Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 26, No.

6, November – December 2007, 465 – 482

The impact of information technology on individual and firm

marketing performance

ROBERT W. STONE*{, DAVID J. GOOD{ and LORI BAKER-EVELETH{

{Department of Business, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843, USA {Department of Marketing, Seidman
School of Business, Grand Valley State University, Marketing 920 EC, 301 W. Fulton Street, Grand Rapids, MI
49504-6495, USA

The perceived impacts of information technology use on firm marketing organization

performance are examined. A theoretical model is presented linking organizational and end-
user traits, information quality, system/service quality, industry traits, and tasks performed
using a system to perceptions of organizational performance impacts through ease of system
use, perceived individual performance impacts (i.e. perceived usefulness), attitudes toward
using the system, and system use. The empirical examination uses a mail survey of US
marketing executives to collect the data. The quantitative technique used is structural equation
modeling. The results indicate that measures of organizational traits, individual traits,
information quality, system/service quality, and tasks performed using the system impact
perceived performance of the marketing organization mediated individual performance
impacts (i.e. perceived usefulness), attitudes toward using the system, and system use.
Managerial implications and conclusions are presented based upon these results.

Keywords: Information technology; Marketing performance; Technology acceptance model

1. Introduction must be utilized e ectively to ensure quality usage (Sorensen

The primary issue with any strategic tool is the degree that its
usage benefits the user. Yet, strategic tools are often employed
with little concrete understanding of the advan-tages they
engender. For example, information technology (IT) is a
widely discussed and implemented organizational tool
(Torkzadeh and Doll 1999, Sorensen and Buatsi 2002) despite
di culty in measuring its value (O’Brien 1997). Still, the belief
that technologies provide advantages (e.g. technology is
always good) is a driving force in many organizations, as its
use is prevalent (Stites 1999, Wipperfuth 1999) among
marketers as a strategic tool (Good and Stone 2000).
The cost of technology is enormous (Grover et al. 1998,
Legris et al. 2003), often accounting for over 2% of revenues
(Macmillan 1997). Yet, while IT is credited with enhancing
productivity (Anandarajan et al. 2000), it remains less clear to
what degree productivity from using IT is rewarded in a
competitive environment since a variety of components
and Buatsi 2002). As a result, a contemporary theme in
information technology research focuses on understanding
linkages between IT and its impact on performance (Griswold
1998). For example, when Prudential Insurance invested 100
million dollars several years ago to equip over 10,000 agents
with laptop computers (Ostermiller 1999), the underlying
implied purpose was to improve the productivity of the sales
force. While management surely believed this was a
rewarding strategy, understanding the degree to which such
investments assist the individual and firm (Bresnahan 1998,
Fleming 1999) remains chiefly unexplored (Good and Stone
2000). In fact, while it is popular to propose that the usage of
technology provides high returns, evidence suggests this is not
always true (Macmillan 1997, Grover et al. 1998).
Technologies can, in fact, have uncertain, little, or no impact
on profitability (O’Sullivan 1998), calling into question how
such strategic decisions are assessed (Torkzadeh and Doll
1999) and the reassessment of IT value (Tallon et al. 2000).
Providing a linkage between IT use and impacts on

*Corresponding author. Email: rstone@uidaho.edu

Behaviour & Information Technology

ISSN 0144-929X print/ISSN 1362-3001 online ª 2007 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/01449290600571610
466 R. W. Stone et al.
organizational performance is the focus for the study
presented below.
By integrating the widely studied (McGill et al. 2003)
DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) model with Davis’
Technology Acceptance Model (Davis 1989), this research
provides insight into how marketers can successfully utilize IT
within their strategic mission. This integrated model proposes
that among marketers, the general constructs of
organizational, individual, and industry traits, information
quality and system and service quality, and the tasks
performed using the information system influence users’
perceptions of the ease of use as well as their perceptions of
system usefulness (i.e. perceived impacts on the individual’s
performance). Perceptions of ease of system use and
usefulness impact users’ attitudes toward the system, which,
in turn, impact system use and ultimately perceived
organizational performance. The study is presented in the
following order: the rationale for the study, the theoretical
model and hypotheses, the methodology, managerial
implications and finally conclusions.
2. The rationale for the study
In a quest to improve performance, organizations are
increasingly relying on, and investing in, information
technologies (Motiwalla and Fairfield-Sonn 1998). In this
framework, IT is seen as an ‘enabler’ providing businesses the
ability to significantly broaden o erings (Anandarajan et al.
2000) which then provide marketers an array of new
advantages (Min and Keebler 2002) that can dramatically alter
the business arena (Sorensen and Buatsi 2002). The increased
reliance, expenditures, and costs of technologies (Ryan et al.
2002) and the need to seek high-return IT strategies (Ho man
2002) drive the desire to evaluate the performance of specific
IT investments and the factors that influence perceptions of
information system success (Ishman et al. 2001). For example,
to what degree can the firm positively influence elements that
ultimately impact the ability of IT to improve the performance
perceptions of the technology user and his/her firm? In this
regard, the call to create critical success factors (CSF) where
specific performance outcomes are sought from IT
investments is growing (Pe ers and Gengler 2003) in an
environment where linkages should exist between the firm and
IT productivity, although little is known about performance in
this context. If, however, IT investments are unable to recoup
costs (Berndt and Morrison 1995, Motiwalla and Fairfield-
Sonn 1998) and a primary objective is to maximize risk and
reward trade-o s (Benaroch 2002), the worthiness of
information technologies comes into serious question
(Mahmood and Mann 1993, Shaw 1994, Bryn-jolfsson and
Yang 1996), specifically as they relate to the unique needs of
the users (McGill et al. 2003). It is within this context that the
study is focused.
A theoretical framework integrating previous research
(DeLone and McLean 1992, 2003, Davis 1989, Goodhue and
Thompson 1995) is tested in a contemporary performance
context within a critical operational unit (i.e. marketing) of a
business firm. To this end, the study explores issues that
theoretically impact perceptions of individual and organiza-
tional performance and provides implications of both
academic and practical importance regarding strategic
placement of IT. It is important to acknowledge that the
impacts studied are perceptual in nature. In addition, the focus
is on the determinants of using an existing system (as opposed
to implementing a new system) and the perception of
enhanced performance resulting from its use (Bhattacherjee
2001). Such an approach is not unique, as the study of
perceived impacts on information system success in the
context of user-developed applications (McGill et al. 2003)
provides a logical basis for the exploration of IT users’
specific uses of IT and impacts from this use.
The theoretical model, in general form, is displayed in
figure 1. It is operationalized and discussed in a specific form
by the empirical study. The proposed relationships in the
general model o er marketers and organizations significant
competitive advantages since these are at least partially
controllable by management. As a result, mean-ingful
implications for managers regarding IT and its use to facilitate
performance as perceived by users are possible. For instance,
marketers and senior management can alter the resource
assignments to these variables (e.g. tasks performed,
system/service quality) if these modifications increase the
perceived performance of the organization. Hence, the
findings o er a number of strategic implications to marketers
and senior management as well as more detailed theoretical
and empirical explorations into quali-ties that influence
perceptions of performance using IT.
3. Theoretical foundation linking IT, performance, and the
marketing professional
Information technology systems are increasingly being
required to perform more sophisticated activities (Sorensen
and Buatsi 2002). For instance, creating data warehouses
provides a strategic tool that fosters long-term information
(Williams 1999, Wixom and Watson 2001) that can assist
marketers in understanding customer motivations and needs.
The success of these systems is dependent on whether they get
used. A belief of enhanced individual performance by
accessing customer information will encourage some to use
the system. In addition, if marketers perceive the system to be
easy to learn and use, they will have positive attitudes about
the system and are more likely to use it (Davis 1989, Gefen
and Straub 2000, Clay et al. 2005). Correspondingly, properly
structured IT systems enhance the ability of a firm to reach
across international marketplace barriers (Harrison-Walker
2002).
 Marketing performance
Figure 1. The general model of IT impacts on marketing performance.
Important to this investigation is the information technology
productivity paradox. This paradox notes that measurement of
worker productivity does not escalate consistently with
advancing IT investment (Brynjolfsson 1993, Motiwalla and
Fairfield-Sonn 1998), suggesting a form of ‘technological
disequilibrium’. As management increasingly becomes
concerned about IT value (Macmillan 1997), linkages of
perceived performance must be made to factors the firm
controls. Otherwise, the enormous interest in understanding IT
performance (DeLone and McLean 1992, 2003, Goodhue and
Thompson 1995, Grover et al. 1998) may escalate into a
costly client interaction mechan-ism (Macmillan 1997). In
such an environment, the need for marketers to automatically
escalate IT o erings may not always be the correct course of
action.
An important theoretical model which frames this study is
the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989,
Davis et al. 1989). Adapted and applied from the theory of
reasoned action which is concerned with understanding and
predicting human behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Davis
et al. 1989, Chau and Hu 2001), TAM traces the impact
external variables have on the beliefs, attitudes, and intention
to use computer technology (Davis et al. 1989, Legris et al.
2003). Two primary beliefs impacting system adoption are
perceived system usefulness and ease of use (Davis 1989,
Davis et al. 1989, Igbaria and Tan 1997). The model has been
widely used to determine successful prediction of IT
acceptance by identifying causal relation-
467
ships of an individual’s perception of usefulness and ease of
use, to their behavioural intention to use IT, and the
subsequent action of using and accepting the technology
(Davis 1989, Davis et al. 1989, Adams et al. 1992, Venkatesh
and Davis 1996). Usefulness assesses the indivi-dual’s
perception of how IT will improve the individual’s
performance and ease of use assesses the individual’s
perception of the amount of e ort needed to use the system
(Davis 1989, Davis et al. 1989, Venkatesh and Davis 1996).
Initial acceptance of technology is critical to the eventual
success of the system. The marketers in this study were
successfully using the system and had moved beyond initial
acceptance. The framework of TAM needed further extension
to assess the perceived impact and e ectiveness (i.e. success) at
the firm level and for a system beyond initial acceptance.
However, it is di cult to assess gains or the value in
information technology because inappropriate measures are
used to assess the linkages between perfor-mance and IT
(Motiwalla and Fairfield-Sonn 1998). For this reason, viewing
IT success within a specific context of unique users (Kallman
and O’Neill 1993, McGill et al. 2003) is a requirement for
understanding performance criteria. For example, depending
upon the task being performed, the usage of IT among
accountants (Henry 1999) should be di erent than plant
managers scheduling personnel shifts (DuCote and Malstrom
1999). This study explores the perceived impacts of IT on firm
performance within the specific context of marketing. In this
regard, McGill et al.
468 R. W. Stone et al.

(2003) note that to understand technological success, it is 4. The hypotheses

necessary to apply a litmus test applicable to individual users
and their needs. That is, success factors are not universal The theoretical framework is summarized by a series of
among all populations. It is necessary to examine these hypotheses that relate to both the general model displayed in
measures among the unique users who populate a particular figure 1 and the empirical study. The hypotheses are grouped
environment. Therefore, not only is this research grounded in according to constructs in the general model and stated in
the existing literature but also upon the practicality of terms of the measures of these general constructs
marketers needing to assess the growing investment of
information technology within their domain.
As a result, marketers represent key users of IT who should
be examined in the context of the proposed model based on
two distinctive qualities. The first quality is that information
technology is seen as providing a key source of competitive
advantage for users (Sriram and Krishnan 2003). Since
information technology is reputed to provide a competitive
advantage, marketers view IT as a critical opportunistic tool
(Harrison-Walker 2002, Osmonbekov et al. 2002, Sorensen
and Buatsi 2002). Second, this popula-tion is historically
concerned about both internal and external performance
factors. That is, the success of the firm depends upon
marketers’ abilities to be internally and externally successful
(e.g. sell customers products, and secure internal support for
strategic e orts). Examples of IT usage among marketers
include the utilization of e-commerce strategies and actions,
managing just-in-time inventories, managing custo-mer
relationship databases, sales order processing and automated
sales training programs. In this domain, marketers can provide
key insights into organizational success and linkages with IT.
In a major di erence with other studies, this concern should
ensure their use of technology is not solely guided by
narrowly defined, internal needs.
To understand IT performance impacts, DeLone and
McLean (1992, 2003) proposed a theoretical framework
linking perceptions of information and system and service
quality to impacts on the user’s performance through the
degree of system use and satisfaction with the system. In their
model, individual performance impacts are linked to firm
performance by noting that the individual perfor-mance
impacts can be summated across all appropriate users in the
organization. Understanding individual users (Doll et al. 1994)
and the overall DeLone and McLean (1992) model underscore
the key role the organization, the individual, and a coalescing
of these factors play in enriching performance through IT.

Other researchers have empirically tested various aspects of

the DeLone and McLean model (McGill et al. 2003) and these
results illustrate consistency over several paths in the model. It
has been shown that the paths from system/ service quality
and information quality have the hypothe-sized influences on
perceived usefulness (Seddon and Kiew 1996, Roldan and
Millan 2000, McGill et al. 2003). Yet, no similar consistent
results have been found for the paths between system/service
quality and information quality to system use. Most
information systems o er more than just
 Marketing performance
they are used in the empirical study. These measures are
discussed in detail in a later section.
4.1 Organizational and individual traits
Hypotheses 1 – 10 propose that the characteristics of the
organization and the individual impact the degree to which an
information system is perceived as useful and easy to use by
marketers. Hypotheses 1 and 2 parallel the logic of
Guimaraes, Igbaria and Lu (1992) in their contention that the
organization strongly influences IT usage and satisfac-tion.
This satisfaction is frequently due to the perceived usefulness
of the system. A firm that supports the adoption and usage of
IT should expect that the use and perceived usefulness of the
system would increase due to this support. Because IT is a
strategic organizational e ort (DeLone and McLean 1992,
Goodhue and Thompson 1995, Kesner 1999), the firm’s traits
should theoretically influence system satisfaction and
perceived usefulness. Particularly true among non-technical
system users (e.g. marketers), these hypotheses focus on the
ability of the organization and its management to influence the
environment in which systems are used.
The measures selected to operationalize organizational traits
(i.e. innovative climate, computer training and computer sta
support) reflect the unique background and professional
inclinations of marketing. Innovative climate was selected
because of the need for marketers to find ‘new’ approaches
(e.g. in a competitive situation) to their responsibilities as well
as existing contentions that the organization’s environment
influences its usage of technol-ogy (Shibata et al. 1991,
Headrick and Morgan 1999). Given the increasing reliance on
IT to accomplish unique tasks as well as organizational and
performance outcomes among marketers (Good and Schultz
1997), a demand exists for the organization to link technology
and innova-tion (Motiwalla and Fairfield-Sonn 1998, Weston
1998). The variables of computer training and sta support
were selected because managerial support of information sys-
tems is often key to successful organizational adoption
(Williams 1999). Furthermore, training reflects a logical
inclusion critical to the success of IT users (Watson 1999),
particularly for marketers who often lack extensive computer
training. Thus, supporting IT users (e.g. training and sta
support) assists the perceived usefulness and ease of ease of
the technology.
Hypotheses 7 – 10 ten focus on the influence of individual
traits (i.e. technological leadership and end-user computer
experience) on perceived system ease of use and usefulness
(i.e. individual performance impacts). Previous research
confirms linkages between the individual and IT is crucial
(Igbaria et al. 1995). Furthermore, because technology
leadership provides real advantages (Whitford 1999), focusing
on measures of technological leadership among
469
‘non-technical’ personnel reflects the degree to which
marketers can build and use this area of expertise. Given the
assumption that technology constantly expands its o erings,
such leadership provides opportunities to en-hance system
usefulness. Such leadership should also influence the
individual’s willingness to experiment with the system which
influences their perception of the system’s ease of use.
Similarly, past experience of users should logically influence
their perceptions of system ease of use and usefulness. For
these reasons, the measures used to assess individual traits are
the user’s technological leader-ship and previous computer
experience.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): An innovative organizational climate
has a positive impact on the end-user’s perceived indi-
vidual performance impacts (i.e. perceived usefulness).
Hypothesis 2 (H2): An innovative organizational climate
has a positive impact on the end-user’s perceptions of
system ease of use.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Computer training has a positive impact
on the end-user’s perceived individual perfor-mance
impacts (i.e. perceived usefulness).
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Computer training has a positive impact
on the end-user’s perceptions of system ease of use.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Computer sta support has a positive
impact on the end-user’s perceived individual perfor-mance
impacts (i.e. perceived usefulness).
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Computer sta support has a positive
impact on the end-user’s perceived ease of system use.
Hypothesis 7 (H7): Technological leadership has a positive
impact on the end-user’s perceived individual performance
impacts (i.e. perceived usefulness). Hypothesis 8 (H8):
Technological leadership has a positive impact on the end-
user’s perceived ease of system use. Hypothesis 9 (H9):
End-user’s computer experience has a positive impact on
the end-user’s perceived individual performance impacts
(i.e. perceived usefulness). Hypothesis 10 (H10): End-user’s
computer experience has a positive impact on the end-user’s
perceived ease of system use.
4.2 Information and system/service quality
Hypotheses 11 – 14 address the issue of perceived quality,
both in terms of the specific information these systems
provide users and the delivery mechanisms used by the
systems. Founded on the understanding that the goal of IT is
to enhance performance of system users (Gasson 1999),
quality is a di cult construct to measure due to di erences in
users’ context of system use. Yet, interest in the construct
remains high (Paul et al. 1999). In this vein, hypotheses 11
and 12 note that the quality of what information the system o
ers is important to users (Ang and Koh 1997), especially
marketers who theoretically use technology to gain a
470 R. W. Stone et al.
competitive advantage. In fact, because demands for access to
quality information (Schroeder 1987) have not dimin-ished as
a critical component of IS success (Ang and Soh 1997), it is
anticipated that this need is a core requirement for marketers.
Since the applications of IT o erings should be unique to
specific users (Shayo et al. 1999), these hypotheses propose
that marketers see IT as a basic provider of usable
information. It would be expected that the higher the quality
of the information, the less e ort that must be expended to
obtain information needed to perform the user’s job tasks. The
information then enhances usefulness and ease of system use.
Information quality is measured by a construct with the same
label.
It is logical for the perceptions of system/service quality
(i.e. computer system/service quality) to enrich the per-ceived
usefulness and ease of use for the system. Hypotheses 13 and
14 reflect the quality of a system/service as perceived by end-
users that are not IT professionals. If the system is perceived
usable (e.g. easy to use; well maintained), marketers, who are
not IT professionals, will find it functional and easy to
operate. Further, users’ perceptions a ect their choice of
product. In fact, the quality of computer systems/services has
become such an issue that users often select the product based
on the least number of potential problems (Scott 1998).
Hypothesis 11 (H11): Information quality has a positive
impact on the end-user’s perceived individual perfor-mance
impacts (i.e. perceived usefulness).
Hypothesis 12 (H12): Information quality has a positive
impact on the end-user’s perceived ease of system use.
Hypothesis 13 (H13): Computer system/service quality has
a positive impact on the end-user’s perceived individual
performance impacts (i.e. perceived useful-ness).
Hypothesis 14 (H14): Computer system/service quality has
a positive impact on the end-user’s perceived ease of system
use.
4.3 Industry traits and tasks performed
Hypotheses 15 – 20 address the environment in which
marketers apply IT (i.e. customer knowledge, industry
outlook, and tasks performed). Hypotheses 15 and 16 consider
the importance of customer knowledge on perceived system
usefulness and ease of system use. Hypotheses 17 and 18
examine the impact of industry outlook on perceived
usefulness and ease of use, while hypotheses 19 and 20 detail
the role of the tasks performed on these two measures.
Given the high level of customer knowledge and outlook
for the industry (e.g. growth and profit potential), it is critical
that marketer’s utilize information as a strategic link to the
customer environment (Raval 1999). The
Vanguard Group, for instance, found that creating a strong
technological infrastructure has become a critical link to their
customer base (Groenfeldt 1996), suggesting that technology
needs to be flexible and responsive to the marketing
environment (Mertins and Arlt 1999). Hence, organizations
operating in a ‘growing and prospering’ environment where
customers have significant knowledge should link the
perception of usefulness and ease of system use. As with the
Vanguard example, the need to use IT embraces the need for
perceived usefulness with the system and ease of system use.
Hence, customer knowledge and industry outlook are
expected to have positive impacts on perceived system
usefulness and ease of system use.
The tasks performed with a specific application of IT are an
area fertile for understanding technology users (Blili et al.
1998). The relationship between IT and the skill level of the
workforce (Lal 1996) supports linkages between tasks
performed and perceived system usefulness and ease of use.
Since the task to be performed is an important considera-tion
(Igbaria et al. 1998), it is expected the design of IT to provide
specific returns for users as the tasks should be related to
anticipated outcomes (Henry and Martinko 1997). Linkages,
however, should exist between the task and the use of
technology (Changki et al. 1998), suggesting that the better
the system is able to perform needed tasks, the greater its
perceived usefulness and ease of use.
Hypothesis 15 (H15): Customer knowledge levels have
positive impacts on the end-user’s perceived individual
performance impacts (i.e. perceived usefulness).
Hypothesis 16 (H16): Customer knowledge levels have
positive impacts on the end-user’s perceived ease of system
use.
Hypothesis 17 (H17): Industry outlook has a positive
impact on the end-user’s perceived individual perfor-mance
impacts (i.e. perceived usefulness).
Hypothesis 18 (H18): Industry outlook has a positive
impact on the end-user’s perceived ease of system use.
Hypothesis 19 (H19): The tasks performed using the system
have impacts on the end-user’s perceived indivi-dual
performance impacts (i.e. perceived usefulness). Hypothesis
20 (H20): The tasks performed using the system have
impacts on the end-user’s perceived ease of system use.
4.4 Ease of system use and perceived individual performance
impacts
The end-user’s perception of system usefulness depends, at
least partially, on the individual using the system. The user
must expend e ort on learning a new system or new functions
for an existing system. For some end-users it is a continuing
process of adapting the system for new uses. If the system is
di cult to use, end-users will expend only
 Marketing performance
enough e ort on the system to accomplish what must be done.
In this situation, end-users are unlikely to search for novel or
advanced uses for the system. As a result, these end-users will
perceive little usefulness in the system. On the other hand, if
the system is relatively easy to use, end-users can learn to use
and adapt the system to novel uses expending little e ort. For
these end-users, the perceived usefulness of the system would
be expected to be relatively large. This relationship has been
hypothesized by numerous authors (Davis 1989, Davis et al.
1989, Legris et al. 2003) and is summarized in hypothesis 21.
Hypothesis 21 (H21): The end-user’s perceived ease of
system use has positive impacts on the end-user’s perceived
individual performance impacts.
4.5 Ease of system use, perceived individual performance
impacts, and attitude toward using the system
As Udo and Ebiefung (1999) note, measures of technolo-gical
productivity are often too limited. In response, this study
utilizes a unique population (i.e. marketers) and explores the
impact of IT on the individual’s satisfaction, use, and
perceived organizational performance impacts with the
system. Specifically, hypothesis 22 explores the impact of
ease of system use on system satisfaction (i.e. attitude toward
using the system). Hypothesis 23 examines the role of
perceived usefulness (i.e. perceived individual performance
impacts) impacting system satisfaction.
Hypothesis 22 (H22): The end-user’s perceived ease of
system use has positive impacts on the end-user’s system
satisfaction (i.e. attitude toward using the system).
Hypothesis 23 (H23): The end-user’s perceived individual
performance impacts have positive impacts on the end-
user’s system satisfaction (i.e. attitude toward using the
system).
4.6 System satisfaction and system use
Hypothesis 24 investigates the relationship between the end-
user’s system satisfaction and system use. Greater satisfaction
with the system should encourage its usage. In fact,
satisfaction and usage have been shown to be related (Khalil
and Melkordy 1999, McGill et al. 2003), although there is
much about this relationship that remains unclear (Changki et
al. 1998). This research follows the work of several
researchers that propose a meaningful and positive
relationship between user satisfaction and use of the system in
that satisfaction encourages use (Davis et al. 1989).
Hypothesis 24 (H24): End-user system satisfaction (i.e.
attitudes toward using the system) positively impacts the
end-user’s degree of system use.
471
4.7 System use and organizational performance impacts
Corresponding with the literature (DeLone and McLean 1992,
2003, Goodhue and Thompson 1995), hypothesis 25 examines
the perceived performance impacts of IT use on the
organization. It is the nature of such impacts to be altered
depending upon the user (e.g. accounting, market-ing,
engineering), the nature of IT investment (Grover et al. 1998),
the level of revenues consumed (Macmillan 1997), and
expected performance. This suggests that understand-ing the
perceived impacts of IT on performance (Griswold 1998) is
critical. It also makes sense that the use of IT should
contribute to perceptions of performance (Rogers et al. 1996).
Thus, system usage is expected to have mean-ingful and
positive impacts on perceived organizational performance.
Hypothesis 25 (H25): End-user system use has positive
impacts on perceived organizational performance im-pacts
from using the system.
5. The research method
5.1 The sample
The sample was collected using a national (i.e. United States)
mail survey. The target population was individuals who had
classified themselves as a marketing executive on a purchased
mailing list. The selection of marketers as the target
population was made so the study could focus on IT users who
are managers having the job driven qualifications noted
previously.
The questionnaire used was developed with items designed
to measure the constructs required by the model. A
preliminary version of the questionnaire was pre-tested using
a group of 20 marketing executives from the United States.
These 20 individuals provided feedback regarding
appropriateness, coverage, and readability of the items. A total
of 1200 questionnaires were mailed to marketers selected in a
systematic random fashion from the mailing list. The usable
returns numbered 403 for a response rate of approximately
33.58%. Due to mailing list restrictions, no additional attempts
to contact the individuals on the mailing list were made. The
survey respondents were self-identified as marketers.
Realizing that these individuals are marketing executives who
have limited time and who may interpret the items as dealing
with key, confidential matters, the return rate is excellent
(Good and Stone 1995).
In order to test for the possible presence of non-response
bias in the sample, a holdout group was formed. The
questionnaires placed in the holdout group were selected by
setting a cuto date before mailing the questionnaire. Any
questionnaires returned after this date were not considered part
of the sample and were placed in the holdout group
472 R. W. Stone et al.

(Rainer and Harrison 1992). A total of 28 questionnaires were categories for the respondent to check or requested a single
put in the holdout group, leaving 375 responses in the sample. numeric value (e.g. years of prior computer experience).
Due to the focus of the research being rooted in computer use, Within the sample, 74% of the respondents were male and
additional steps were taken to assure a representative sample 26% female, while in the holdout group these values were
for use in the study. All question-naires returned by 80% and 20%. The firms employing the sample respon-dents
individuals reporting no previous computer experience or who had, on average, 570 employees with a range from 5 to 8000
reported no current computer use at work were eliminated employees and in the holdout group this average was 382
from the sample and hold-out group. This reduced the sample employees with a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 725
size by 19 and the number of returns in the holdout group by employees. The average respondent age in the sample was 43
3. years with a range from 20 to 71 years, while in the holdout
The sample and holdout group are characterized by values group these values were 48 years with a range from 28 years
on several variables that are displayed in table 1. The to 69 years. The respondents were also asked to report their
respondents self-reported all the demographic values that are highest level of education obtained. Among the respondents in
reported. The questionnaire items either provided the sample, 6% reported high school, 13% reported a 2-year
college, 55% a 4-year college, 22% a masters degree, and 4%
a doctorate. In the holdout group, these percentages were 4%
Table 1. The demographics for the sample and holdout group. high school, 2-year college, and doctorate, 52% 4-year
college, and 36% a masters degree. The years of computer use
Gender averaged 12 years for the respondents in the sample, with a
Male (%) Female (%) minimum and a maximum of 1 year and 37 years. In the
holdout group, these values were 13 years ranging from a
Sample 74 26 minimum of 5 years to a maximum of 28 years. Daily
Holdout group 80 20
computer use was measured by the number of times in a day
Number of employees
the respondent used a computer system at work. For the
respondents in the sample, the average was 24 times and the
Average Minimum Maximum range was from 1 to 103 times daily. For the holdout group,
Sample 570 5 8000 the times per day the computer was used averaged 18 times
Holdout group 382 10 725 with extreme values of 1 time and 100 times.

Respondent age

Average Minimum Maximum 5.2 The measures

(years) (years) (years)
The constructs defined in the theoretical model were
Sample 43 20 71
Holdout group 48 28 69 operationalized by several measures. These measures were
stated in the hypotheses presented earlier. Each measure was
Highest education level formed from two or more questionnaire items. All these items
are shown in table 2.
High 2-year 4-year Masters
school college college degree Doctorate All the measures were formed using questionnaire items
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) that were either developed by the authors or modified from
previously published scales to the technology-oriented
Sample 6 13 55 22 4
environment in which the instrument was utilized. Speci-
Holdout group 4 4 52 36 4
fically, innovative climate originated from work done on
Years of computer use franchisee innovation by Koys and DeCotiis (1991) and work
by Strutton et al. (1993). These measures had original
Average Minimum Maximum
reliabilities of 0.768 and 0.82. The technological leadership
(years) (years) (years)
measure was adapted from a scale designed to assess opinion
Sample 12 1 37 leadership developed by King and Summers (1970) and
Holdout group 13 5 28 Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991). These scales had reliabilities
reported as 0.79 – 0.90. Computer sta support, ease of system
Daily computer use (number of times per day)
use, and individual performance impacts were adopted from
Average Minimum Maximum work done by Good and Stone (1999) with previously
reported reliabilities of 0.92, 0.96, and 0.95. Information
Sample 24 1 103
quality was adapted from the information usage (company
Holdout group 18 1 100
sources) scale tested by Crosby and
 Marketing performance 473

Table 2. The confirmatory factor analysis indicants, standardized path coe cient, measures, and their psychometric properties.

Path Composite Shared

Measures and their indicants (construct in the general model) coe cient Reliability variance

Innovative climate (organizational traits) 0.94 76%

My business firm:
1. encourages me to find new ways around old problems. 0.84**
2. encourages me to develop my own ideas. 0.86**
3. encourages me to improve upon its methods. 0.90**
4. talks up new ways of doing things. 0.87**
5. likes me to try new ways of doing things. 0.89**
Technological leadership (individual traits) 0.94 81%
6. Usually, I am one of the first among my professional associates to adopt a new 0.89**
technology when it is available.
7. Compared to my professional associates, I use new computer technologies sooner. 0.92**
8. In general, I am the first of my business associates to know about new computer equipment. 0.91**
9. I use new technologies even if other professional associates do not. 0.88**
Computer training (organizational traits) 0.84 72%
In my business firm:
10. computer training is readily available. 0.84**
11. the computer training provided is always excellent. 0.87**
Computer sta support (organizational traits) 0.89 73%
12. The computer technician quickly helps solve problems. 0.82**
13. The computer technician can always solve my problems. 0.85**
14. When I don’t know how to do something, the computer sta can always help. 0.88**
Information quality (information quality) 0.89 68%
The computer systems at work provide:
15. up-to-date information. 0.83**
16. the information I need on time. 0.91**
17. su cient information. 0.76**
18. information that is clear. 0.78**
Ease of system use 0.88 78%
19. I find the computer easy to use. 0.90**
20. I find it easy to get the computer to do what I want it to do. 0.87**
Computer system/service quality (system/service quality) 0.93 88%
The computer systems at work are excellent in terms of:
21. the promptness of maintenance and repair. 0.90**
22. the quality of maintenance and repair. 0.97**
End-user previous computer experience (individual traits) 0.84 72%
23. I have used computers throughout my career. 0.84**
24. I have used computer systems over a long period of time. 0.86**
Customer knowledge (industry traits) 0.78 64%
25. Our customers possess a great deal of market information. 0.81**
26. Our customers have knowledge about the market 0.79**
System satisfaction (attitude toward using the system) 0.96 84%
27. Overall, I am content with the computer systems at work. 0.92**
28. Overall, I am pleased with how the computer systems at work facilitate my work. 0.91**
29. Overall, the computer systems ‘fit well’ what I need at work. 0.89**
30. Overall, I am satisfied with the computer systems at work. 0.95**
Perceived individual performance impacts (perceived usefulness) 0.93 77%
In my business/firm, computer systems:
31. improve my work performance. 0.92**
32. help make me more successful. 0.90**
33. improve the quality of my work. 0.89**
34. help me do a better job. 0.79**
Perceived organizational performance impacts 0.91 72%
The computer systems at work:
35. are successful by improving organizational performance. 0.83**
36. lead to a more successful organization. 0.91**

(continued )
474
Table 2. (Continued ).
Measures and their indicants (construct in the general model)
37. lead to higher quality of work.
38. improve the marketplace success of the firm.
Industry outlook (industry traits)
39. The prospect for future profit is good.
40. The average industry growth is high.
41. The average industry pretax profits are high.
Tasks performed (tasks performed)
Indicate the degree to which computer technology in your business/firm has been important in aiding
performance in the following areas:
42. providing information for e ective communication.
43. improving communication between my firm and customers.
44. Improving communication between members of my business/firm (e.g. sales force to manufacturing).
**Statistically significant at a 1% level.
Stephens (1987) with reliabilities of 0.84 and 0.81 and the
work of Doll and Torkzadeh (1988) with reliabilities above
0.90. System satisfaction was adapted from a job satisfac-tion
scale used by Dubinsky et al. (1986), with a reliability of 0.83.
The industry outlook scale was adapted from Burke’s (1984)
market attractiveness scale. Its original reliability was reported
as 0.92. Customer knowledge was developed from Butaney
and Wortzel’s (1988) examination of market power of
customer knowledge. Its reported reliability was 0.74.
Computer training, computer system/ service quality, end-user
previous computer experience, firm performance impacts, and
tasks performed were created by the authors after discussions
with marketing executives and a thorough review of the
literature. The system usage construct was measured by the
respondent’s self-reported percentage of time spent using the
system.
5.3 Non-response bias
As in any study involving a survey, the possible presence of
non-response bias is a concern. Comparing the holdout group
to the sample for possible di erences in the demographic
values is one examination for the presence of this bias. A
second is to perform a similar comparison for the summated
measures used in the study. In this research, both
examinations were performed.
The demographics not used in the estimation of the
theoretical model were compared between the sample and the
holdout group using t-tests. The specific variables and t-values
were: gender (0.68); number of employees (2.90); respondent
age (72.45); educational level of the respon-dent (71.52);
years of computer use (70.61); and the number of times each
day the system is used (1.02). Meaningful di erences across
the demographics were identified for the number of employees
and respondent age. These di erences indicated that the
respondents in the
R. W. Stone et al.
Path Composite Shared
coe cient reliability variance
0.88**
0.78**
0.80 59%
0.63**
0.81**
0.84**
0.86 67%
0.76**
0.83**
0.86**
sample worked in larger organizations and were on average
younger than the individuals whose responses were in the
holdout group. The magnitude of this di erence in terms of the
number of employees was 570 employees on average for the
firms employing the respondents in the sample and 382 for the
firms employing the executives in the holdout group.
Similarly, the average age of the respondents in the sample
was 43 years, while in the holdout group this average was 48
years.
The summated measures were also compared across the
sample and the holdout group for meaningful di erences using
multiple analysis of variance. As a group, no mean-ingful di
erences were found between the holdout group and the
sample. The Wilks Lambda was 1.03. The results of the tests
for the individual summated measures also showed no
significant di erences between the sample and the hold-out
group, except for the degree of system use and ease of system
use. For these measures, the di erences were sig-nificant at a
5% level. In terms of direction, the non-respondents simulated
by the holdout group perceived the system to be harder to use
and spent a lower percentage of their time using the system
than the respondents in the sample. The actual F-statistics (1
and 334 degrees of freedom) for the individual test of each
measure were: innovative climate (0.51); technological
leadership (3.00); computer training (0.36); computer sta
support (0.00); information quality (3.13); ease of system use
(6.14) computer system/ service quality (0.81); end-user
computer experience (1.48); industry outlook (0.00); customer
knowledge (0.20); tasks performed (1.78); system use (4.23);
system satisfaction (0.32) perceived individual performance
impacts (3.49); and perceived firm performance impacts
(1.65).
The meaningful di erences in these summated variables
between the holdout group and the sample require additional
investigation and explanation. The di erences indicated that
the respondents perceived their information
 Marketing performance
system to be easier to use and made greater use of it when
compared to the simulated non-respondents. These means
were 7.09 and 5.97 for the summated ease of use measure and
40.73% and 24.94% for system use. These results appear
consistent with the di erences in the demographic variables.
Relative to the nonrespondents, the respondents worked in
larger organizations where IT might be more available.
Further, the respondents were, on average, slightly younger
and perhaps more willing to use IT. Based on these di erences,
the respondents probably had a greater interest in the topic of
the survey and responded sooner and at a higher rate.
Given the purpose of the study, these di erences do not
necessarily present a ‘bad’ bias. The sample contains
respondents who make relatively frequent use of the system
they were asked to evaluate. As a result, they know how to use
the system and perceive it relatively easy to use. This
contention is further supported by the fact that the respondents
in the sample had on average greater previous computer
experience (i.e. 7.02 years) than the individuals in the holdout
sample (i.e. 6.18 years). Since it is desirable to have answers
in the sample from respondents who are knowledgeable about
the system and make use of it, these di erences need not be
serious. As a result, it can be concluded that non-response bias
is not a serious problem for the study.
5.4 The psychometric properties of the measures
The next stage in the empirical analysis was to evaluate the
psychometric properties of the measures. The analysis was
based on the results from a confirmatory factor analysis using
a structural equations approach in Calis (i.e. Covariance
Analysis of Linear Structural Equations) in PC SAS version 8.
In the analysis, each measure was exogenous in the model and
scaled by setting its standard deviation equal to one. The
measures were also allowed to pair-wise correlate. The
individual items in each measure were reflective and impacted
by a random disturbance term. Each disturbance term was free
to vary with a path between it and the indicant set equal to
one. The estimation procedure used was maximum likelihood.
The results from the analysis are summarized by several
statistics. The goodness of fit index was 0.85 and adjusted for
degrees of freedom it was 0.81. The root mean square residual
was 0.04. The chi-square statistic was statistically significant
at a 1% level and had a value of 1298.81 with 841 degrees of
freedom. The normed chi-square statistic was 1.54. Bentler’s
comparative fit index was 0.96. The incremental fit indexes
(i.e. Bentler and Bonett’s normed and nonnormed indexes and
Bollen’s normed and non-normed indexes) ranged from 0.87
to 0.96. These results and the relatively large sample size,
even with the
475
undesirable significant chi-square statistic, imply a good fit
between the model and the data (Hair et al. 1992).
Using the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, the
psychometric properties of the measures were evaluated and
shown in table 2. Since the standardized path between each
indicant and its measure was at least as large as 0.63, item
reliability was satisfied (Rainer and Harrison 1993). Because
the composite reliability coe cients ranged from 0.78 to 0.96,
composite reliability was satisfied (Nunnally 1978). All the
average percentages of shared variance were 59% or greater,
demonstrating satisfactory levels of this trait (Rivard and Hu
1988). Due to these desirable values, it can be concluded that
convergent validity was satisfied for each measure (Igbaria
and Greenhaus 1992, Rainer and Harrison 1993).
Discriminant validity was also examined using the results
from the confirmatory factor analysis. The examination
compared the squared correlation between each pair of
measures to their average percentage of shared variances.
Discriminant validity is satisfied if, for each measure pair, the
average percentages of shared variance are greater than the
corresponding squared correlation (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
The squared correlations ranged from 0.00 to 0.36 and are
reported in table 3. Since these squared correlations were less
than all the average percentage of shared variances already
reported, discriminant validity was satisfied (Fornell and
Larcker 1981). These results, coupled with convergent
validity, imply that the measures satisfied construct validity
(Rainer and Harrison 1993). Thus, the developed measures
had desirable psychometric properties.
5.5 Estimation of the model
The empirical specification of the model was developed as
reflective in nature, with the path between a measure and its
indicant pointing from the measure to the indicant. Each of
these paths was free to vary, with the exception of one
indicant for each endogenous measure that was used to scale
the measure. Further, each indicant and endogenous measure
was impacted by a disturbance term that was free to vary. The
resulting model was estimated using a structural equations
approach (i.e. Calis in PC SAS version 8) and maximum
likelihood estimation.
The overall fit of the model to the data is described by
several summary statistics displayed in table 4. The goodness
of fit measure was 0.81 while this index adjusted for the
degrees of freedom in the model was 0.78. The root mean
square residual was 0.15. The chi-square statistic was 1748.61
with 876 degrees of freedom and was statistically significant
at a 1% level. The normed chi-square statistic was 2.00 and
Bentler’s comparative fit index was 0.92. The incremental fit
indexes ranged from 0.84 to 0.92. Consider-ing the sample
size and the complexity of the model, these
476 R. W. Stone et al.

Table 3. The squared correlations among the measures.

Innovative Technological Computer Computer

climate leadership training sta support

Innovative climate 1.00

Technological leadership 0.04 1.00
Computer training 0.14 0.04 1.00
Computer sta support 0.17 0.04 0.34 1.00
Information quality 0.14 0.02 0.13 0.14
Ease of system use 0.03 0.36 0.12 0.05
Computer system/service quality 0.11 0.03 0.16 0.26
End-user previous computer experience 0.06 0.34 0.04 0.01
Customer knowledge 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.03
System satisfaction 0.17 0.06 0.17 0.16
Perceived individual performance impacts 0.16 0.12 0.07 0.06
Perceived firm performance impacts 0.26 0.08 0.13 0.22
Industry outlook 0.13 0.01 0.08 0.10
Tasks performed 0.30 0.08 0.16 0.17
System use 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.00
Computer End-user
system/service computer
Information quality Ease of system use quality experience
Information quality 1.00
Ease of system Use 0.05 1.00
Computer system/service quality 0.14 0.10 1.00
End-user computer experience 0.01 0.25 0.03 1.00
Customer knowledge 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01
System satisfaction 0.35 0.17 0.19 0.05
Perceived individual performance impacts 0.12 0.13 0.06 0.15
Perceived organizational performance impacts 0.34 0.08 0.12 0.03
Industry outlook 0.12 0.01 0.07 0.08
Tasks performed 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.09
System use 0.00 0.14 0.04 0.18
Customer System Perceived individual Perceived organizational
knowledge satisfaction performance impacts performance impacts
Customer knowledge 1.00
System satisfaction 0.00 1.00
Perceived individual performance impacts 0.02 0.13 1.00
Perceived organizational performance impacts 0.02 0.25 0.31 1.00
Industry outlook 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.12
Tasks performed 0.07 0.25 0.19 0.35
System use 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.02
Industry outlook Tasks performed System use
Industry outlook 1.00
Tasks performed 0.14 1.00
System use 0.03 0.06 1.00

statistics indicate an acceptable fit between the model and the
data (Hair et al. 1992).
The details of the estimated measurement model are shown
in figure 2 using the estimated standardized path coe cients.
Viewing these results, each path between a measure and its
indicant that was free to vary was significantly di erent from
zero at a 1% level. The details of the estimated structural
model are also displayed in figure 2, using standardized path
coe cients. The paths of the antecedents to perceived
individual performance impacts (i.e. perceived usefulness) and
the ease of system
use are examined first. Within the organizational traits group
of antecedents, the innovative climate measure had the
predicted positive impact on perceived individual performance
impacts (H1). Computer training had the predicted significant
impact on ease of system use (H4). For the two measures in
the individual traits group, the degree of technological
leadership had the hypothesized influence on ease of system
use (H8). Furthermore, amount of end-user computer
experience had the predicted impacts on the ease of system
use (H10) and perceived individual perfor-mance impacts
(H9).
 Marketing performance
Table 4. The summary statistics of the model’s fit.
Statistic
Goodness of fit index
Adjusted goodness of fit index
Root mean square residual
Chi-square statistic 1748.61**
Degrees of freedom
Normed chi-square statistic
Bentler’s comparative fit index
Bentler & Bonett’s nonnormed index
Bentler & Bonett’s normed index
Bollen’s normed index
Bollen’ nonnormed index
**Statistically significant at a 1% level.
The information quality measure had the predicted
influences on both ease of system use (H12) and perceived
individual performance impacts (H11). The system/service
quality measure had as predicted a positive impact on the ease
of system use (H14). For the industry traits category, none of
the measures had the predicted influences on either ease of
system use or perceived individual performance impacts. The
tasks performed using the system measure had the predicted
impacts on perceived individual perfor-mance impacts (H19).
Also shown in figure 2 are the paths among the endo-
genous variables of ease of system use, perceived individual
performance impacts, system satisfaction, system use, and
perceptions of organizational performance impacts. All of
these estimated paths were significant as hypothesized. Ease
of system use had meaningful impacts on both perceived
individual performance impacts (H21) and system satisfac-
tion (H22). Additionally, perceived individual performance
impacts had the hypothesized positive, meaningful impact on
system satisfaction (H23). System satisfaction had the
predicted positive influence on system use (H24). In turn,
system use had a positive, meaningful influence on per-ceived
organizational performance impacts (H25).
6. Managerial implications
The managerial implications of key interest are those
represented by the paths from the antecedents to ease of
system use and perceived individual performance impacts (i.e.
perceived usefulness). This is in part because all the
hypothesized paths among the endogenous variables in the
model (i.e. those paths from ease of system use and per-ceived
individual performance impacts forward to per-ceived
organizational performance impacts) were significant as
predicted. Furthermore, these relationships are impor-tant
because all of the antecedents are at least partially controllable
by management.
If the organization can create an environment encoura-ging
innovation, it will have positive impacts on perceived
477
organizational performance through positive impacts on the
Value system’s perceived usefulness mediated by system satis-
faction and use. This may well be because the innovative
0.81 climate encourages uses of the system that have potential for
0.78 significant performance gains, if successful. Encouraging such
0.15
innovation among employees provides an environ-ment to
876 attempt and learn about such appropriate risk-taking. Another
2.00 organizational trait is computer training. Providing computer
0.92 training on the system improves end-users’ perceptions of the
0.91 system’s ease of use and ultimately positively influencing
0.86
perceived organizational performance through system
0.84
0.92 satisfaction and use. Such a result is logical in that appropriate
training in the use of the system should make users perceive it
easier to use. This is the logic behind providing computer
training in the organization.
The characteristics of marketers recruited and retained by
the organization can also influence their perception of the
organizational performance impacts possible from the use of
the system. Recruiting and retaining marketers and managers
who are early adopters of technology (i.e. display
technological leadership) have positive impacts on perceived
organizational performance from system use through
perceptions that the system is easy to use which improves
system satisfaction and, in turn, increases the degree of system
use. In addition, hiring marketers with significant prior
computer experience has meaningful impacts on perceived
organizational performance through both ease of system use
and perceived impacts on individual perfor-mance. Thus, by
recruiting and retaining marketers and managers with
meaningful prior computing experience and with a
predilection toward using and adapting new tech-nologies,
organizations can improve, at least perceptually,
organizational performance.
The characteristics of the information provided by the
system and the system itself impact perceived organiza-tional
performance impacts. If the system provides infor-mation that
is of high quality (i.e. timely and su cient), it has positive
impacts on perceived organizational perfor-mance. These
impacts occur through improvements in ease of system use
and perceived individual performance impacts improving
system satisfaction, system use, and ultimately perceived
organizational performance. The quality of the system (e.g.
maintenance and repair) also influences perceived
organizational performance through making the system easier
to use for the marketer. A system that is easy to use increases
system satisfaction, system use, and has perceived
organizational performance impacts.
The tasks performed using the system influence perceived
organizational performance through improving perceived
individual performance. In this study, the tasks performed
using the system focused on improving communications. The
empirical results indicted that using the system to improve
communications has positive impacts on perceived individual
performance of marketers, system satisfaction,
478 R. W. Stone et al.

Figure 2. The estimated standardized path coe cients.

 Marketing performance
system use, and ultimately perceived organizational perfor-
mance. Finally, it should also be noted that any antecedent
significantly impacting ease of system use also has a signifi-
cant impacts on perceived organizational performance impacts
through perceived individual performance impacts.
It is important for management to track the success of IT
investments (Skok et al. 2001), as the value of technology is
increasingly becoming a critical managerial issue (Ho man
2002, Berry 2003). In this spirit, the antecedents to ease of
system use and perceived individual performance impacts,
grouped into the categories shown in figure 1, are examined in
a very specific user context. Several interesting implica-tions
can be reached based on the empirical results. Overall, these
results indicate that the firm and its management can influence
perceived organizational performance from sys-tem use
through the careful management of organization and
individual traits, information and system/service quality, and
the tasks to which IT is applied.
There are examples in the literature of information systems
failing to reach full impact due to human and organizational
factors (Irani et al. 2001) as well as specific concerns raised
about individual objectives IT is expected to accomplish (Pe
ers and Gengler 2003). Such factors play a role in encouraging
system success as measured by perceived organizational
performance impacts. In an examination of the individual
results, the positive relation-ship between the organizational
trait of innovative climate and perceived individual
performance impacts implies that management can use
heightened innovative opportunities within the firm to drive
performance results both on indivi-dual and organizational
levels. Thus, firms can encourage and/or facilitate IT
performance impacts by embracing a climate of innovation.
For example, consider the marketer who is encouraged to
discover new methods for computer mapping of customer
territories. Such an opportunity apparently influences the
marketer’s perceived performance and organizational
performance. Organizations able to expand the ‘mind-set’ of
users to include a setting where innovation is encouraged can
also encourage performance enhancing computer technology
applications.
The empirical results also found that computer training
provided by management impacts perceived individual and
organizational performance impacts through making the
system easier to use. This is the typical motivation of orga-
nizations when providing computer training. These results
indicate that such training does improve perceptions of ease of
use, perceived individual performance, system satis-faction,
the degree of use, and ultimately organizational performance.
The positive linkages between the individual trait of end-
user computer experience to both ease of system use and
perceived individual performance impacts support the con-
tention that among marketers, past users are more likely to be
current users. Furthermore, past users breed current use,
479
impacts on perceived individual performance, and ease of
system use. These latter two measures ultimately impact
organizational performance through system satisfaction and
use. Thus, there is value in recruiting personnel who have
appropriate experiences with computer technology. As a
result, the specifics regarding the execution of IT in the
organization need to be addressed by chiefly the functional
users (Ross and Weill 2002), such as marketers.
The meaningful relationships between information quality
and ease of system use and perceived individual perfor-mance
impacts indicate that ultimately perceived marketing
organization impacts depend partially on having a compu-ter
system that provides quality information. The positive
relationship of the computer system/service quality mea-sure
to system ease of use confirms that computer system/ service
quality influences perception of performance at the individual
and organizational levels. For the organization, this indicates
that it is not enough to have a good ‘product’ (i.e. information)
from computer technology. The organi-zation must also have
support mechanisms that embrace the ability to work with the
technology. For example, management may need to ensure
that computer systems are easy for marketers to manage and
seldom need mainte-nance. These characteristics, based on the
empirical results, would encourage marketers to use the
system and improve their perceptions of their own and
organizational perfor-mance through system satisfaction and
use.
The positive relationship between the tasks performed and
perceived individual performance impacts confirms that as the
ability of IT to perform tasks for the marketer escalates, this
will improve individual performance and ultimately
organizational performance. Since an underlying goal is to use
IT to build performance, this indicates IT professionals have a
critical role in ensuring that the com-puter systems are able to
accomplish specific objectives or tasks. Thus, while the tasks
selected for this study certainly reflect the need of marketers,
it appears that it is important to understand the tasks the
organization expects the tech-nology to accomplish.
The lack of meaningful relationships for customer
knowledge and industry outlook to ease of system use and
perceived individual performance impacts indicate that
industry traits have no influence on perceived performance.
These results are surprising given that the executives studied
are marketers who interact significantly with the environ-ment
(e.g. the industry) of the organization. Additional study is
needed to fully understand these insignificant relationships.
Similarly, the organizational trait of compu-ter sta support
had no meaningful impacts in the model. There are several
potential explanations for these results which require
additional investigation. Possibilities include the types of
computer systems and programs used as well as the types of
support o ered. There were several other insignificant paths in
the model as well. The innovative
480 R. W. Stone et al.
climate organization trait did not impact the ease of system
use in a meaningful way. This result coupled with the
significant relationship between innovative climate and
perceived individual performance impacts may well imply that
innovation in the organization does not influence sys-tem
usability, but only perceived usefulness of the system.
Conversely, computer training and technological leadership
had meaningful impacts on ease of system use, but not
perceived individual performance impacts.
7. Conclusions
Understanding to what degree a strategic tool benefits the
organization is a critical issue. It has been suggested that
information systems need to link strategy to non-financial
measures of success including traditional variables such as
customer service and market performance (Stivers and Joyce
2000). Yet, in an environment where pressures are mounting
to understand the specific value of IT (Tallon et al. 2000),
little is known about how information technologies can be
cultivated to the advantage of marketers. Despite being a
widely discussed managerial issue in recent years (Torkzadeh
and Doll 1999), measuring the value of IT is extremely di cult
and something about which little is known (O’Brien 1997).
Yet, the use of information technologies remains prevalent
(Stites 1999, Wipperfuth 1999) among marketers (Harrison-
Walker 2002, Osmonbekov et al. 2002; Sorensen and Buatsi
2002), often at enormous costs (Ostermiller 1999). It is the
need to better understand performance impacts of IT that
provided the focus of this study.
Modifying the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis 1989,
Davis et al. 1989), the DeLone and McLean (1992) model and
Goodhue and Thompson’s (1995) task-technology-individual
fit proposal, this research empirically explored the organiza-
tional, individual, information, system, industry, and task
traits that influence perceived organizational performance
impacts from IT use mediated by ease of system use and
perceived individual performance impacts, system satisfac-
tion, and system use. It was found that through the diligent
marshalling of technological, environmental, and human
resources, management can enhance the impact IT has on
perceived marketing organization performance.
Many of the relationships in the theoretical model have
been examined previously in the literature. It is worthwhile to
compare the results presented here for the marketing
organization and marketer to the more general results in the
literature. As discussed earlier, relationships between both
system/service quality and information quality to perceived
usefulness have been previously acknowledged. Yet,
relationships from these same two variables to system use
have not been previously found. The results from this research
for marketing executives expand these results. Information
quality was found for marketing executives to have a
meaningful impact on perceived usefulness while
system/service quality’s influence on perceived usefulness
was indirect through ease of use.
It has been previously reported that no relationships are
found from information quality and system/service quality to
system use. However, these results indicated that for
marketing executives, these relationships exist through
perceived useful and system satisfaction. Furthermore, it also
has been previously demonstrated that ease of use and
perceived usefulness positively impact system use. In this
model estimated for marketing executives these relation-ships
exist, but mediated by system satisfaction. Similarly, the
ultimate impacts in the model to perceived organiza-tional
performance impacts from system do occur, but the causal
linkages are di erent.
Some of the di erences between these results for market-ers
and those reported in the literature could well be due to
application of the TAM to marketers and the marketing
organization. This raises questions requiring additional
investigation. The research presented here examines com-
puter system use and its impacts on performance for the
marketer and in the marketing organization. An interesting
question is how will these results di er based on the need for,
and use of IT in other areas of the business organi-zation.
Furthermore, given marketers’ traditional focus on factors
outside of the business organization, the lack of significant
relationships of the externally oriented antece-dents (i.e.
industry outlook and customer knowledge) in the model is
surprising. These results require additional study among
marketers as well as among executives in other business areas
to compare the results to those from marketers. These studies
would add knowledge regarding the acceptance, use, and
performance impacts of informa-tion technology in a variety
of organizational areas.
References
ADAMS, D.A., NELSON, R.R. and TODD, P.A., 1992, Perceived usefulness, ease of
use and usage of information technology: a replication. MIS Quarterly,
16(2), 227 – 247.
AJZEN, I. and FISHBEIN, M., 1980, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior (Englewood Cli s, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
ANANDARAJAN, M., IGBARIA, M. and ANAKWE, U.P., 2000, Technology acceptance
in the banking industry: a perspective from a less developed country.
Information Technology & People, 13(4), 298 – 312.
ANG, J. and KOH, S., 1997, Exploring the relationship between user information
satisfaction and job satisfaction. International Journal of Information
Management, 17, 169 – 177.
ANG, J. and SOH, P.H., 1997, User information satisfaction, job satisfaction and
computer background: an exploratory study. Information & Management,
32, 255 – 266.
BENAROCH, M., 2002, Managing information technology investment risk: a real
options perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 43
– 84.
BERNDT, E.R. and MORRISON, C.J., 1995, High-tech capital, economic and labor
composition in U.S. manufacturing industries: an exploratory analysis.
Journal of Econometrics, 65(1), 9 – 43.
BERRY, J., 2003, ROI or your money back. Computerworld, 37(5), 42.
 Marketing performance
BHATTACHERJEE, A., 2001, Understanding information systems continu-ance: an
expectation – confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25, 351 – 370.
BLILI, S., RAYMOND, L. and RIVARD, S., 1998, Impact of task uncertainty, end-
user involvement, and competence on the success of end-user computing.
Information & Management, 33, 137 – 153.
BRESNAHAN, J., 1998, What good is technology? CIO, 11, 24 – 30.
BRYNJOLFSSON, E., 1993, The productivity paradox of information technology.
Communication of the ACM, 36, 67 – 77.
BRYNJOLFSSON, E. and YANG, S., 1996, Information technology and productivity:
a review of the literature. Advances in Computers, 43, 179 – 214.
BURKE, M.C., 1984, Strategic choice and marketing managers: an examination
of business-level marketing objectives. Journal of Marketing Research, 21,
345 – 359.
BUTANEY, G. and WORTZEL, L.H., 1988, Distributor power versus manu-facturer
power: the customer role. Journal of Marketing, 52, 52 – 63.
CHANGKI, K., KUNSOO, S. and JINJOO, L., 1998, Utilization and user satisfaction
in end-user computing: a task contingent model. Information Resources
Management Journal, 11, 11 – 24.
CHAU, P.Y.K. and HU, P.J., 2001, Information technology acceptance by
individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decision Sciences,
32(4), 699 – 719.
CLAY, P., DENNIS, A.R. and DONG-GIL, K., 2005, Factors a ecting the loyal use
of knowledge management systems. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, 4 – 8 January, Wikoloa, Hawaii.
CROSBY, L.A. and STEPHENS, N., 1987, E ects of relationship marketing on
satisfaction, retention, and prices in the life insurance industry. Journal of
Marketing Research, 24, 404 – 411.
DAVIS, F.D., 1989, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user
acceptance of information technologies. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319 – 340.
DAVIS, F.D., BAGOZZI, R. and WARSHAW, P.R., 1989, User acceptance of
computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage-ment
Science, 35(8), 982 – 1003.
DELONE, W.H. and MCLEAN, E.R., 1992, Information systems success: the quest
for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3, 60 – 94.
DELONE, W.H. and MCLEAN, E.R., 2003, The DeLone and McLean model of
information systems success: a ten year update. Journal of Manage-ment
Information Systems, 19(4), 9 – 30.
DOLL, W.J. and TORKZADEH, G., 1988, The measurement of end-user computing
satisfaction. MIS Quarterly, 12, 259 – 273.
DOLL, W.J., XIA, W. and TORKZADEH, G., 1994, A confirmatory factor analysis
of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18, 453 –
461.
DUBINSKY, A.J., HOWELL, R.D., INGRAM, T.N. and BELLENGER, D., 1986,
Salesforce socialization. Journal of Marketing, 50, 192 – 207.
DUCOTE, G. and MALSTROM, E.M., 1999, A design of personnel scheduling
software for manufacturing. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 37, 473 –
476.
FLEMING, C., 1999, How do you plan for technology investments? Credit Union
Magazine, 65, 13 – 14.
FORNELL, C. and LARCKER, D.F., 1981, Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing
Research, XVIII, 39 – 50.
GASSON, S., 1999, The reality of user-centered design. Journal of End-User
Computing, 11, 5 – 15.
GEFFEN, D. and STRAUB, D., 2000, The relative importance of perceived ease of
use in IS adoption: a study of e-commerce adoption. Journal of the
Association for Information System, 1(8), 1 – 28.
GOLDSMITH, R.E. and HOFACKER, C.F., 1991, Measuring consumer
innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 209 –
221.
GOOD, D.J. and SCHULTZ, R.J., 1997, Technological teaming as a marketing
strategy. Industrial Marketing Management, 26, 413 – 422.
481
GOOD, D.J. and STONE, R.W., 1995, Computer technology and the marketing
organization: an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 34,
197 – 209.
GOOD, D.J. and STONE, R.W., 1999, Working smarter: the impact of technology
on marketer motivation. Participation & Empowerment: An International
Journal, 7, 56 – 67.
GOOD, D.J. and STONE, R.W., 2000, The impact of computerization on
marketing performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15, 134
– 177.
GOODHUE, D.L. and THOMPSON, R.L., 1995, Task – technology fit and individual
performance. MIS Quarterly, 19, 213 – 236.
GRISWOLD C. III, 1998, Evaluating IT investments. Health Management
Technology, 19, 24 – 26.
GROENFELDT, T., 1996, Vanguard’s new role: IT leader. Computerworld,
November, F9 – F12.
GROVER, V., TENG, J.T.C. and FIEDLER, K.D., 1998, IS investment priorities in
contemporary organizations. Communications of the ACM, 41, 40 – 48.
GUIMARAES, T., IGBARIA, M. and LU, M., 1992, The determinants of DSS
success: An integrated electronic meeting systems at IBM: lessons learned
and success factors. MIS Quarterly, 14, 409 – 430.
HAIR, J. Jr., ANDERSON, R.E., TATHAM, R.L. and BLACK, W.C., 1992, Multivariate
Data Analysis With Readings (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company).
HARRISON-WALKER, L.J., 2002, If you build it, will they come? Barriers to
international e-marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(2),
12 – 21.
HEADRICK, R.W. and MORGAN, G.W., 1999, Measuring the impact of
information systems on organizational behavior. Journal of End User
Computing, 11, 16 – 21.
HENRY, J.W. and MARTINKO, M.J., 1997, An attributional analysis of the
rejection of information technology. Journal of End User Computing, 9, 3 –
17.
HENRY, P.F., 1999, Accounting news. Accounting Technology, 15, 10 – 11.
HOFFMAN, T., 2002, Study ties frugal IT spending to good financial
performance. Computerworld, 26(51), 22.
IGBARIA, M. and GREENHAUS, J.H. 1992, Determinants of MIS employee’s
turnover intentions: a structural equation model. Communications of the
ACM, 35, 35 – 49.
IGBARIA, M., IIVARI, J. and MARAGAHH, H., 1995, Why do individuals use
computer technology? A Finnish case study. Information & Management,
29, 227 – 239.
IGBARIA, M. and TAN, M., 1997, The consequences of information technology
acceptance on subsequent individual performance. Informa-tion &
Management, 32(3), 113 – 121.
IGBARIA, M., ZINATELLI, N. and CAVAYE, A.L.M., 1998, Analysis of information
technology success in small firms in New Zealand. International Journal of
Information Management, 18, 103 – 119.
IRANI, Z., SHARIF, A.M. and LOVE, P.E.D., 2001, Transforming failure into
success through organisational learning: an analysis of a manufacturing
information system. European Journal of Information Systems, 10, 55 – 66.
ISHMAN, M.D., PEGELS, C. and SANDERS, L., 2001, Managerial information
system success factors within the cultural context of North America and
former Soviet Republic. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 10, 291 –
312.
KALLMAN, E.A. and O’NEILL, K., 1993, The critical success factors of
distributed computing are organizational, not technological. Journal of
Information Technology Management, 4, 112 – 123.
KESNER, R.M., 1999, IT planning and procurement—the underlying
architectural process. Information Strategy, 16, 7 – 14.
KHALIL, O.E. and MELKORDY, M.M., 1999, The relationship between user
satisfaction and system usage: empirical evidence from Egypt. Journal of
End User Computing, 11, 21 – 28.
KING, C.W. and SUMMERS, J.O., 1970, Overlap of opinion leadership across
consumer product categories. Journal of Marketing Research, 7, 43 – 50.
482 R. W. Stone et al.
KOYS, D.J. and DECOTIIS, T.A., 1991, Inductive measures of psychological
climate. Human Relations, 44(March), 265 – 285.
LAL, K., 1996, Information technology, international orientation and
performance: a case study of electrical and electronic goods manufactur-ing
firms in India. Information Economics and Policy, 8, 269 – 280.
LEGRIS, P., INGHAM, J. and COLLERETTE, P., 2003, Why do people use information
technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model.
Information & Management, 40(3), 191 – 204.
LI, E.Y., 1997, Perceived importance of information system success factors: a
meta analysis of group di erences. Information & Management, 32, 15 – 28.
MACMILLAN, H., 1997, Managing information systems: three key principles for
general managers. Journal of General Management, 22, 12 – 23.
MAHMOOD, A. and MANN, G., 1993, Measuring the organizational impact of
information technology investment: an exploratory study. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 32, 97 – 122.
MCGILL, T., HOBBS, V. and KLOBAS, J., 2003, User-developed applications and
information systems success: a test of the DeLone and McLean model.
Information Resources Management Journal, 16(1), 24 – 45.
MERTINS, K. and ARLT, R., 1999, Supporting order control in decentralized
manufacturing structures. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 37, 35 – 38.
MIN, S., SONG, S. and KEEBLER, J.S., 2002, An internet-mediated market
orientation (IMO): building a theory. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 10(2), 1 – 11.
MOTIWALLA, L. and FAIRFIELD-SONN, J., 1998, Measuring the impact of expert
systems. Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 4, 1 – 17.
NUNNALLY, J., 1978, Psychometric Methods, 2nd edition (New York:
McGraw-Hill).
O’BRIEN, T., 1997, Redefining IT value. Informationweek, 7 April, 71 – 76.
O’SULLIVAN, O., 1998, Technology spending’s uncertain payback. USBAN-
KER, 108, 32 – 44.
OSMONBEKOV, T., BELLO, D.C. and GILLILAND, D.I., 2002, Adoption of electronic
commerce tools in business procurement; enhanced buying center structure
and processes. Journal of Business & Industrial Market-ing, 17(2 – 3), 151 –
166.
OSTERMILLER, M., 1999, Prudential makes $100 million technology investments
in agents. Best’s Review, 9, 77.
PAUL, D.L., PEARLSON, K.E. and MCDANIEL, R.R. Jr., 1999, Assessing
technology barriers to telemedicine: technology-management implica-tions.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46(3), 279 – 288.
PEFFERS, K. and GENGLER, C.E., 2003, How to identify new high-payo
information systems for the organization. Association for Computing
Machinery: Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 83 – 88.
RAINER, R.K. Jr. and HARRISON, A.W., 1993, Toward development of the end
user computing construct in a university setting. Decision Sciences Journal,
24, 1187 – 1202.
RAVAL, V., 1999, Information strategy in service-focused organizations.
Information Strategy, 16, 36 – 40.
RIVARD, S. and HUFF, S., 1988, Factors of success for end-user computing.
Communications of the ACM, 31, 552 – 561.
ROLDAN, J.L. and MILLAN, A.L., 2000, Analysis of the information systems
success dimensions interdependence: an adaptation of the DeLone and
McLean model in the Spanish EIS field. BITWorld 2000 (conference
proceedings) 1 – 3 June, Mexico City, Mexico.
ROGERS, D.S., DAUGHERTY, P.J. and ELLINGER, A.E., 1996, The relationship
between information technology and warehousing performance. Logis-tics
and Transportation Review, 32, 409 – 421.
ROSS, J.W. and WEILL, P., 2002, Six decisions your IT people shouldn’t make.
Harvard Business Review, 80(11), 84 – 91.
RYAN, S.D., HARRISON, D.A. and SCHKADE, L., 2002, Information-technology
investment decisions: when do costs and benefits in the social subsystems
matter? Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 85 – 127.
SCHROEDER, C., 1987, Improved information access: the next challenge.
Inform, 1, 6 – 7.
SCOTT, J.T., 1998, Why I love my Mac. O ce Systems, 15, 48 – 49.
SEDDON, P.B. and KIEW, M.Y., 1996, A partial test and development of DeLone
and McLean’s model of IS success. Australian Journal of Information
Systems, 4(1), 90 – 109.
SHAYO, C., GUTHRIE, R. and IGBARIA, M., 1999, Exploring the measure-ment of
end user computing success. Journal of End User Computing, 11, 5 – 14.
SHAW, S.J., 1994, Productivity paradox or payo . Technology Review, February
– March, 2 – 13.
SHIBATA, G., TSE, D., VERTINSKY, I. and WEHRUNG, D., 1991, Do norms of
decision-making styles, organizational design and management a ect
performance of Japanese firms? An exploratory study of medium and large
firms. Managerial and Decision Economics, 12, 135 – 147.
SKOK, W., KOPHAMEL, A. and RICHARDSON, I., 2001, Diagnosing informa-tion
systems success: Importance-performance maps in the health club industry.
Information & Management, 38, 409 – 419.
SORENSEN, O.J. and BUATSI, S., 2002. Internet and exporting: the case of Ghana.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(6), 481 – 500.
SRIRAM, R.S. and KRISHNAN, G.V., 2003, The value relevance of IT investments
on firm value in the financial services sector. Information Resources
Management Journal, 16(1), 46 – 61.
STITES, J., 1999, As black technology entrepreneurs organize, they are
spreading the word about the benefits of ‘digital freedom’. New York Times,
22 February, C-4.
STIVERS, B.P. and JOYCE, T. 2000, Building a balanced performance
management system. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 65, 2 – 22.
STRUTTON, D., STRATON, L.E. and LUMPKIN, J.R., 1993, The influence of
psychological climate on conflict resolution strategies in franchise
relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 207 – 216.
TALLON, P., KRAEMER, K.L. and GURBAXANI, V., 2000, Executives’ perceptions of
the business value of information technology: a process-oriented approach.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(4), 145 – 173.
TORKZADEH, G. and DOLL, W.J., 1999, The development of a tool for measuring
the perceived impact of information technology on work. Omega, 27, 327 –
339.
UDO, G.G. and EBIEFUNG, A.A., 1999, Human factors a ecting the success of
advances manufacturing systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 37,
297 – 300.
VENKATESH, V. and DAVIS, F.D., 1996, A model of the antecedents of perceived
ease of use: development and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 451 – 481.
WATSON, S., 1999, Train to retain. Computerworld, 33, CW22 – CW25.
WESTON, R., 1998, Innovation in the bottom line. Informationweek, 700, 495 –
496.
WHITFORD, D., 1999, A new MBA for the e-corp: half-manager. Fortune, 139,
189 – 192.
WILLIAMS, C., 1999, Enhancing the information harvest. Bobbin, 40, 78 – 81.
WIPPERFUTH, H., 1999, Start-up foresees exchange pits in cyberspace. The
Investment Dealers’ Digest, 19 April, 12.
WIXOM, B.H. and WATSON, H.J., 2001, An empirical investigation of the factors
a ecting data warehousing success. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 17 – 41.