Uncertainty about untested software:

The uncertainty of the untested software is a much known issue for switching any
service. Switching costs result from user perceptions of the time, money and effort
associated with switching service providers (Klemperer, 1995; Jones et al., 2000;
Sharma and Patterson, 2000; Kim et al., 2003),
which in turn, influence retention by deterring users from changing service
providers (Fornell, 1992). Burnham et al. (2003)
classify the switching costs into three categories: procedural, financial and
relational.Previous research on the relationship between switching costs and
switching intention has yielded mixed results (e.g. Anderson and Sullivan, 1993;
Wilson, 1995; Li et al.,2007).
Anderson and Sullivan (1993) suggest that with increases in switching costs, a
users willingness to change information system reduces.Bansal and Taylor (1999) in
the context of Canadian mortgage services, for example, found that switching costs
influence service switching directly with a weaker effect.
In addition, Ye et al. (2006)found that neither user attitudes nor switching costs
were found to exhibit a significant direct effect on users switching behavior of web
browsers.
Kim et al. (2006) found that user satisfaction as well as attractive alternatives and
continuity cost more strongly associated with user intention to switch e-mail
providers.
This is one of the few studies that consider specific information system switching
costs and their impact on user intention to switch. Importantly, previous work has
mainly focused on web-based (e.g.browsers, e-commerce), internet (e.g. e-mail,
blogs) or mobile (Kazakevitch et al., 2005; Ranganathan et al., 2006) technologies
and not on information system used in organizations.In particular, compatibility with
other IS used in the organization combined with attractive loyalty programs would
make users less willing to switch IS.
Terminating a relationship with a vendor is also costly both in monetary terms (e.g.
user licenses) and transaction costs required to find an alternative IS that effectively
addresses user and task goals.Learning costs should also be considered as users
invest time and effort in learning how to use specific features and tasks in order to
become familiar with the new information system. The current study considers that
switching costs through its constructs (compatibility, transaction, learnability costs,
loyalty programs and uncertainty about untested Software.
Switching intention of information system users downloaded by Independent
University At 03:55 22 September 2014 (PT) software) will have a negative

relationship on intention to switch IS, thus increasing switching barriers and users
lock-in.
This leads to our second hypothesis.The higher the information system switching
costs, the lower will be users intention to switch to another system.different types
of switching costs have been introduced as moderators (Jones et al., 2000; Aydinand
Ozer, 2005; Kim et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2009) and the results were not always
significant.
This study considers that although the degree of usability of an information system
could influence switching intention, its actual impact on intention to switch may
actually be realized through switching costs.Usability, as an important element of
building an efficient information system, mainly targets reducing the time
(effectiveness and efficiency) associated with the users daily tasks as well as to
broadly address users needs (e.g. ease-of-learning, satisfaction).
These characteristics actually increase switching barriers and make users less prone
to switch IS. In this respect, users are more likely to be locked-in on a usable IS, thus
essentially its usability elements could increase switching costs.
Smith et al. (1999), for example, reported that familiarity with interface design
which requires investment in terms of user learning inhibits customers from
switching.
Amit and Zott (2001) also argue that personalization and customization, two
usability mechanisms to support user needs, are among the mainstrategies to
effectively manage users lock-in (thus increasing switchingcosts).Based on the
above arguments, we hypothesize a mediation effect of switching coststo explain
the impact of usability on intention to switch information system.

Transaction cost:

A clear indication of the first perspective is found in ICT studies based on

the transaction cost approach (Malone et al., 1987; Ciborra, 1993;Wigand et
al., 1997).
Transaction costs were depicted as analogous to the costs associated with the
management of the imperfections of this structure. In economic terms, the

ideal structure (i.e. the one without imperfections), would be a perfectly

informed and efficient market where prices were sufficient to communicate
to dispersed buyers all the knowledge required to make a purchase decision
(Hayek, 1945).
TCT argues that the alternative to the market found in organisational forms
and hierarchies, are responses to the need to minimise the transaction costs
associated with the management of transactions (Coase, 1937; Alchian and
Demsetz, 1972; Williamson, 1975).
Transaction costs theory explains the existence of alternative forms of
organisation on the basis of their relative efficiencies in response to the
combined effects of environmental factors (uncertainty and small numbers)
and human factors (opportunism and bounded rationality)(Williamson, 1975;
Moe, 1984).
ICT designed to lower transaction costs must take into consideration that the
introduction of this technology reduces the costs of exchange and increases
gains for both parties, if the resources it consumes are less that the
transaction costs incurred,1 (Ciborra, 1993).
Lowers transaction costs because technology allows information to be
communicated in real-time and at much lower costs, thereby reducing the
costs that are required in order to find a particular good that is focus of the
transaction. (Malone,1987)
With a resulting reduction in transaction costs occurring when subsequent
exchanges take place in electronic markets. (Bakos ,1991, 1998)

Compatibility:
The concept of ideomotor compatibility is highly specific, while IO
modality compatibility refers generally to the similarity of stimulus modality
and modality of response-related sensory consequences (Hazeltine et
al.,2006; Stephan & Koch,2010).
DO might have contributed to the increased between-task cross-talk as a
basis of IO modality compatibility effects (Stephan & Koch,2010).

 The assessment of single-task performance was necessary to control whether

IO modality compatibility affects individual task difficulty independent
from its possible effects in task switching (see also Hazeltine et al.,2006).
Standardization and compatibility are extremely important in modern
economies, especially in information processing industries. (Joseph and
Garth, 1987)
We review them under three headings, according to whether the difference in
strength derives from pre-experimental experience, manipulations of S-R
compatibility, or within-experimental practice.(Rogers and Monsell 1995).
compatibility is a broad concept, with a largeresearch literature. (Hommel &
Prinz, 1997; Kornblum, Hasbroucq & Osman, 1990; Kornblum & Lee,
1995;Lu & Proctor, 1995).
he compatibility eects we have studied are, we believe, of this latter kind,
and we have studied two types, which we call ``mode-compatibility'' and
value-compatibility'' (cf. ``set-level'' and ``element-level'' compatibility of
Kornblum et al., 1990).
compatibility refers to the naturalness of the relation between a stimulus
attribute and a response mode (Wang & Proctor, 1996).
We are aware of three other reports testing interactions between valuecompatibility and task-switching in a similar way to the last experiment.
(Stoffels,1996)
Indeed an important class of models of spatial compatibility effects assumes
that in some sense the person must always inhibit the automatic ``direct''
translation to enable the one speciffied by the more arbitrary rule to ``win''
(De Jong et al.,1994; De Jong, 1995, 1997; Shaffer 1965).