Summerized From: Andrew Burton-Jones and Michael J. Gallivan (2007). Toward A Deeper Understanding System Usage in Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective, MIS Quarterly Vol.31 No.4, pp Professor: Dr. Celeste Ng Student: Sharon Wesley

Paper Summary Contribute a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations by examining its multilevel nature Offers rich opportunities for theoretical and practical insights and suggests a new foundation for in-depth research on the nature of system usage 2

Introduction Examples of collectives using information systems ◦ Teams  Fifteen major league baseball teams use online ticketing technology ◦ Firms  Continental uses IT to chart a new course ◦ Industries  Big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture ◦ Nations trade press  China uses Internet as a tool of repression 3

Introduction How can any collective really use an Information Systems (IS)? How is it different from a summation of individual usage or the use of an IS by specific subgroups in a collective? How can researchers study system usage in a multilevel fashion, keeping an eye on the whole as well as its parts? 4

Principle Concept Theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh et al. 2003) includes a construct to reflect social influence ◦ It is not a multilevel theory because all of its constructs are conceptualized at the individual level Great opportunities exist to extend this theory and many others in IS research, from a multilevel perspective 5

Paper Objective Provide a platform for research on the nature of system usage, its emergence and change, and its antecedents and consequences 1.Presenting system usage as a multilevel construct 2.Illustrating what it takes for researchers to study multilevel construct 6

Literature on System Usage Variance researchers tend to study system usage at three levels-individual, group, and organization ◦ Individual level  View system usage as behavior, measuring system usage via indicators such as an individual’s frequency or duration of usage ◦ Group level and organizational level  Conceptualize system usage as the aggregation of individual behaviors 7

Major Problems of Past System Usage Each level has been so separate, there are no definitions of system usage about multiple levels ◦ System usage does not have a precise definition at any level 8

Element in System Usage Define system usage on any level of analysis of these three elements 1.User (the subject using the IS) 2.System (the IS used) 3.Task (the function being performed) Define system usage as a user’s employment of a system to perform a task 9

Motivations for Multilevel Research.1 Helps researchers to avoid significant misleading idea that can occur in single-level studies Opens up new opportunities for theory ◦ e.g., to understand linkages between levels 10

Motivations for Multilevel Research.2 11 Significant fallacies that can occur in single-level studies

Multilevel Account of System Usage 12

Guideline 1: Concepts of Function Usage There are two construct suggested: functional and structure ◦ The function of a construct  Refers to the effects or outputs of the event that the individual or collective is used to reflect. ◦ The structure of a collective  Construct refers to the actions and interactions among individuals that generate the collective phenomenon that a collective construct is used to reflect. 13

Guideline 1: Example of Function Usage QuickBooks is an accounting system that can be used by individuals and small businesses ◦ The intended function of using QuickBooks is the same in both cases  Produce financial statements ◦ The structure of usage is different  Because in the latter case, usage will require coordination among accountants and other staff 14

Guideline 1: Illustrative Theoretical Model 15 Multilevel Model of Usage Includes relationships that cross levels Includes multiple dependent variables at each level

Guideline 1: Cross-level Relationships Example Individual use affected individual performance and group use affected group performance Example ◦ Group Excel use affected individual performance because members relied on their group for inputs, poor Excel use by the group reduced members’ performance.  one member might need certain input data to perform her task, but because of poor coordination among users in her group, she may not receive the input data, forcing her to reconstruct the input data as well as perform her task, reducing her efficiency 16

Guideline 1: Similar and Different Outcomes Across Levels Example The firm and its consultants could both be argued to have used the CASE tool to improve consulting performance ◦ Firm wanted to  Improve work performance  Staff substitutability at firm level ◦ Consultants wanted to  Improve work performance  Marketability at the individual level 17

Guideline 2: Structure of Usage Interdependencies-in-use Form of collective use 18

Guideline 2: Interdependencies-in- use Interdependencies are patterns of action and interaction where two or more entities are mutually dependent on each other 19

Guideline 2: Scenarios in Which Collective System Usage 20 According to Morgeson and Hofmann’s logic collective usage cannot exist if there are no interdependencies-in-use or only weak ones

Guideline 2: Guidance to Determine Collective System - 1 Interdependencies-in-use can be mediated in several ways ◦ Through electronic or personal interactions, as well as mediated by a third-party Attend to the function of usage when determining whether and why interdependencies-in-use exist in a given scen ario 21

Guideline 2: Guidance to Determine Collective System - 2 Focus on interactions that relate to usage rather than simply general social or task-related interactions among members of the collective ◦ Measure three key types of interdependencies  Collaboration  Communication  Co-ordination 22

Guideline 2: Form of Collective Use Multilevel researchers distinguish between three forms of collective constructs ◦ Global ◦ Shared (homogeneous) ◦ Configural (heterogeneous) The difference between global and (shared and configural) is the level of origin and the level of theory ◦ For global construct the level of origin at the theory level ◦ For shared and configural the level of origin is lower than level of theory 23

Guideline 2: IS a Heterogeneous Collective Different employee groups given the same workstation and functionality in a system will have quite different use patterns, depending on their tasks ◦ Example: The bank provided brokers and sales assistants with the same technology. But sales assistants appear to be involved in more record keeping activities than brokers 24

Guideline 2: Forms of Shared and Configural Collective Usage 25 IS researchers consider whether the collective phenomena is configural rather than shared.

Guideline 2: Types of Configural System Usage System-centered fashion ◦ A distinct pattern whereby some users use different features of a system than others User-centered fashion ◦ A distinct pattern whereby some users work with the system in different cognition or affect Task-centered fashion ◦ A distinct pattern whereby some users employ the system for different subsets of a task Holistic fashion ◦ A distinct pattern whereby some users employ different parts of a system, for different subtasks, and with different affect 26

Guideline 3: Context of usage - 1 Types of Contextual factors ◦ Function  Factors that affect functional relationships among constructs ◦ Structure  Factors that affect the emergence of collective phenomena 27

Guideline 3: Context of usage - 2 Researchers should be aware of contextual factors associated with each element of usage ◦ Control for the degree to which user, system, and task fit each other Collective usage could be associated with different outcomes because of differences in timescale ◦ March’s (1991, 1999) theory suggests that exploration has uncertain benefits in the short run, but more certain benefits in the long run 28

Challenges of Multilevel Theorizing Difficult to draw on more specific theories Methods for measuring configural constructs are not well developed No agreed upon principles for testing the construct validity of shared or configural constructs Little in the way of guidance for specifying relevant samples in multilevel studies No established thresholds for determining how close together levels should be 29

Conclusion Advocated a multilevel perspective that integrates system usage at individual and collective level Provide detailed steps for building multilevel theories of system usage and concrete illustration Obtain rich insights into the nature and use of information systems in organizations 30

Contributions of The Paper in MIS Field In the past, system usage was analyzed in single level perspective in most of the time, therefore films can’t discover the problems or situation in multi-level perspective. The paper gives theories of how researchers could analyze the collective information system usage, to know better how to adjust system usage more efficient and improve better decision making. It also demonstrates how to analyze the system usage of both single and multi-level perspective but it emphasizes more on multi-level collective information system usage. 31

Useful Contributions Found in the paper for the future - 1 We have to bear in mind that when analyzing a system it can be both in single and multi-level information system usage. To determine the system usage, you have to understand the level of construct and the level of theory ◦ Multi-level system usage can be divided into 2, the contract level at the level of theory and the level of contract which is lower than the level of theory. ◦ The lower level of contract than the level theory can be distinguished into two, which are shared and configural. 32

Useful Contributions Found in the paper for the future - 2 To analyze the construct in a multilevel fashion we have to consider 3 guidelines, ◦ Function usage which is the usage of construct if it has same functional relationship at different levels ◦ Structure of usage, which is to the study of interdependency in the collective system usage ◦ Context of usage which affects the relationship between system usage and related construct 33