can be found by changing the individual

use context or by changing the task itself. For example, the organization might decide to allow the

manager to use a different wireless provider at the location of travel, even if such a provider is not on the

list of preferred providers and therefore more expensive. In that case the “condition” of low quality of

network connection has been eliminated and a fit between task and technology can in fact be achieved.

Similarly, in some cases it may be possible to adapt the task to the individual use context. For example,

instead of providing the manager with a complete application to perform data processing (e.g., approval

of purchasing request), it might be feasible to merely notify the traveling manager of a waiting task and

subsequently provide for the delegation of the task to a staff-member with more favorable use conditions

(e.g., better network connection).

Contributions and Outlook

Building on earlier research studies on TTF (Goodhue and Thompson 1995, Zigurs and Buckland

1998), the current research study is based on the assumption that a good fit between a task and an IS

positively impacts task performance, pointing to the importance of a good understanding of the

requirements for task-technology fit. We presented a conceptual model to determine the fit of managerial

tasks to be supported by mobile IS (Fit 3), by taking into account the requirements of an IS in support of a

given managerial task (Fit 1), as well as the feasibility of the suggested system in a given mobile use

24

context (Fit 2). The model contributes to the IS research areas of TTF and of mobile IS, as well as to

management practice.

Contributing to the research area of IS, we effectively extend the applicability of earlier research

studies on TTF by taking into consideration the use context as a factor impacting the feasibility of TTF.

Similar to the example provided above, Gebauer and Shaw (2004) reported on a global Fortune 100

company that unsuccessfully implemented a mobile electronic procurement system to support various

tasks of high routineness. According to the conceptual model presented in the current paper, conditions of

“traditional” TTF (Fit 1) were met, given that the mobile electronic procurement system supported a task

similar to the task supported by its non-mobile counterpart with comparable functionality, but Fit 1 alone

cannot explain the fact that the mobile e-procurement system was not successful. An analysis of the use

situation according to the conditions of Fit 2, however, reveals additional insights regarding the system’s

feasibility and identifies use context requirements that were not being fulfilled.

As a second contribution to the research area of TTF, the three-step procedure to determine TTF

presented in the current paper is quite flexible in its basic structure and can be applied to different types of

IS and use contexts. For example, instead of analyzing the requirements of managerial tasks, Fit 1 could

be replaced by Zigurs and Buckland’s (1998) analysis to determine the fit of GSS to support group tasks.

Fit 3 would then describe a suggested fit profile of GSS to support group tasks to be applied in mobile use

contexts.

Furthermore, the proposed procedure of deriving fit by using an approach similar to procedures of

matrix algebra can become a useful tool in other research settings. The proposed approach will be

particularly helpful to describe and model complex situations where individual conditions can be

expressed in a vector-like form.

Researchers of mobile IS, such as Siau and Shen (2003) have found that mobile technologies

provide only limited support for complex transactions and that the usage of mobile devices is limited in

complicated environments. The analysis conducted in the current paper provides a more sophisticated

picture and can thus improve our understanding of the requirements of successful mobile IS. In

25

comparison to earlier research contributions on mobile IS, the conceptual model presented is grounded in

established IS and management theory, and can therefore help improve the rigor applied in mobile IS

research. The model also serves to position mobile IS research with respect to established areas of

research in IS and management. The model outlines a comprehensive research framework of mobile IS,

with each cell pointing to a specific research agenda. Table 3 particularly highlights the need for further

research on the mobile user interface, given that, so far there are few theoretically grounded and

empirically validated guidelines of how to design powerful and effective systems in general and of how to

meet the requirements for mobile user interfaces in particular.

Several guidelines for mobile IS management can be derived from the current analysis. First, the

conceptual model uncovers that in general, the less the individual use context of the mobile user

resembles a “regular” office work environment with a typically assumed low level of distraction, high

level of network connection quality, and low mobility, the more difficult it is to provide adequate IS

support. In particular, situations of high distraction and of low quality of network connection often found

in mobile use contexts restrict the feasibility of TTF (see also Nicholson, Nicholson, Parboteeah, and

Valacich 2005). In both cases, the functionalities required by the task are difficult to provide, and meeting

the requirements of the user interface becomes critical. The model can furthermore be used to analyze the

success of particular mobile IS and to explain the fact that to date, some of the more successful mobile IS

provide simple, yet highly task-oriented functionality such as notification and basic communication (see

also Gebauer and Shaw 2004). To this extent, the model can also be helpful to design mobile IS from the

point of view of a given mobile use context.

Based on a good understanding of the requirements of fit between the characteristics of a task,

technology and mobile use context, the model points to a number of options, as fit can effectively be

achieved by adjusting any or even all of the three factors. In addition to adjustments of the technology

(e.g., more adequate user interface), adjustments of the individual use-context (e.g., by subscribing to a

more high-quality network provider), and reorganization of the way a task is to be completed (e.g.,

26

notification and delegation instead of direct completion), can be taken into consideration, whereby the

model provides guidelines to support the management process.

The proposed model needs to be tested thoroughly before it can become a practical and applicable

tool. To this extent it is necessary to validate the proposed instrument, in particular the dimensions that

were used to characterize mobile IS and to describe the mobile use context. So far, most of the

dimensions have not been tested empirically, even though they have been stipulated by a number of

scholars of mobile IS. In addition, we found little direct support for our quest to match mobile

technologies with user tasks and with a mobile use context. While media richness theory provided a good

framework to address the first point, we relied on conceptual work and own observations to address the

second point. All of the propositions need to be tested rigorously in the future.

Furthermore, we suggest taking a critical look at the implications of the proposed TTF on the

success of mobile IS, including utilization and organizational performance. In this regard, an analysis of

the costs and benefits in relation with the achievement of TTF should be performed to determine

organizational value, which can also hold a key to the overall success of mobile IS. Finally, the TTF of

mobile IS could become part of a broader analysis to include the actual viability of the systems in

question, as proposed by Liang and Wei (2004) in the context of mobile commerce, and ultimately lead to

mobile IS that not only provide a good fit with managerial tasks but that also promise managerial and

financial success.

References

Agrawal, M., Chari, K., and Sankar, R. 2003. Demystifying wireless technologies: Navigating through the wireless technology maze. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 12 166-182.

Ahuja, M., and Carley, K. 1999. Network structure in virtual organizations. Organization Science. 10(6) November-December, 741-757.

Al-Hawamdeh, S. 2004. Usability issues and limitations of mobile devices. N.S. Shi ed. Wireless Communication and Mobile Commerce. Hershey: Idea Group Publ., 247-267.

Ammenwerth E., Buchauer A., Bludau B., Haux R. 2000. Mobile information and communication tools in the hospital. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 57(1) 21-40.

Andres, H.P., and Zmud, R.W. 2001. A contingency approach to software project coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems. 18(3) 41-70.

Anthony R.N. 1965. Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Boston: Harvard Business School, Division of Research.

27

Balasubramaniam, S., Peterson, R.A., and Jarvenpaa, S.L. 2002. Exploring the implications of m-commerce for markets and marketing. Academy of Marketing Science. 30(4) 348-361.

Barki, H. and Pinsonneault, A. 2005. A model of organizational integration, implementation effort, and performance. Organization Science. 16(2) 165-179.

Barnes, S.J. 2002. The mobile commerce value chain: analysis and future developments. International Journal of Information Management. 22(2) 91-108.

Barnes, S. 2003. Enterprise mobility: concept and examples. International Journal of Mobile Communications. 1(4) 341-359.

Beulen, E., and Streng, R.-J. 2002. The impact of online mobile office applications on the effectiveness and efficiency of mobile workers' behavior: a field experiment in the IT services sector. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).

Barkhi, R. 2001-2002. The effects of decision guidance and problem modeling on group decision making. Journal of Management Information Systems. 18(3) 259-282.

Bradley, S.P. and Nolan, R.L. 1998. Sense & Respond. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass. Chan, S.S., Fang, X., Brzezinski, J., Zhou, Y., Xu, S., and Lam J. 2002. Usability for mobile commerce

across multiple form factors. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. 3(3) 187-199. Computerworld. 2003. Executive briefings: the wireless corporation. Strategic insights from the editors of

Computerworld. Cooper, R.B. and Zmud, R.W. 1990. Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological

Diffusion Approach. Management Science. 36(2) 123-139. Crowston, K. 2003 A taxonomy of organizational dependencies and coordination mechanisms. T.W.

Malone, K. Crowston, and G.A. Herman, eds. Organizing Business Knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 85-108.

Daft, R.L., and Lengel, R.H. 1984. Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Organizational Behavior. 6 191-233.

Daft, R.L., and Macintosh, N.B. 1981. A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work-units. Administration Science Quarterly. 26(2) 207-224.

D’Aveni, R.A. 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering, The Free Press: New York.

Dennis, A.R., Wixom, B.H., and Vandenberg R.J. 2001. Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group support systems via meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly. 25(2) 167-193.

Dishaw, M.T., and Strong, D.M. 1998. Supporting software maintenance with software engineering tools. The Journal of Systems and Software. 44(2) 107-120.

Dishaw, M.T., and Strong, D.M. 1999. Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management. 36(1) 9-21.

Durlacher 1999. Mobile Commerce Report. Durlacher Research, http://www.dad.be/library/pdf/durlacher1.pdf (current 01/31/05).

Ewalt, D.M. 2002. Loose Connections. Informationweek. (June 17) 37-44. Ferratt, T.W., and Vlahos, G.E. 1998. An investigation of task-technology fit for managers in Greece and

the US. European Journal of Information Systems. (7) 123-136. Fry, L.W., and Slocum, J.W. 1984. Technology, structure, and workgroup effectiveness: A test of a

contingency model. Academy of Management Journal. 27(2) 221-246. Gebauer, J., and Shaw, M.J. 2004. Success factors and impacts of mobile business applications: Results

from a mobile e-procurement study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. 8(3) 19-41. Gelderman, M. 2002. Task difficulty, task variability and satisfaction with management support systems.

Information & Management. 39(7) 593-604. Goodhue, D.L. 1995. Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Management Science.

41(12) 1827-1844. Goodhue, D.L. 1998. Development and measurement validity of a task-technology fit instrument for user

evaluations of information systems. Decision Sciences. 29(1) 105-138.

28

Goodhue, D.L., Klein, B.D., and March, S.T. 2000. User evaluations of IS as surrogates for objective performance. Information & Management. 38(2) 87-101.

Goodhue, D., Littlefield, R., and Straub, D.W. 1997. The measurement of the impacts of the IIC on the end-users: the survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(5) 454-465.

Goodhue, D.L., and Thompson, R.L. 1995. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly. 19(2) 213-236.

Gorry, G.A., and Scott Morton, M.S. 1971. A framework for management information systems. Sloan Management Review. 13(1) 55-70.

Haaker, T., Bouwman, H., and Faber, E. 2004. Customer and network value of mobileservices: balancing requirements and strategic interests. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Information Systems. Washington D.C.

Imhoff, J. 2002. IBM wireless e-business. Presentation at University of Frankfurt, April 25. Jahng, J., Jain, H., and Ramamurthy, K. 2000. Effective design of electronic commerce environments: A

proposed theory of congruence and an illustration. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A – Systems and Humans. 30(4) 456-471.

Jarvenpaa, S.L., Lang, K.R., Takeda, Y., and Tuunainen, V.K. 2003. Mobile commerce at crossroads. Communications of the ACM. 46(12) 41-44.

Junglas, I.A., Watson, R.T. 2003. U-commerce: a conceptual extension of e-commerce and m-commerce. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2003). Seattle, Washington, 667-677.

Karimi, J., Somers, T.M., and Gupta Y.P. Impact of environmental uncertainty and task characteristics on user satisfaction with data. Information Systems Research. 15(2) 175-193.

Kemper, H.-G., and Wolf, E. 2002. Iterative Process Models for Mobile Application Systems: A Framework. Twenty-Third International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2002). 401-413.

Khalifa, M., and Cheng, S.K.N. 2002. Adoption of mobile commerce: role of exposure. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-35).

Kim, D.J., and Steinfield, C. 2004. Consumers Mobile Internet Service Satisfaction and their Continuance Intentions. Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2004). New York, New York, August, 2776-2780.

Kini, R.B., and Thanarithiporn, S. 2004. Mobile commerce and electronic commerce in Thailand: a value space analysis. International Journal of Mobile Communications. 2(1) 22-37.

Krogstie, J., Lyytinen, K., Opdahl, A.L., Pernici, B., Siau, K., and Smolander, K. 2004. Research areas and challenges for mobile information systems. International Journal of Mobile Communications. 2(3) 220-234.

Lee, Y.E., and Benbasat, I. 2004. A framework for the study of customer interface design for mobile commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. 8(3) 79-102.

Leonard, D.A., Brands, P.A., Edmonson, A., and Fenwick, J. 1998. Virtual teams: using communications technology to manage geographically dispersed development groups. S.P. Bradley and R.L. Nolan, eds. Sense & Respond – Capturing Value in the Network Era, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

Liang, T.-P., and Wei, C.-P. 2004. Introduction to the special issue: mobile commerce applications. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. 8(3) 7-17.

Lim, K.H., and Benbasat, I. 2000. The effect of multimedia on perceived equivocality and perceived usefulness of information systems. MIS Quarterly. 24(3) 449-471.

Lyytinen, K., and Yoo, Y. 2002a. Issues and challenges in ubiquitous computing. Communications of the ACM. 45(12) 63-65.

Lyytinen, K., and Yoo, Y. 2002b. Research commentary: the next wave of nomadic computing. Information Systems Research. 13(4) 377-388.

Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., and John, R. 2005. Perceived individual collaboration know-how development through information technology-enabled contextualization: evidence from distributed teams. Information Systems Research. 16(1) 9-27.

29

Majchrazk, A., Rice, R., King, N., Malhotra, A., and Ba, S. 2000. Computer-mediated inter-organizational knowledge-sharing: insights from a virtual team innovating using a collaborative tool. Information Resources Management Journal. Jan-Mar 44-53.

Malhotra, A., and Majchrazk, A. 2005. Virtual Workspace Technologies. MIT Sloan Management Review. 46(2) 11-14.

Malhotra, A. and Majchrzak, A. 2004. Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung teams: best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management. 8(4) 775-88.

Malone, T.W., and Crowston, K. 1994. The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination. ACM Computing Surveys. 26(1) 87-119.

Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M., Hung, C., and Ramesh, V. 2001. Cultural perceptions of task-technology fit. Communications of the ACM. 44(12) 83-84.

Mathieson, K., Keil, M. 1998. Beyond the interface: ease of use and task/technology fit. Information & Management. 34(4) 221-230.

Mintzberg, H. 1980. The Nature of Managerial Work. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Murthy, U.S., and Kerr, D.S. 2004. Comparing audit team effectiveness via alternative modes of

computer-mediated communication. Auditing – A Journal of Practice & Theory. 23(1) 141-152. Orlikowski, W. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying

technology in organizations. Organization Science. 11(4) 404-428. Nicholson, D., Nicholson, J., Parboteeah, D., and Valacich, J. 2005. Using distraction-conflict theory to

measure the effects of distractions on individual task performance in a wireless mobile environment. Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences.

Perrow, C. 1967. A Framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review. 32 194-208.

Rao, B., and Minakakis, L. 2003. Evolution of mobile location-based services. Communications of the ACM. 46(12) 61-65.

Sarker, S., and Wells, J.D. 2003. Understanding mobile handheld device use and adoption. Communications of the ACM. 4(12) 35-40.

Schwarz, A., Junglas, I., and Krotov, V. 2004. Experimental study on the role of experience and compatibility in adapting mobile technologies. Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems.

Scudder, R. 2002. M-Commerce US. 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference. Bled, Slovenia, June 17-19.

Siau, K., Lim, E., and Shen, Z. 2001. Mobile commerce: promises, challenges, and research agenda. Journal of Database Management. 12(3) 4-14.

Siau, K., and Shen, Z. 2003. Mobile communications and mobile services. International Journal of Mobile Communications. 1(1/2) 3-14.

Simon, H. 1960. The New Science of Management Decision, Harper & Row, New York. Smith, H.A., Kulatilaka, N., Venkatraman, N. 2002. Developments in IS practice III: riding the wave:

extracting value from mobile technology. Communications of the AIS. (8) 467-481. Staples, D.J, and Seddon, P. 2004. Testing the technology-to-performance chain model. Journal of

Organizational and End User Computing. 16(4) 17-36. Straub, D., and Karahanna, E. 1998. Knowledge worker communications and recipient availability:

toward a task closure explanation of media choice. Organization Science. 9(2) 160-175. Straus, S.G., and McGrath, J.E. 1994. Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and

technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 79(1) 87-97.

Susman, G.I., Gray, B.L., Perry, J., Blair, C.E. 2003. Recognition and reconciliation of differences in interpretation of misalignments when collaborative technologies are introduced into new product development teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 20(1-2) 141-159.

Tarasewich, P. 2003a. Designing Mobile Commerce Applications. Communications of the ACM. 46 (12) 57-60.

30

Tarasewich, P. 2003b. Wireless devices for mobile commerce: User interface design and usability. B.E. Mennecke and T.J. Strader, eds. Mobile Commerce – Technology, Theory and Applications, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, 26-50.

Tarasewich, P., Bhimdi, T., and Dideles, M. 2004. Increasing the effectiveness of notification cues in mobile environments. Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2004), New York, New York, August 2004, 3201-3204.

Tarasewich, P., Nickerson, R.C., and Warkentin, M. 2002. Issues in mobile e-commerce. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 8 41-64.

Thomas, O. 2002. Farmer on a dell (and an iPac, and…). Business 2.0. (July) 29. Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York/NY. Van de Ven, A.H., and Ferry, D.L. 1980. Measuring and Assessing Organizations. Series on

Organizational Change, Wiley, New York. Varshney, U., Malloy, A., Jain, R., and Ahluwalia, P. 2002. Wireless in the Enterprise: Requirements and

Possible Solutions. Proceedings of the Workshop on Wireless Strategy in the Enterprise: An International Research Perspective, University of California, Berkeley. October 15-16.

Varshney, U., and Vetter, R. 2001. A Framework for the Emerging Mobile Commerce Applications. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Venkatesh, V., Ramesh, V., and Massey, A.P. 2003. Understanding Usability in Mobile Commerce. Communications of the ACM. 46(12) 53-56.

Venkatraman, N. 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review. 14(3) 423-444.

Wageman, R. Gordon, F. 2005. As the twig is bent: how group values shape emergent task interdependence in groups. Organization Science. 16(6) 687-700.

Wittenbaum, G., Hollingshead, A., and Botero, I. 2004. From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs. 71(3) 286-310.

Yuan, Y., and Zhang, J. 2003. Towards an appropriate business model for m-commerce. International Journal of Mobile Communications. 1(1/2) 35-56.

Zhang, J.J., Yuan, Y., and Archer, N.P. 2003. Driving forces for m-commerce success. M. Shaw, ed. E-Business Management: Integration of Web Technologies with Business Models, Boston/Mass: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Chapter 4.

Zigurs, I., and Buckland B.K. 1998. A theory of task-technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly. 22(3) 313-334.

Zigurs, I., Buckland B.K., Connolly, J.R., and Wilson, E.V. 1999. A test of task-technology fit for group support systems. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems. 30(3-4) 34-50.

31

Managerial TaskNon-routinenessInterdependenceTime-criticality

(Mobile) Information Systems

FunctionalityUser interfaceAdaptability

Mobile use context

Fit 1 (P1..P3):Managerial task and information systems (functionality only)

Task Performance

Fit 2 (P4..P7):Mobile information

systems and mobile use context

(= moderating factor)

Fit 3:Moderated task-technology fit




Mobile use context


Task Performance








Mobile use context

Distraction

Network connectivity

Mobility


Task Performance








Mobile use context


Task Performance








Mobile use context


Task Performance








Mobile use context

Distraction

Network connectivity

Mobility


Task Performance





Figure 1 – A moderated task-technology fit for a mobile information system

32

Table 1 –Functionalities of mobile IS

Primary Focus Interpersonal Interaction Computing

One-Way

Notification – allows users to be reached by others without the possibility to respond directly. • Use of pagers and cellular

phones to send alerts, e.g., to notify medical and technical staff about events or emergencies requiring response

• Use of cellular phones for asynchronous communication(access to voice mail, text messages, e-mail)

Information Access – allows users to access, but not process (i.e., manipulate), data. • Access to external data such as

yellow pages, white pages, stock quotes, news

• Access to internal data, such as reports, corporate directory information

• Use of notebook computer with wireless modem to access hospital patient data (Ammenwerth et al. 2000)

• Use of laptops to access police radio system (Smith et al. 2002)

• Use of laptops to provide on-site insurance quotes

Direction of Interaction

Two-Way (Reciprocal)

Communication – allows users to reach others and to be reached by others, including the possibility to interact and respond directly. • Use of cellular phone for

synchronous (voice) communication

• Email writing

Data Processing – allows users to access and process (i.e., manipulate) data. • Use of handheld devices to

process purchasing approval requests as part of an e-procurement system (Gebauer and Shaw 2004)

• Use of handheld devices for courier and delivery services (Applegate et al 1996)

• Use of handheld devices for retail inventory management (Ewalt 2002)

• Use of handheld devices and laptop computers for crop analysis (Thomas 2002)

• Use of laptops and PDAs for utility plant maintenance logs (Imhoff 2002)

• Use of tablet PCs for restaurant ordering (Ewalt 2002)

• Use of satellite technologies to support freight expediting (Smith et al. 2002)

• Use of portable computers and PDAs to support patient medication administration (Andersen et al. 2002)

33

Table 2 – Fit 1: Managerial task and IS functionality, independent of use context; good fit

indicated by “X”

Information system

functionality

Task dimension

Notification Communication Information

access

Data

processing

low X (P1a) Non-

routineness high X (P1b)

Interdependence high X (P2)

Time criticality high X (P3)

Table 3 – Fit 2: Mobile information system and mobile use context

Functionality Mobile info. system

Mobile use context

Notification Communication Info access

Data processing

User interface requirements

(examples)

Adaptability requirements

(examples)

Distraction high

Feasible, verification useful (P4a)

Feasibility limited (P4a)

Feasibility difficult (P4b)

Targeted cues, minimal attention

interface (P4c)

Quality of network connection low

Feasible, verification useful (P5a)

Feasibility difficult (P5b)

Limited bandwidth,

quality indicators (P5c)

User mobility high

Feasible

Continuation of disrupted

transactions and communication

(P6a)

Location-awareness and customization

(P6b)

34

Table 4 – Fit 3: TTF for Mobile IS (derived by combining Fit 1 and Fit 2 with a procedure

similar to matrix multiplication)

Managerial tasks and info. systems

(“ideal” fit) (Fit 1)

Mobile info. systems and mobile use context (Fit 2)

Task routineness high

Calls for data processing (P1a)

Task non-routineness high

Calls for communication and info access

(P1b)

Interdependence high

Calls for notification and communication

(P2)

Time criticality high

Calls for notification (P3)

Level of distraction high • Allows for notification

plus verification and communication (P4a)

• Limits feasibility of information access and data processing (P4b)

• User interface requirements, e.g., targeted cues, minimal attention user interface (P4c)

-: Fit difficult to achieve on

functional level

UI requirements, e.g., targeted cues, minimal attention

user interface

0: Fit somewhat difficult to achieve on

functional level (recommended

focus on communication)

UI requirements,

e.g., targeted cues, minimal attention

user interface

+: Fit feasible on functional level (recommended

focus on notification and communication, plus verification)

UI requirements,


user interface


focus on notification)

UI requirements,


user interface

Quality of network connection low • Allows for notification

plus verification (P5a) • Limits feasibility of

communication, info access, and data processing (P5b)

• User interface requirements, e.g., limited bandwidth requirements, indicators of network quality (P5c)


functional level

UI requirements, e.g., limited bandwidth

requirements, indicators of

network quality


functional level



network quality

0: Fit somewhat difficult on

functional level (recommended

focus on notification plus

verification)



network quality


focus on notification plus

verification)



network quality

User mobility high • Allows for all

functionalities • User interface

requirements, e.g., to accommodate interrupted transactions and communication (P6a)

• Adaptability (location-awareness and customization) useful (P6b)

+: Fit feasible on functional level

UI requirements, e.g., to accommodate interrupted transaction and communication

Adaptability useful

task−technology fit for mobile information systems … · task−technology fit for ... and the...

Documents