• Asia pacific journal of information systems
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.99-124
• /
• 2009

Many firms in Korea have adopted and used advanced information technology in an effort to boost efficiency. The process of adapting to the new technology, at the same time, can vary from one firm to another. As such, this research focuses on several relevant factors, especially the roles of social interaction as a key variable that influences the technology adaptation process and the outcomes. Thus far, how a firm goes through the adaptation process to the new technology has not been yet fully explored. Previous studies on changes undergone by a firm or an organization due to information technology have been pursued from various theoretical points of views, evolved from technological and institutional views to an integrated social technology views. The technology adaptation process has been understood to be something that evolves over time and has been regarded as cycles between misalignments and alignments, gradually approaching the stable aligned state. The adaptation process of the new technology was defined as "appropriation" process according to Poole and DeSanctis (1994). They suggested that this process is not automatically determined by the technology design itself. Rather, people actively select how technology structures should be used; accordingly, adoption practices vary. But concepts of the appropriation process in these studies are not accurate while suggested propositions are not clear enough to apply in practice. Furthermore, these studies do not substantially suggest which factors are changed during the appropriation process and what should be done to bring about effective outcomes. Therefore, research objectives of this study lie in finding causes for the difference in ways in which advanced information technology has been used and adopted among organizations. The study also aims to explore how a firm's interaction with social as well as technological factors affects differently in resulting organizational changes. Detail objectives of this study are as follows. First, this paper primarily focuses on the appropriation process of advanced information technology in the long run, and we look into reasons for the diverse types of the usage. Second, this study is to categorize each phases in the appropriation process and make clear what changes occur and how they are evolved during each phase. Third, this study is to suggest the guidelines to determine which strategies are needed in an individual, group and organizational level. For this, a substantially grounded theory that can be applied to organizational practice has been developed from a longitudinal comparative case study. For these objectives, the technology appropriation process was explored based on Structuration Theory by Giddens (1984), Orlikoski and Robey (1991) and Adaptive Structuration Theory by Poole and DeSanctis (1994), which are examples of social technology views on organizational change by technology. Data have been obtained from interviews, observations of medical treatment task, and questionnaires administered to group members who use the technology. Data coding was executed in three steps following the grounded theory approach. First of all, concepts and categories were developed from interviews and observation data in open coding. Next, in axial coding, we related categories to subcategorize along the lines of their properties and dimensions through the paradigm model. Finally, the grounded theory about the appropriation process was developed through the conditional/consequential matrix in selective coding. In this study eight hypotheses about the adaptation process have been clearly articulated. Also, we found that the appropriation process involves through three phases, namely, "direct appropriation," "cooperate with related structures," and "interpret and make judgments." The higher phases of appropriation move, the more users represent various types of instrumental use and attitude. Moreover, the previous structures like "knowledge and experience," "belief that other members know and accept the use of technology," "horizontal communication," and "embodiment of opinion collection process" are evolved to higher degrees in their dimensions of property. Furthermore, users continuously create new spirits and structures, while removing some of the previous ones at the same time. Thus, from longitudinal view, faithful and unfaithful appropriation methods appear recursively, but gradually faithful appropriation takes over the other. In other words, the concept of spirits and structures has been changed in the adaptation process over time for the purpose of alignment between the task and other structures. These findings call for a revised or extended model of structural adaptation in IS (Information Systems) literature now that the vague adaptation process in previous studies has been clarified through the in-depth qualitative study, identifying each phrase with accuracy. In addition, based on these results some guidelines can be set up to help determine which strategies are needed in an individual, group, and organizational level for the purpose of effective technology appropriation. In practice, managers can focus on the changes of spirits and elevation of the structural dimension to achieve effective technology use.

• 마케팅과학연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.68-79
• /
• 2009

The interplay between hedonic and utilitarian attributes has assumed special significance in recent years; it has been proposed that consumption offerings should be viewed as experiences that stimulate both cognitions and feelings rather than as mere products or services. This research builds on previous work on hedonic versus utilitarian benefits, regulatory focus theory, customer satisfaction to address two question: (1) Is the shopping goal at the point of purchase different from the shopping value? and (2) Is the customer loyalty after the use different from the shopping value and shopping goal? We surveyed 345 peoples those who have bought the electronic-goods within 6 months. This research dealt with the shopping value which is consisted of 2 types, hedonic and utilitarian. Those who pursue the hedonic shopping value may prefer the pleasure of purchasing experience to the product itself. They tend to prefer atmosphere, arousal of the shopping experience. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "hedonic" to refer to their aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment-related value. On the contrary, Those who pursue the utilitarian shopping value may prefer the reasonable buying. It may be more functional. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "utilitarian" to refer to the functional, instrumental, and practical value of consumption offerings. Holbrook(1999) notes that consumer value is an experience that results from the consumption of such benefits. In the context of cell phones for example, the phone's battery life and sound volume are utilitarian benefits, whereas aesthetic appeal from its shape and color are hedonic benefits. Likewise, in the case of a car, fuel economics and safety are utilitarian benefits whereas the sunroof and the luxurious interior are hedonic benefits. The shopping goals are consisted of the promotion focus goal and the prevention focus goal, based on the self-regulatory focus theory. The promotion focus is characterized into focusing ideal self because they are oriented to wishes and vision. The promotion focused individuals are tend to be more risk taking. They are more sensitive to hope and achievement. On the contrary, the prevention focused individuals are characterized into focusing the responsibilities because they are oriented to safety. The prevention focused individuals are tend to be more risk avoiding. We wanted to test the relation among the shopping value, shopping goal and customer loyalty. Customers show the positive or negative feelings comparing with the expectation level which customers have at the point of the purchase. If the result were bigger than the expectation, customers may feel positive feeling such as delight or satisfaction and they would want to share their feelings with other people. And they want to buy those products again in the future time. There is converging evidence that the types of goals consumers expect to be fulfilled by the utilitarian dimension of a product are different from those they seek from the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004). Specifically, whereas consumers expect the fulfillment of product prevention goals on the utilitarian dimension, they expect the fulfillment of promotion goals on the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Majahan 2007; Higgins 1997, 2001) According to the regulatory focus theory, prevention goals are those that ought to be met. Fulfillment of prevention goals in the context of product consumption eliminates or significantly reduces the probability of a painful experience, thus making consumers experience emotions that result from fulfillment of prevention goals such as confidence and securities. On the contrary, fulfillment of promotion goals are those that a person aspires to meet, such as "looking cool" or "being sophisticated." Fulfillment of promotion goals in the context of product consumption significantly increases the probability of a pleasurable experience, thus enabling consumers to experience emotions that result from the fulfillment of promotion goals. The proposed conceptual framework captures that the relationships among hedonic versus utilitarian shopping values and promotion versus prevention shopping goals respectively. An analysis of the consequence of the fulfillment and frustration of utilitarian and hedonic value is theoretically worthwhile. It is also substantively relevant because it helps predict post-consumption behavior such as the promotion versus prevention shopping goals orientation. Because our primary goal is to understand how the post consumption feelings influence the variable customer loyalty: word of mouth (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978). This research result is that the utilitarian shopping value gives the positive influence to both of the promotion and prevention goal. However the influence to the prevention goal is stronger. On the contrary, hedonic shopping value gives influence to the promotion focus goal only. Additionally, both of the promotion and prevention goal show the positive relation with customer loyalty. However, the positive relation with promotion goal and customer loyalty is much stronger. The promotion focus goal gives the influence to the customer loyalty. On the contrary, the prevention focus goal relates at the low level of relation with customer loyalty than that of the promotion goal. It could be explained that it is apt to get framed the compliment of people into 'gain-non gain' situation. As the result, for those who have the promotion focus are motivated to deliver their own feeling to other people eagerly. Conversely the prevention focused individual are more sensitive to the 'loss-non loss' situation. The research result is consistent with pre-existent researches. There is a conceptual parallel between necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits and luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha 2007; Higginns 1997; Kivetz and Simonson 2002b). In addition, Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the precedence principle contends luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits higher than necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits. Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha (2007) show that consumers are focused more on the utilitarian benefits than on the hedonic benefits of a product until their minimum expectation of fulfilling prevention goals are met. Furthermore, a utilitarian benefit is a promise of a certain level of functionality by the manufacturer or the retailer. When the promise is not fulfilled, customers blame the retailer and/or the manufacturer. When negative feelings are attributable to an entity, customers feel angry. However in the case of hedonic benefit, the customer, not the manufacturer, determines at the time of purchase whether the product is stylish and attractive. Under such circumstances, customers are more likely to blame themselves than the manufacturer if their friends do not find the product stylish and attractive. Therefore, not meeting minimum utilitarian expectations of functionality generates a much more intense negative feelings, such as anger than a less intense feeling such as disappointment or dissatisfactions. The additional multi group analysis of this research shows the same result. Those who are unsatisfactory customers who have the prevention focused goal shows higher relation with WOM, comparing with satisfactory customers. The research findings in this article could have significant implication for the personal selling fields to increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of the sales such that they can develop the sales presentation strategy for the customers. For those who are the hedonic customers may be apt to show more interest to the promotion goal. Therefore it may work to strengthen the design, style or new technology of the products to the hedonic customers. On the contrary for the utilitarian customers, it may work to strengthen the price competitiveness. On the basis of the result from our studies, we demonstrated a correspondence among hedonic versus utilitarian and promotion versus prevention goal, WOM. Similarly, we also found evidence of the moderator effects of satisfaction after use, between the prevention goal and WOM. Even though the prevention goal has the low level of relation to WOM, those who are not satisfied show higher relation to WOM. The relation between the prevention goal and WOM is significantly different according to the satisfaction versus unsatisfaction. In addition, improving the promotion emotions of cheerfulness and excitement and the prevention emotion of confidence and security will further improve customer loyalty. A related potential further research could be to examine whether hedonic versus utilitarian, promotion versus prevention goals improve customer loyalty for services as well. Under the budget and time constraints, designers and managers are often compelling to choose among various attributes. If there is no budget or time constraints, perhaps the best solution is to maximize both hedonic and utilitarian dimension of benefits. However, they have to make trad-off process between various attributes. For the designers and managers have to keep in mind that without hedonic benefit satisfaction of the product it may hard to lead the customers to the customer loyalty.