USING SYSTEMS DYNAMICS TO OPERATIONALIZE PROCESS THEORY IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH

Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2003

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 450-463

  Kanungo, Shivraj ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DYNAMICS; INFORMATION USE; INVESTMENTS;

DEPENDENT VARIABLES; INDEPENDENT VARIABLES; INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH; IT ASSETS; PROCESS THEORY; QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH METHOD; SYSTEM DYNAMICS; SYSTEM DYNAMICS MODELLING; TEMPORAL DIMENSIONS;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 84883647557     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Ackoff, R. L. “Towards a System of Systems Concepts,” Management Science (17:11), 1971, pp. 661-671.
2. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., and Todd, P. A. “Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication,” MIS Quarterly (16:2), 1992, pp. 227-247.
3. Bajaj, A., and Nidumolu, S. R. “A Feedback Model to Understand Information System Usage,” Information & Management (33:4), 1998, pp. 213-224.
4. Barua, A., Lee, C. H. S., and Whinston, A. B. “The Calculus of Reengineering,” Information Systems Research (7:4), 1996, pp. 409-428.
5. Boles, J. S., Johnston, M. W., and Hair Jr., J. F. “Role Stress, Work-Family Conflict and Emotional Exhaustion: Interrelationships and Effects on Some Work-Related Consequences,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management (18:1), 1997, pp. 17-28.
6. Bolt, M. A., Killough, L. N., and Koh, H. C. “Testing the Interaction Effects of Task Complexity in Computer Training Using the Social Cognition Model,” Decision Sciences Journal (32:1), 2001, pp. 1-20.
7. Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L. “Beyond the Productivity Paradox,” Communications of the ACM (41:8), 1998, pp. 49-55.
8. Chakraborty, A., and Kazarosian, M. “Product Differentiation and the Use of Information Technology: New Evidence from the Trucking Industry,” NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 7222, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, July 1999 (available online at http://faculty.stonehill.edu/mkazarosian/NBER.pdf).
9. Chau, P. Y. K. “Influence of Computer Attitude and Self-Efficacy on IT Usage Behavior,” Journal of End User Computing (13:1), 2001, pp. 26-33.
10. Crowston, K. “Process as Theory in Information Systems Research,” in Organizational and Social Perspective on Information Technology, R. Baskerville, J. Stage, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2000, pp. 149-164.
11. Dedrick, J., Gurbaxani, V., and Kraemer, K. L. “Information Technology and Economic Performance: A Critical Rreview of the Empirical Eevidence,” ACM Computing Surveys (35:1), March 2003, pp. 1-28.
12. Davis, F. D. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly (13:3), 1989, pp. 319-339.
13. Drury, D. H., and Farhoomand, A. “Knowledge Worker Constraints in the Productive Use of Information Technology,” Journal of Computer Personnel (20:1), 1999, pp. 22-42.
14. Goodhue, D. L., and Thompson, R. L. “Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance,” MIS Quarterly (19:2), 1995, pp. 213-236.
15. Hendrickson, A. R., and Collins, M. R. “An Assessment of Structure and Causation of IS Usage,” ACM SIGMIS Database (27:2), 1996, pp. 61-67.
16. Jawahar, I. M. “The Influence of Dispositional Factors and Situational Cconstraints on End User Performance: A Replication and Extension,” Journal of End User Computing (14:4), 2002, pp. 17-36.
17. Kohli, R., and Devaraj, S. “Measuring Information Technology Payoff: A Meta-Analysis of Structural Variables in Firm-Level Empirical Research,” Information Systems Research (14:2), 2003, pp. 127-145.
18. Kwon, H. S., and Chidambaram, L. “A Test of the Technology Acceptance Model: The Case of Cellular Telephone Adoption,” Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2000, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 167-176.
19. Marchand, D. A., Kettinger, W. J., and Rollins, J. D. “Information Orientation: People, Technology and the Bottom Line,” Sloan Management Review (41:4), 2000, pp. 69-80.
20. Lucas, H. C. Information Technology and the Productivity Paradox, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1999.
21. Marcus, M. L., and Robey, D. “Information Technology and Organization Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research,” Management Science (34:5), 1988, pp. 583-598.
22. Mohr, L. B. Explaining Organizational Behavior, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1982.
23. Motohashi, K. “Economic Analysis of Information Network Uuse: Organizational and Productivity Impacts on Japanese Firms,” Research Institute of Economy Trade and Industry, Tokyo, Japan, 2001 (available online at http://www.rieti.go.jp/it/productivity/docs/ICT+networks+Japan.pdf).
24. Orlikowski, W., and Iacono, C. S. “Desperately Seeking the ‘IT’ in IT Research: A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact,” Information Systems Research (12:2), 2001, pp. 121-134.
25. Roberts, J. A., Lapidus, R. S., and Chonko, L. B. “Salespeople and Stress: The Moderating Role of Locus of Control on Work Stressors and Felt Stress,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Summer, 1977, pp. 93-108.
26. Soh, C., and Markus, M. L. “How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis,” in Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Information Systems, J. I. DeGross, G. Ariav, C. Beath, R. Hoyer, and C. Kemerer (eds.), Amsterdam, 1995, pp. 29-41.
27. Solow, R. “You Can See the Computer Age Everywhere but in the Productivity Statistics,” New York Review of Books, July 12, 1987.
28. Szajna, B. “Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model,” Management Science (42:1), 1996, pp. 85-92.
29. Thatcher, M. E., and Oliver, J. R. “The Impact of Technology Investments on a Firm’s Production Efficiency, Product Quality, and Productivity, Journal of Management Information Systems (18:2), 2001, pp. 17-46.
30. Thatcher, J. B., and Perrewe, P. L. “An Empirical Examination of Individual Traits as Antecedents to Computer Anxiety and Computer Self-Efficacy,” MIS Quarterly (26:4), 2002, pp. 381-397.
31. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. “Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” Management Science (46:2), 2000, pp. 186-204.
32. Venkatesh, V., and Morris, M. G. “Why Don’t Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior,” MIS Quarterly (24:1), 2000, Pp. 115-139.
33. Wastell, D. G., and Newman, M. “Stress, Control and Computer System Ddesign: A Psychophysiological Field Study,” Behavior and Information Technology (15:3), 1996, pp. 183-192.
34. Willcocks, L. P., and Lester, S. Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox, John Wiley & Sons, London, 1999.