International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

The role of compatibility in predicting business intelligence and analytics T

use intentions
⁎
Jurij Jakliča, Tanja Grublješiča, Aleš Popoviča,b,
a
Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
b
NOVA Information Management School (NOVA IMS), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus de Campolide, 1070-312 Lisboa, Portugal

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Research shows that data-driven decision-making using Business Intelligence and Analytics (BI&A) can create
Compatibility competitive advantages for organizations. However, this can only happen if users successfully accept BI&A and
Business intelligence & analytics use it effectively. Analytical decision processes are often characterized by non-routine and ill-structured tasks
Socio-organizational drivers and decisions, making individuals’ work styles more pronounced. Aligning on one hand what a BI&A solution
Use intentions
can offer and, on the other, the changing needs and expectations of users, the way they like to work – their work
Social influence
Result demonstrability
style, can thus be difficult. This illustrates the importance of compatibility evaluations in the BI&A context,
Work style including perceptions of the technology fit with the user’s work needs and style, along with the fit with the
Task-technology fit organizational decision processes and organizational values when deciding to use BI&A. These issues have not
yet been thoroughly researched in the existing BI&A literature. In response, we conduct a quantitative survey-
based study to examine the interrelated role of compatibility in predicting BI&A use intentions. The model is
empirically tested with the partial least squares (PLS) approach through to structural equation modeling (SEM).
Our results show that compatibility perceptions have a direct positive impact on use intentions, mediate the
impact of performance perceptions on use intentions, while the socio-organizational considerations of result
demonstrability and social influence have interaction effects by positively strengthening the perceived relevance
of compatibility in impacting use intentions.

1. Introduction performance (Audzeyeva & Hudson, 2016; Olszak, 2016; Sharma,

The era of digitalization and digital transformation is fundamentally
changing the existing value chains of businesses and organizations
(Loebbecke & Picot, 2015), leading to the growing importance of IT/IS
in these new ways of doing business. Organizations are accordingly ever
more reliant on flexible IT and big data analytical capabilities to ensure
they can quickly adapt to changes and stay competitive (Chen & Siau,
2011). Decision-making based on Business Intelligence and Analytics
(BI&A) use is thus regularly emphasized as a foundation for innovation
and agility (Chen & Siau, 2011; Davenport, Barth, & Bean, 2012; Mao &
Quan, 2015). BI&A equips users with “technological capabilities to
support decision processes with reliable information and analytical
insights” (Kowalczyk & Buxmann, 2015).
In the modern business environment, employees have to make
hundreds of decisions every day, frequently choosing to base them on
facts (data-driven) using BI&A or just based on their intuition or “gut
feeling” (Kowalczyk & Buxmann, 2015). Research shows that BI&A use
provides value to these organizations by increasing their organizational
Mithas, & Kankanhalli, 2014). More specifically, research shows that
data-driven decision-making exhibits higher decision quality than de-
cision-making based on intuition (Kowalczyk & Buxmann, 2015).
Hence, it is in organizations’ interest to understand the relevant drivers
impacting employees’ intentions to use BI&A. Knowing these influential
individuals’ beliefs thus provides great value to organizations for better
managing the organizational work environment to foster positive per-
ceptions of BI&A use intentions (Agarwal & Prasad, 1997). Yoon,
Ghosh, and Jeong (2014) reveal that, while the adoption of BI&A on the
organizational level has attracted considerable research, individual-
level drivers of BI&A use intentions have yet to be given adequate at-
tention.
User acceptance and continued use of IT/IS have been extensively
researched over the past decades (Palvia, Kakhki, Ghoshal, Uppala, &
Wang, 2015; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). This
stream of research provides insights and implications concerning how
organizations can better manage and utilize their IT/IS resources (Mao
& Palvia, 2006). Scholars increasingly point to the immense value of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jurij.jaklic@ef.uni-lj.si (J. Jaklič), tanja.grubljesic@ef.uni-lj.si (T. Grublješič), ales.popovic@ef.uni-lj.si (A. Popovič).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.08.017
Received 18 June 2018; Received in revised form 30 August 2018; Accepted 30 August 2018
0268-4012/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Jaklič et al.
studying context-specific determinants of acceptance and use (Hong,
Chan, Thong, Chasalow, & Dhillon, 2013; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008),
showing that traditional models require modifications in the context of
new and emerging trends and technologies (Shin, 2016). Integrating
context into theory development brings many benefits as it helps better
convey the applicability of the findings, enhancing the relevance of
research for practice (Hong et al., 2013; Johns, 2006). Our study setting
is a context-specific contemporary BI&A use environment.
Existing studies have explored how the use of BI&A within firms
improves individual business activities, such as marketing (Xu, Wang,
Li, & Haghighi, 2017) and customer relationship management (Nam,
Lee, & Lee, 2018), as well as organizational performance (Bronzo et al.,
2013; Vukšić, Bach, & Popovič, 2013). Although BI&A systems can
provide firms with insights into their business operations, scholars
agree they are painstakingly challenging to implement (Seah, Hsieh, &
Weng, 2010). While domain-specific frameworks to guide BI&A im-
plementation (Foshay & Kuziemsky, 2014) and frameworks for devel-
oping and assessing BI&A maturity (Brooks, El-Gayar, & Sarnikar, 2015)
have been proposed, a better understanding of BI&A use is still limited.
While extant findings suggest employees’ use of enterprise systems is a
paramount concern for firms striving to reap benefits from IT invest-
ments (Peng, Sun, & Guo, 2018), the present literature has only par-
tially explored BI&A use; (Hou, 2012) has examined the effect of user
satisfaction on BI&A system usage while Peters, Işık, Tona, and Popovič
(2016) have explored how system quality influences mobile BI&A use.
Our work extends the existing literature by providing novel insights
into how users perceive a BI&A solution fits in with their work style.
Following the Hong et al. (2013) guidelines, the specificity of BI&A
technology characteristics, users’ characteristics and the usage context
should all be considered to more profoundly understand and capture
the influential drivers of users’ intentions to use BI&A. Users’ familiarity
and competencies with IT/IS are already high in modern business en-
vironments, especially among decision workers (Chen, Chiang, &
Storey, 2012). Employees who use BI&A in their work typically also
have a higher level of education (Luo, 2016). The interfaces of BI&A
solutions are, in addition, increasingly user-friendly (Chang, Hsu, & Wu,
2015). In this setting, motivations to use BI&A can no longer be based
on pure assessments of individuals’ effort perceptions of IT/IS use, such
as faster and easier access to information. Moreover, the effects of BI&A
use are much more difficult to discern and identified usually in the long
run (Grublješič & Jaklič, 2015). Performance improvements are thus
less evident to these individuals and their performance perceptions may
consequently be less influential drivers of use intentions. The nature of
organizational decision processes is often characterized by non-routine
and ill-structured tasks and decisions (Grublješič & Jaklič, 2015).
Consequently, data and analytics requirements can change frequently,
calling for a high degree of adaptability and flexibility in these proce-
dures (Kowalczyk & Buxmann, 2015). Hence, there can be a high
probability of discrepancies between user requirements or needs and
the BI&A solution capabilities, i.e. the task-technology fit. Users’ com-
patibility evaluations thus come to the fore. Similarly, another related
compatibility aspect, i.e. one’s evaluations of how a BI&A solution fits
in with their work style – the way they like to work – is especially
important.
Previous studies in the BI&A context recognize the dominance of
socio-organizational drivers of BI&A acceptance (Grublješič & Jaklič,
2015). Further, empirical research reveals that individual considera-
tions of effort and performance perceptions have no significant direct
effect on an individual’s BI&A use intentions, with these instead being
driven by socio-organizational considerations like social influence and
result demonstrability (Grublješič, Coelho, & Jaklič, 2014). While the
shift to the socio-organizational drivers of BI&A use intentions is al-
ready evident, a deeper understanding of the mechanism by which how
these socio-organizational motivations interrelate and interact to
thereby influence use intentions is still missing. We argue that com-
patibility evaluations, including perceptions of a technology’s fit with
306
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318
the user’s work needs and style, organizational values as well as the fit
with the organizational decision processes, should be very important.
These aspects have not yet been adequately addressed in the BI&A use
intentions context and, based on the issues presented above, need a
more thorough investigation.
Theories and empirical research already demonstrate the im-
portance of compatibility in predicting the individual’s technology ac-
ceptance (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). The concept includes both nor-
mative (e.g. socio-organizational) as well as operational compatibility
(e.g. task-technology fit) considerations (Karahanna, Straub, &
Chervany, 1999). However, solely the operational part was usually
considered and examined in the existing research (Agarwal & Prasad,
1997; Karahanna et al., 1999; Yoon et al., 2014). Resulting from the
above discussion, accounting for the issues of the high frequency of
change in non-routine decision processes, the changing data and ana-
lytics requirements, the importance of the user’s work style, organiza-
tional values, and decision process, and the BI&A fit, positive percep-
tions of compatibility should increase the BI&A use intentions.
Thus, this paper’s main goal is to investigate the role and im-
portance of compatibility in impacting BI&A use intentions, while
considering the established predictors of BI&A use intentions and
framing them all under the umbrella of general theories in the field. We
consider two facets of compatibility perceptions, namely operational
and normative, founded on theoretical reasoning and particularities of
the context-specific BI&A use environment. In our research model,
compatibility is conceptualized as directly predicting BI&A use inten-
tions and mediating the impact of performance perceptions on BI&A use
intentions. Further, result demonstrability and social influence, as in-
fluential drivers in the BI&A context (Grublješič et al., 2014), are con-
ceptualized as moderators strengthening the impact of compatibility on
BI&A use intentions. Our findings enrich understanding of the influ-
ential drivers of BI&A use intentions by demonstrating how they in-
terrelate and interact through the mechanism of compatibility percep-
tions and further underscoring the predominant influence of socio-
organizational considerations.
Theoretical foundations provide a basis for our model development
and identify the interrelationships and interactions between the ex-
plored constructs. The model is empirically tested with the partial least
squares (PLS) approach through to structural equation modeling (SEM).
Statistical analysis is performed on data collected from experienced BI&
A users in medium and large-sized organizations.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In the next section, the
theoretical foundations regarding the role of compatibility in creating
beliefs and perceptions about IT/IS use intentions are elaborated by
pinpointing the specifics of the BI&A use environment. The research
model is then conceptualized and hypotheses are developed. Further
on, the research design, methodology, and results of the estimations are
outlined. This is followed by a discussion of the results, including im-
plications for research and practice with suggestions for future re-
search.
2. Theoretical foundations
2.1. Information technology acceptance theories and compatibility
Significant theories on the theoretical foundations of technology
acceptance research include the technology acceptance model (TAM)
(Davis, 1989), innovation diffusion theory (IDT) (Kapoor, Dwivedi, &
Williams, 2014a; Rogers, 1983), and the unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis,
2003). The TAM proposes that two distinctive behavioral and control
beliefs – perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use – account for
the individual’s behavioral intention to use a technology (Davis, 1989).
Moore and Benbasat’s (1991) refined set of determinants of IDT for
studying the individual’s technology acceptance includes relative ad-
vantage, ease of use, image, visibility, compatibility, result
J. Jaklič et al.
demonstrability, and voluntariness of use. These determinants capture
the three biggest kinds of individual considerations, namely behavioral,
normative, and control beliefs, that influence the decision to engage in
a given behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005; Kapoor, Dwivedi, &
Williams, 2014b). UTAUT integrates elements of both the TAM and IDT
and proposes that a set of three determinants, namely performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence, impacts behavioral
intention and directly facilitates conditions for use (Venkatesh et al.,
2003).
The accumulated evidence consistently demonstrates that perfor-
mance and effort perceptions are the main and strongest drivers of IT/IS
acceptance (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012). Yet
the traditional core user acceptance research (e.g. Davis, 1989;
Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) has mostly con-
sidered the narrower aspect of acceptance, looking at the technological
aspects of IS and focusing on the individual, utilitarian view of IS usage.
Normative and other socio-organizational aspects of IS acceptance have
thereby been either neglected or considered only marginally, i.e. only
as potential additional predictors of IT/IS acceptance and also often
found not to be significant (Mao & Palvia, 2006; Venkatesh & Bala,
2008; Xiao & Wang, 2016). Petter, DeLone, and McLean (2013) thus
argue that the cultural and people aspects are underrepresented in IS
success models. In a world where usability and user experience design
have reduced the effort needed to use an application while the per-
formance perception of these applications is sufficient for its acceptance
(Bharadwaj, El Sawy, Pavlou, & Venkatraman, 2013), the effort and
performance perceptions may no longer be so important. Shin (2016)
further elaborates that, although the traditional technology acceptance
models have so far proved to be robust, they require modifications to
reflect new and emerging trends and technologies. Moreover, the im-
portance of context in developing theory in IS research should also be
considered in order to provide greater richness and practical value
(Hong et al., 2013).
Compatibility is identified as a perceived characteristic of innova-
tion predicting technology acceptance behavior (Moore & Benbasat,
1991). As defined by Rogers (1983) and refined by Moore and Benbasat
(1991), it is “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
consistent with existing values, needs and past experiences” of in-
dividuals. Compatibility is a multidimensional construct as it implies
two types of compatibility (Karahanna et al., 1999): “normative or
cognitive compatibility, referring to compatibility with what people
feel or think about an innovation and practical or operational com-
patibility, referring to compatibility with what people do”. Compat-
ibility’s direct impact on use intentions has already been confirmed in
previous studies (Mao & Palvia, 2006; Moore & Benbasat, 1991). Al-
though the construct includes two facets of compatibility, it is chiefly
the operational side of compatibility or task-centric aspects that have
received most attention, as evident from the following interpretations.
In their study, Agarwal and Prasad (1997) interpret compatibility as
“perceptions of innovation being compatible with innovator’s work
behavior”. Further, Karahanna and Straub (1999) specify compatibility
as “the extent to which an innovation is compatible with the user's prior
experiences”. Similarly, Karahanna et al. (1999) outline compatibility
as “the degree to which adopting the IT innovation is compatible with
what people do”. These are quite limited views, once again highlighting
that normative and other socio-organizational aspects are given in-
sufficient or inadequate emphasis.
In the Appendix, we provide a table with the summary of theories /
models in IT acceptance research (Appendix A) and a table with the
summary of works that used compatibility to explain innovation
adoption behavior in general and technology adoption in particular
(Appendix B).
2.2. The specific setting of BI&A and compatibility considerations
Business intelligence and analytics (BI&A) is usually referred to as
307
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318
the techniques, data-processing and analytical technologies, systems,
business-centric practices and methodologies, and applications that
analyze critical business data to help an enterprise better understand its
business and market and make timely business decisions (Chen et al.,
2012). In the late 2000s, business analytics was hailed as representing
the key analytical component of business intelligence (Trkman,
McCormack, de Oliveira, & Ladeira, 2010).
According to Gartner Research (2016), in 2016 business intelligence
and analytics had remained the leading business and technology
priority of Chief Information Officers (CIO) for five consecutive years,
pointing to its growing strategic importance and the need for greater
attention in research studies (Loebbecke & Picot, 2015). Surveys sug-
gest that BI&A use has created competitive advantages for many or-
ganizations (Audzeyeva & Hudson, 2016; Chen et al., 2012; Sharma
et al., 2014). For organizations to be able to leverage the opportunities
presented by BI&A and create value, employees must first accept and
effectively use these technological capabilities (Sharma et al., 2014).
When studying the influential drivers of use intentions and their
interactions in the BI&A context, it is important to understand the
context’s multiple aspects: the specific characteristics of BI&A tech-
nology, users, and usage (Grublješič & Jaklič, 2015; Hong et al., 2013).
These particularities should provide insights for understanding moti-
vations to use BI&A.
BI&A is primarily used to guide effective decision-making for both
day-to-day operations and for achieving strategic goals including ana-
lyzing, explaining, and predicting business problems and trends (Li,
Hsieh, & Rai, 2013). BI&A users are generally more educated workers
and mostly managers and/or expert business analysts (Luo, 2016;
Negash & Gray, 2008; Shah, Horne, & Capellá, 2012). BI&A use is
mostly voluntary (Grublješič & Jaklič, 2015). Decision-makers can
make decisions based on rigorous data processing and analysis using BI
&A or rely on their own intuition (Kowalczyk & Buxmann, 2015).
Marchand, Kettinger, and Rollins (2004) emphasize the importance of
an enterprise-wide organizational and information culture “for in-
formed fact-based decision making for business analytics” (Chen et al.,
2012), implying that socio-organizational considerations can have a
strong impact on use intentions. In the BI&A use context, information
quality problems mainly concern the relevance of the information
provided by BI&A applications (Popovič, Coelho, & Jaklič, 2009).
However, relevant analytical insights “do not emerge automatically out
of mechanically applying analytics tool to data” (Sharma et al., 2014).
The benefits of BI&A use are thus much more indirect, long term, and
difficult to measure. When BI&A is introduced, users need to adapt to
the new, fundamentally different ways of carrying out business pro-
cesses (Deng & Chi, 2012). The decision processes in which BI&A is
used are ill-structured and fewer procedures are enforced there, i.e.
well-defined business rules within these processes. Therefore, the use of
BI&A is more innovative and research oriented. This makes the routi-
nization of BI&A use within users’ work style more challenging.
Therefore, BI&A should support different users’ work style types, such
as analytical and data-oriented users; organized, plan-focused, and
detail-oriented users; supportive and emotionally-oriented users; or
strategic, integrative, and idea-oriented users (Tate, 2015). Aligning on
one hand what the BI&A solution can offer and, on the other, the
changing needs and expectations of users, the way they like to work –
their work style, also relating to the adaptation to changes in carrying
out organizational business processes, can thus be difficult. All of these
aspects illustrate the importance of compatibility evaluations in driving
BI&A use intentions.
3. Research model and hypotheses
Theorizing of the context-specific model of BI&A use intentions
follows the framework and guidelines presented in Hong et al. (2013).
First, widely used general behavioral theories for predicting technology
adoption were selected. Second, the general theories were
J. Jaklič et al.
contextualized and refined by adding or removing the core constructs.
Third, context-specific factors were identified based on a thorough
evaluation of the context (characteristics of the technology, users, and
usage context) identified by reference to previous exploratory and
empirical research findings (Grublješič & Jaklič, 2015; Grublješič et al.,
2014). Fourth, context-specific factors were modelled based on the
identified specificities and the core construct was broken down into two
facets of influential considerations. Fifth, the contextual factors were
incorporated as moderators of the relationships and interaction effects
between context-specific factors were examined. Sixth, the mediation
effect of a context-specific factor was modelled and tested.
By following a cumulative research design, this study complements
exploratory research findings derived from a literature review and case
studies in the BI&A context (Grublješič & Jaklič, 2015). The proposed
model further builds on the authors’ earlier empirical research findings
(Grublješič et al., 2014) and additionally investigates the compatibility
determinant (Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 1983) by considering its
interrelated role in predicting BI&A use intentions. Our aforementioned
research studies both individual own considerations (Sinha, 2014), such
as utility evaluations relating to the usefulness of the BI&A and usability
evaluations of the ease of applying BI&A to a specific task (Stern,
Royne, Stafford, & Bienstock, 2008), and socio-organizational con-
siderations relating to interdependence in social transactions (Sinha,
2014), such as evaluations of visibility of the results of using BI&A in an
organization and perceptions that respected others in an organization
expect and support the BI&A use. The findings show that the user’s
individualistic considerations of effort and performance perceptions do
not have a direct effect when predicting BI&A use intentions. Instead,
use intentions of BI&A are mainly driven by socio-organizational con-
siderations of social influence and result demonstrability. These include
a user’s perceptions of their output effectiveness, that they are visible,
recognized, and supported in an organizational environment
(Grublješič et al., 2014). In the current paper, we integrate the ex-
ploratory findings and initial empirical efforts with the additional lit-
erature review conducted here to theorize and develop a research
model and identify the interactions between the explored constructs
with the ultimate goal to confirm our hypotheses and research model
through a quantitative research approach (Creswell & Clark, 2017).The
compatibility construct is conceptualized to have a direct effect on use
intentions and an interrelated relationship with the established pre-
dictors while integrating the mechanism and explanation of the influ-
ential drivers of BI&A use intentions. The proposed model and re-
lationships are based on theoretical reasoning and identified
particularities and issues in the BI&A use environment.
IDT and UTAUT are the key theories that contributed to our re-
search model’s development. The model combines UTAUT’s perfor-
mance expectancy – measuring perceptions, social influence and be-
havioral intention – measuring use intentions (Venkatesh et al., 2003);
and IDT’s result demonstrability and compatibility (Moore & Benbasat,
1991; Rogers, 1983). All the indicators used in our research measure
individuals’ perceptions based on their experience since our study’s
respondents are familiar with and/or experienced BI&A users. Our
model thus includes the applicable set of use intention determinants
from IDT theory that is missing in UTAUT. Performance expectancy
from UTAUT includes IDT’s relative advantage. Image and visibility
from ITD are included in UTAUT’s social influence (Moore & Benbasat,
1991; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Ease of use or effort perceptions was
dropped as it proved not to be statistically significant in our previous
study (Grublješič et al., 2014). Ease of use was also not a significant
determinant of continuous use intentions in many other studies
(Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Mao & Palvia, 2006). In addition, Chang
et al.’s (2015) study revealed that managers are willing to make a
greater effort to use BI&A in order to receive rewards for doing so.
Trialability and voluntariness of use (Moore & Benbasat, 1991) were
not included based on the explained context of use and profiles of the
respondents (BI&A use is voluntary and the survey participants were
308
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318
experienced BI&A users). Facilitating conditions from the UTAUT
model were not included as they are originally modelled to directly
impact use. The variables and their linkages are discussed below.
Use intention or behavioral intention, as an established predictor of
both self-reported and actual usage (Agarwal & Prasad, 1999; Mao &
Palvia, 2006), is the dependent variable. This subjective probability
captures individuals’ internal motivation or readiness to perform a
behavior based on volitional control and their free will (Fishbein &
Ajzen, 2011). Ajzen and Fishbein (2005) stress that “when volitional
control is high, intentions are good predictors of behavior”. The de-
terminant was operationalized as use intentions, measuring continuous
use intentions based on the individual’s volitional control. Agarwal and
Prasad (1997) explain that future (continued) use intentions are good
predictors of actual future use.
Compatibility is one of the direct predictors of innovation accep-
tance behavior in IDT theory (Moore & Benbasat, 1991) has been
proven and in previous studies to directly impact behavioral intentions
(Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Mao & Palvia, 2006). Compatibility includes
three key components: consistency with the existing socio-cultural va-
lues and beliefs, consistency with the existing and potential (future)
needs, and consistency with individuals’ past and present experiences
(Karahanna et al., 1999; Moore & Benbasat, 1991). In line with such
reasoning, users’ perceptions of compatibility include the individual’s
considerations of their operational task-technology fit with their ex-
isting work needs and style, as well as normative considerations such as
novel situations accustoming new tasks, others’ use, changes in the
system environment and managers’ or organizational request to engage
in adaptation cycles to achieve a better fit between the system and the
new context (Sun, 2012). Compatibility was found to be an important
driver in case studies exploring BI&A acceptance, accounting for the
task-technology fit with the individual’s work needs and style, as well as
compatibility with the organizational work environment (Grublješič &
Jaklič, 2015). Venkatesh et al. (2003) explain that compatibility is
operationalized in such a way that it includes aspects of the technolo-
gical and organizational environment that are designed to remove
barriers to use. They explain that the construct “incorporates items that
tap the fit between the individual’s work style and the use of the system
in the organization” (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Building on this theore-
tical reasoning, we hypothesize:
H1. Compatibility positively influences BI&A Use intentions.
Karahanna et al. (1999) in their study find that compatibility and
perceived usefulness or performance perceptions load onto the same
factor. They were researching acceptance determinants of a personal
infrastructure technology. They explain these results with compatibility
being a multidimensional construct (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). They
contend that for a personal technology in an organizational context
“task-centered beliefs that focus on the ability of the technology to fa-
cilitate one’s job (i.e. perceived usefulness and operational compat-
ibility beliefs) may be inextricably linked in the user’s minds”
(Karahanna et al., 1999). The authors conclude that it is therefore un-
likely that individuals would perceive an innovation’s performance
benefits if it is not compatible with their work style. Similar findings
emerged in the Yoon et al. (2014) study of BI acceptance where com-
patibility was operationalized to measure operational compatibility
beliefs. Although the two constructs are viewed interchangeability by
respondents (Moore & Benbasat, 1991), from the task-centric or op-
erational usefulness perspective the high or even perfect correlations
between the two are not sufficient conditions to claim they are the same
(Bollen & Hoyle, 1990). In their study, Moore and Benbasat (1991)
conclude the two concepts are clearly conceptually different, but that a
more thorough investigation of the empirical relationship between
them is needed.
Performance perceptions, as an individualistic utilitarian criterion,
represent the extent to which individuals believe that using a system
enhances their work performance (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh
J. Jaklič et al.
Fig. 1. The conceptual research model.
et al., 2003). In the BI&A use context, this relates to the individual’s
perception of less time and effort being needed for accessing and ana-
lyzing information and the consequences of improvements in data
soundness and data access quality for individuals’ work on one side, and
their perceptions of the quality of their work output on the other. Over
the past three decades of technology acceptance research, these have
been recognized as the strongest and most powerful driver of accep-
tance (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Nevertheless,
the results of previous research show performance perceptions’ direct
impact on BI&A use intentions is not statistically significant (Grublješič
et al., 2014). Despite these initial findings, such a highly important
driver of use intentions cannot be excluded without a more thorough
investigation. Since the significance of the direct effect was already
omitted, following from the discussion above showing that performance
perceptions are recognized as influential if BI&A is compatible with the
individual’s work style, we expect performance perceptions to have an
indirect effect on use intentions mediated by compatibility perceptions.
When organizations implement and adopt BI&A systems, the ex-
ecution of their business processes changes fundamentally and users
need to adapt to such changes (Deng & Chi, 2012). Some time lag is
evident before users routinize, learn, and adapt to the new system
(Sharma, Yetton, & Zmud, 2008). Performance perceptions, i.e. utility
evaluations of a technology, and usability evaluations of applying the
technology to a specific task (Stern et al., 2008) are less emphasized due
to the fact that the processes in which BI&A are used are less structured
(Grublješič & Jaklič, 2015). We reason that individuals should perceive
performance perceptions as influential on their use intentions only if
they see this additional usefulness through compatibility with the new
organizational work environment along with the fit with the accord-
ingly adapted new work style. To hypothesize and prove the mediation
effect, the direct impact of the performance perception on the depen-
dent variable first needs to be hypothesized, then the mediation is hy-
pothesized by showing that performance perceptions are correlated
with and affect compatibility, while the mediator’s (compatibility’s)
direct impact has already been hypothesized with H1. Based on the
explained reasoning, we further hypothesize:
H2. Performance perceptions positively influence BI&A Use intentions.
H3. The impact of Performance perceptions on BI&A Use intentions is
mediated by Compatibility.
As one of the influential socio-organizational considerations
309
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318
impacting BI&A use intentions, result demonstrability is defined as “the
degree to which an individual believes that the results of using a system
are tangible, observable and communicable” (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
Result demonstrability primarily relates to the visibility of an in-
dividual’s effectiveness reflected through the impact of using BI&A on
the organizational performance that is usually observable in the long
run. Since in the BI&A context the benefits of its use are more indirect,
long term and connected to organizational performance (Grublješič &
Jaklič, 2015), users are more inclined to use BI&A when the results of
employing the BI&A system are actually visible and recognized within
the organization (Grublješič et al., 2014).
The other influential motivational determinant relating to socio-
organizational considerations that drive BI&A use intentions is social
influence, defined as “the degree to which an individual perceives that
important others believe he or she should use the new system”
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). Since BI&A use is mostly voluntary and the
benefits of use are typically not instantly visible, but more indirect and
long term than operational IS use (Grublješič & Jaklič, 2015), the use of
BI&A is importantly motivated by the recognition and appreciation of
use by respected others. Thus, if users perceive that the organization
and colleagues promote its use (Chang et al., 2015; Moore & Benbasat,
1991) they will be more internally motivated to use it and embed it into
their routines (Grublješič & Jaklič, 2015; Grublješič et al., 2014).
Following the above explanation, if an individual’s perceptions
about how the use of BI&A fits with organizational work environment
and the individual’s work style positively influences BI&A use inten-
tions, it is reasonable to believe that an individual’s perceived results
visibility and recognition, and appreciation of the BI&A use and its
results within the organization will reinforce such impact. The more the
results of BI&A use are apparent to the individual and communicable in
the organizational environment, the higher the perceptions of com-
patibility’s importance for use intentions will be. Accordingly, the
higher the organizational support, management incentives, visibility of
BI&A use as well as peer support, the higher the perceptions of com-
patibility’s impact on use intentions are to an individual.
H4. The higher the level of Result demonstrability, the stronger the
relationship between compatibility and BI&A use intentions.
H5. The higher the level of Social influence, the stronger the
relationship between compatibility and BI&A use intentions.
The conceptual research model and hypothesized relationships are
J. Jaklič et al.
shown in Fig. 1.
4. Research design and methodology
4.1. Data collection and measures
The questionnaire was developed by building on the previous the-
oretical basis to assure content validity. To ensure face validity (Cooper
& Schindler, 2003), pre-testing was conducted using a focus group in-
volving selected university staff and IS academics from the field who
were not included in the subsequent research. Minor changes were
made based on their suggestions, contextualizing the questionnaire
items to the specific context of BI&A use, and unifying the oper-
ationalization of all indicators to measure perceptions. We used a
structured questionnaire with seven-point Likert scales.
All constructs in the measurement model are reflective. The mea-
surement items were developed based on the literature review and
supported by expert opinions. We used five items to measure perfor-
mance perceptions, which were adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2003),
Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1989), and Venkatesh and Bala (2008) in
order to fully capture and reflect the context-specific performance
perceptions. Four items for measuring social influence were adapted
from Venkatesh et al. (2003). Result demonstrability was measured by
three validated items adopted from (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). One
item from the original scale was dropped in our previous analyses due
to its inadequate loading (Grublješič et al., 2014; Henseler, Ringle, &
Sinkovics, 2009). Compatibility was measured by Moore and Benbasat’s
(1991) three-item scale. The indicator items for measuring BI&A use
intentions were operationalized based on Wixom and Todd’s (2005)
behavioral intention construct measurements as they provided the most
suitable basis for developing the measurement of BI&A use intentions
based on the volitional state. Wixom and Todd (2005) adapted the
measurement scale from the technology acceptance theories (Davis
et al., 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
The detailed questionnaire along with the measurement model’s
indicators can be seen in Appendix C. Our measurement model included
18 manifest or observable variables loading on to five latent constructs:
(1) Compatibility; (2) Performance perceptions; (3) Social influence; (4)
Result demonstrability; and (5) Use intentions. The interactions between
Compatibility and both socio-organizational constructs Result de-
monstrability and Social influence were modelled to create new con-
structs, having as indicators the product of the standardized indicators
relative to the constructs involved in the interaction (Henseler &
Fassott, 2010).
The data were collected through a survey of 2173 medium- and
large-sized business organizations in an EU country, namely Slovenia,
representing the whole population listed in an official database pub-
lished by the National Agency for Public Legal Records. The survey
aims and procedure were explained in an introductory letter. The re-
spondents were asked to complete the survey only if they had adequate
knowledge regarding the survey topic since not all contacted organi-
zations have any sort of BI&A system. Questionnaires were addressed to
all users of BI&A in the contacted organizations that is, top manage-
ment, heads of departments and divisions, IS managers, etc. Two rounds
of the call were made, yielding a total sample of 195 completed surveys.
In order to test for non-response bias, we compared the distributions
of early and late respondents in the sample using the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test (Ryans, 1974). The sample distributions of the early and
late respondents did not differ statistically (p-value > 0.10 for all
variables). Accordingly, the absence of non-response bias was con-
firmed (Ryans, 1974).
Because the data for all model variables were collected with the
same instrument, we also examined the potential for common method
bias in our data using two approaches prescribed by Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003). First, we used a common
method construct approach which compares estimated structural model
310
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318
path coefficients with and without the common method construct. This
result showed no significant differences suggesting that common
method bias is not an issue in our data. Secondly, we performed Har-
man’s single factor test which revealed the presence of distinct factors
in the unrotated factor solution. Furthermore, we also tested for
common method bias through a full collinearity assessment approach
(Kock, 2015). Essentially, testing for the existence of common method
bias through this method entails comparing the full collinearity var-
iance inflation factors (VIFs) for all latent variables to the suggested
threshold (Kock & Lynn, 2012; Kock, 2015). As all our full collinearity
VIFs are equal to or lower than the threshold, this can be seen as an
indication that the model is free from common method bias.
As our respondents come from different subgroups, there is a need
to check for equivalence issues (Knoppen et al., 2014). Following the
procedure suggested by van de Schoot, Lugtig, and Hox (2012) we
concluded equivalence is not an issue in our study.
4.2. Data analysis
To conduct the data analysis, the component-based structural
equation modeling (SEM) technique of partial least squares (PLS), was
used. This methodology is widely used in the IT and IS fields as it is
suitable for predicting and theory-building because it examines the
significance of the relationships between the research constructs and
the predictive power of the dependent variables (Chin, 1998; Henseler
et al., 2009). The estimation and data manipulation were performed
using SmartPLS (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015) and SPSS. To verify
the mediating effect, we used bootstrapping and Sobel’s test (Sobel,
1982) following the reasoning and procedures presented in Rucker,
Preacher, Tormala, and Petty (2011). The interaction effects were
tested according to the Henseler and Fassott (2010) techniques.
5. Results
The respondents’ demographic profiles are presented in Table 1.
Analysis of the demographic profiles reveals that most respondents are
male (61.14%) and their average age is 44.66 years. We also see that
most of the BI&A users are higher educated, with 89.17% holding a
professionally oriented higher education or above, and 73.53% having
a B.Sc. or higher education. Respondents also have on average 2.75
years’ experience with BI&A use.
The means and standard deviations of the manifest variables are
shown in Table 2. The highest means are found in the performance
perceptions indicators, showing that people generally find BI&A to be
useful, while the lowest means are found in the social influence con-
struct. The means for all measures (the average mean is 5.624) are
around 2.12 scale points to the right of the center of the scale, sug-
gesting a slightly left (negative) skewed distribution. The use intentions
indicators are those that globally show the highest standard deviations,
Table 1
Demographic profiles of respondents.
Age
Max: 65 Min: 22 Average: 44.66
Gender
Male: 61.14% Female: 29.53%
Education
Elementary school: 0% Professionally oriented higher PhD: 2.58%
education: 15.46%
High school: 4.64% B.Sc.: 51.03%
Higher vocational M.Sc.: 20.10% Average: B.Sc.
education: 6.19%
Experience (in months)
Min: 1 Max: 288 (24 years) Average: 33.66
(2.75 years)
J. Jaklič et al. International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318

Table 2
Means and standard deviations and reliability and validity measures of the measurement model.
Construct Indicator Mean Standard deviation Loadings T-statistics Cronbach’s Alpha Composite reliability Average Variance Extracted

Compatibility C1 5.337 1.207 0.865 20.796 0.8695 0.9197 0.7926

C2 5.467 1.150 0.925 73.224
C3 5.483 1.150 0.890 32.563

Performance perceptions PP1 6.051 0.990 0.887 39.259 0.9282 0.9458 0.7775
PP2 5.747 1.239 0.861 15.578
PP3 5.853 1.139 0.938 64.310
PP4 5.763 1.257 0.892 24.030
PP5 5.723 1.246 0.828 14.117

Result demonstrability RD1 5.646 1.093 0.898 49.082 0.8558 0.9123 0.7763
RD2 5.607 1.076 0.902 43.783
RD3 5.720 1.123 0.842 13.387

Social influence SI1 5.058 1.584 0.785 13.719 0.8042 0.8714 0.6290
SI2 5.123 1.522 0.800 13.752
SI3 5.576 1.252 0.822 18.436
SI4 5.695 1.242 0.765 11.009

Use intentions UI1 5.769 1.387 0.965 133.843 0.9630 0.9760 0.9312
UI2 5.665 1.415 0.974 136.402
UI3 5.665 1.473 0.965 81.135

whereas the result demonstrability indicators are those with the smal-
lest variability.
We examined the reliability and validity measures for our reflective
measurement model (see Table 2). In the model, all Cronbach alphas
easily exceeded the 0.7 threshold (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Without exception, the latent variables’ composite reliabilities were
higher than 0.8 and in most cases even higher than 0.9, showing the
high internal consistency of the indicators measuring each construct
and thus confirming construct reliability (Henseler et al., 2009;
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The average variance extracted (AVE)
was generally around 0.7 or above, thus exceeding the threshold of 0.5,
demonstrating the constructs’ convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). The reliability and convergent validity of the measurement
model were also confirmed by computing standardized loadings for the
indicators and bootstrap t-statistics for their significance. All standar-
dized loadings of the indicators in the model exceed the 0.7 threshold
and without exception were found to be significant at the 0.001 sig-
nificance level, thus confirming the high indicator reliability and con-
vergent validity (Henseler et al., 2009; Hulland, 1999).
Assessing the indicator loadings on their corresponding constructs
was the first procedure for testing the discriminant validity (Henseler
et al., 2009). The results indicated that the manifest variable correla-
tions with their theoretically assigned latent variables have an order of
magnitude larger than other loadings on other constructs (Gefen &
Straub, 2005). Therefore, all the item loadings met the criteria (see
Table 3).
Further, we compared the square root of AVE for each construct
with the correlations with all other constructs in the model (Henseler
et al., 2009). The square roots of AVE were significantly higher (and
also substantially larger than the threshold of 0.5) than the correlations
between the constructs, thus confirming they are sufficiently dis-
criminable (Chin, 1998; Fornell & Larcker, 1981) (see Table 4).
Additionally, we estimated the inner path model. We tested the
significance of the hypothesized relationships between the constructs
by bootstrapping with 1000 replicates. The structural model was then
assessed (see Fig. 2) by examining the coefficient of determination (R2)
of the endogenous latent variable, the estimates for the path coefficients
of the relationships in the structural model and their significance levels
(via bootstrapping) (Chin, 1998).
As shown in Fig. 2, the influence of performance perceptions,
compatibility, result demonstrability, and social influence explain
32.3% of the variance in use intentions. Since the exogenous variables
explain a moderate to high proportion of the variance of the
endogenous variable, we may conclude that the model holds sufficient
explanatory power and is capable of explaining the constructed en-
dogenous latent variable (Henseler et al., 2009).
The direct positive impact of compatibility on use intentions is
statistically significant (β̂ =0.218; p < 0.01), thereby supporting H1.
To test the mediation effect of the impact of performance percep-
tions on use intentions mediated by compatibility, we followed the
procedures explained in Baron and Kenny (1986) and Rucker et al.
(2011).
First, the direct effect of performance perceptions on use intentions
was tested. The direct impact of performance perceptions on use in-
tentions is not statistically significant, thus our hypothesis H2 is re-
jected. From the results seen in Table 4, we can see the causal variable
(performance perceptions) is correlated with the outcome (use inten-
tions), and there is thus an effect that may be mediated (Baron & Kenny,
1986). In the second step, the mediator (compatibility) needs to be
treated as the outcome variable and performance perceptions as the
causal variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The path is statistically sig-
nificant at the 0.1% significance level (β̂ =0.347), where performance
perceptions have a direct positive influence on compatibility. The
causal variable is also correlated with the mediator (see Table 4). The
third step involves showing that the mediator affects the outcome
variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986), which was tested with H1 and proven
to be statistically significant. Since the direct impact of performance
perceptions on use intentions is not statistically significant, compat-
ibility completely mediates the impact of performance perceptions on
use intentions (Rucker et al., 2011), proving our H3.
Besides testing the statistical significance of performance percep-
tions’ impact on compatibility via bootstrapping for proof of the med-
iation effect, we tested the mediation with Sobel’s test (Sobel, 1982).
The results of Sobel’s test (see Table 5) were statistically significant at a
5% significance level, proving that compatibility does fully mediate the
effect between performance perceptions and usage intentions (Rucker
et al., 2011), confirming H3. We compared the variance explained
without the performance perceptions construct (R2 = 31.5%) and the
one with it and the additional explanatory power of the performance
perceptions’ indirect effect on use intentions is low (R2 only changes by
0.7%).
The moderating effect of result demonstrability on the relationship
between compatibility and use intentions is significant and positive
(β̂ = 0. 262; p < 0.01). The size of the moderating effect is f = 0.06.
Moreover, the interaction effect of social influence on the relationship
between compatibility and use intentions is significant and positive

311
J. Jaklič et al. International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318

Table 3
Comparison of the item cross-loadings.
Construct Ind. Compatibility Performance perceptions Result demonstrability Social influence Use intentions

Compatibility C1 0.8646 0.2686 0.3477 0.1697 0.3288

C2 0.9247 0.3519 0.3957 0.2068 0.4057
C3 0.8805 0.2973 0.4138 0.1958 0.3212

Performance perceptions PP1 0.3492 0.8867 0.5288 0.4365 0.3621

PP2 0.2370 0.8606 0.5322 0.3512 0.3219
PP3 0.3460 0.9377 0.5317 0.4618 0.4113
PP4 0.3240 0.8916 0.4974 0.3374 0.3897
PP5 0.2507 0.8283 0.4290 0.3250 0.3275

Result demonstrability RD1 0.4041 0.4752 0.8979 0.3264 0.4332

RD2 0.3695 0.4857 0.9020 0.2794 0.3983
RD3 0.3703 0.5591 0.8421 0.3578 0.3668

Social influence SI1 0.1468 0.2723 0.2241 0.7851 0.2670

SI2 0.1645 0.2809 0.2376 0.7997 0.3240
SI3 0.1987 0.3693 0.3013 0.8219 0.3604
SI4 0.1662 0.4557 0.3816 0.7646 0.3119

Use intentions UI1 0.3648 0.4048 0.4397 0.4190 0.9651

UI2 0.3962 0.4054 0.4652 0.3979 0.9739
UI3 0.3940 0.3880 0.4099 0.3445 0.9559

(β̂ = 0.193; p < 0.05). The size of the moderating effect is f = 0.04. impact use intentions may be explained by the fact that the benefits of
The variance explained in use intentions increases to 36.1% with the BI&A use are generally indirect and often difficult to distinguish from
interaction effects, showing meaningful interaction effects (Chin, other factors’ effects. Further, although the overall assessment of the
Marcolin, & Newsted, 2003; Henseler & Fassott, 2010). The implica- positive performance effects of BI&A is quite high, as seen from the
tions of the findings are discussed in the following section. results (high means, low variability), users are probably aware this
estimation is based on the general perception regarding the benefits of
BI&A, which is subjective and difficult to verify. Another plausible ar-
6. Discussion with implications for research and practice
gument deals with the characteristics of certain specific users. Decision-
makers who possess domain-specific managerial decision-making
The results of our research show the importance of making com-
knowledge are not usually analytical experts such as, for instance, data
patibility evaluations as an important interrelated predictor of BI&A use
scientists (Kowalczyk & Buxmann, 2015). The lack of their analytical
intentions. By scrutinizing the role of compatibility as a direct positive
knowledge might also lead to an overestimation of the capabilities of-
predictor of use intentions, as well as its mediation effect along with the
fered by BI&A. They may not see all the obstacles to achieving values
positive interaction effects of social influence and result demonstr-
from BI&A resulting in their better performance. Thus, decisions to use
ability on the relationship between compatibility and use intentions, we
BI&A are more importantly influenced by perceptions of the narrower
advance the body of knowledge by providing a richer understanding of
organizational environment regarding the results of BI&A use. This
the interrelationships between the dimensions of BI&A use intentions as
explanation can be extended by the findings that the socio-organiza-
well as the better explanatory power of these use intentions compared
tional factors of visibility, recognition, and support in the organiza-
to the existing findings (Grublješič et al., 2014). Specifically, we find
tional environment directly influence use intentions (Grublješič et al.,
that compatibility has a direct significant positive impact on BI&A use
2014). Users thus might be willing to use BI&A irrespective of any
intentions. Further, performance perceptions, consistently proven to be
benefits these individuals observe to be offered to them directly where
the most rigorous and powerful direct predictor of use intentions (Li
the results of BI&A use are visible and recognized in the organization.
et al., 2013; Venkatesh et al., 2003), in the BI&A context only have an
Given the non-routine character of decision-making processes, the
indirect impact on use intentions mediated through compatibility. The
related individual tasks are subject to frequent change. This requires a
mediation effect is statistically significant but holds only weak addi-
high degree of adaptability and flexibility from these individuals. Thus,
tional explanatory power in predicting use intentions. Moreover, result
what a BI&A solution can offer in terms of achieving agility and being
demonstrability and social influence positively strengthen the re-
able to react to these changing information requirements within deci-
lationship between compatibility and use intentions. In the following,
sion processes is particularly important (Kowalczyk & Buxmann, 2015).
we discuss our results and shed light on the implications of the shift to
Due to individuals’ changing needs, because of ill-structured tasks,
socio-organizational considerations for predicting BI&A use intentions.
difficulty of predefining the information needs, and the analytical re-
quirements for decision-making arising from the organizational en-
6.1. Interpretation of the results vironment, the compatibility perceptions of a BI&A solution are influ-
ential predictors of continuous use intention. Users are thus conscious
The fact that performance perceptions do not seem to directly

Table 4
Correlations between the latent variables and square roots of the average variance extracted.
Constructs Compatibility Performance perceptions Result demonstrability Social influence Use intentions

Compatibility 0.8903
Performance perceptions 0.3468 0.8818
Result demonstrability 0.4333 0.5717 0.8811
Social influence 0.2152 0.4375 0.3632 0.8118
Use intentions 0.3988 0.4141 0.4549 0.4021 0.9650

312
J. Jaklič et al.
Fig. 2. Research model results.
Table 5
Sobel’s test.
Standard error (SE)
Path loading (β̂ )
Performance perceptions → 0.3468 0.0770
Compatibility
Compatibility → Use intentions 0.2176 0.038
t-statistics 2.250 > 1.96
Two-tailed probability (significance) 0.024 < 0.05
about the fit between technologies and their work needs and environ-
ment (Mao & Palvia, 2006). Another compatibility evaluation, the fit
between a BI&A solution and the users’ work style – the way they like to
work – is extremely relevant. The analysis of our respondents’ demo-
graphic profiles confirms that BI&A users are chiefly higher educated
and more skilled workers. Accordingly, they do not need constant direct
guidance regarding their work (tasks), being more flexible, and thus
their work style – the way they think, organize, and complete tasks
(Tate, 2015) – is more pronounced. Whether individuals are analytical
and data-oriented users, plan-focused and detail-oriented users, sup-
portive and emotionally-oriented users, or strategic, integrative, and
idea-oriented users (Tate, 2015), any BI&A solution has to fit with their
needs and work practices. The first logical, analytical type will need
system functions or analytical technology that allows flexibility, in-
depth drilling, finding connections between the data, etc. for data
processing and solving complex problems. The organized type oriented
to details will need accurate, relevant, and timely data for structuring
projects, accurately completing tasks, and ensuring they are completed
on time. The supportive, expressive type will need system functions for
sharing information and analysis results and, related to this, for being
able to effectively communicate ideas throughout the organization. In
the meanwhile, the strategic, integrative type will in particular need
fast and easily understandable ‘big picture’ comparisons, synthesized
disparate data in order to brainstorm solutions, drive innovation, en-
sure variety and serve as a catalyst for change in achieving strategic
goals (Tate, 2015). Thus, due to the unstructured processes involved,
decision-makers will use BI&A, even where it takes greater effort, but
only if it provides the right content and is aligned with their work style.
Therefore, they do not expect the system to guide them directly and
that the use would be effortless, but it should support how they like to
work and what they need to ‘get the job done’. If all of these antici-
pations are met, they expect the results to also be satisfactory.
The lack of performance perceptions’ direct significance for use in-
tentions while compatibility seems to play an important part contradicts
313
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318
other empirical research (e.g. Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Karahanna et al.,
1999; Mao & Palvia, 2006). Our results show that performance percep-
tions only have an indirect impact on BI&A use intentions mediated by
compatibility. A plausible explanation for these results lies in the nature
of the BI&A use environment. One can explain compatibility as a more
important direct driver of use intentions than performance perceptions by
pointing to the fact that compatibility is easier to recognize in the BI&A
use context. At the same time, this means users perceive they are doing
the right things in the right way. However, if they assess that the results
are achieved (performance perceptions), this still enhances the sense that
the BI&A system is compatible with their needs and work style. Accord-
ingly, this should increase the perceptions of compatibility between users’
needs and what the BI&A system can offer. Since even the mediation
effect of performance perceptions via compatibility on use intentions is
relatively small (only 0.7%), this finding again underscores the idea that
the focus of motivations to use BI&A has shifted from individual utility
gains to compatibility and other socio-organizational considerations.
The third part of the discussion revealing a shift is underway to socio-
organizational considerations in the context of BI&A use intentions re-
lates to the significant moderating impacts of result demonstrability and
social influence perceptions. In addition to having a strong direct positive
impact on use intentions (Grublješič et al., 2014), result demonstrability
and social influence moderate the relationship between compatibility
and use intentions and thereby strengthen the perceived relevance of
compatibility in influencing use intentions. Thus, if the results of BI&A
use are demonstrable, communicable, visible, supported by peers, man-
agement and the organization in general, the higher are the individual’s
perceptions of the compatibility of BI&A use with their work style,
leading to stronger use intentions. This ‘fit’ is predominantly explained
by the triggers from the socio-organizational work environment. The
findings are in line with May and Finch’s (2009) Normalization Process
Theory (NPT) which deals with the work people do within an organi-
zational framework. The theory is concerned with the social organization
of work performed by people, which may include new or changed ways
of thinking, acting, and organizing; how to make these practices routi-
nely embedded elements in the already existing, socially patterned,
knowledge and practices; and sustaining and integrating these practices
in their social context. They explain that undoubtedly individuals do
have preferences they act upon, but there are always social factors that
promote or constrain a particular behavior (May & Finch, 2009). Given
that the performance improvements of BI&A use are usually recognized
in the long run, perceptions of being able to communicate and share the
results of BI&A use promote its use intentions. Likewise, the opinions of
influential stakeholders throughout the organization regarding BI&A use
J. Jaklič et al.
stimulate the idea of BI&A use fitting with individuals’ work, encoura-
ging its use intentions. Cooper and Zmud (1990) further expound that
adoption is better explained by the rational task-technology fit, and later
implementation stages are better explained by more socio-political and
learning approaches (Karahanna et al., 1999).
6.2. Theoretical and managerial contributions
In this paper, we focus on individuals’ perceptions about char-
acteristics of the target system and contextual use intentions as ex-
planatory and predictive variables. There are several reasons that this is
of value from theoretical and practical points of view.
From a theoretical perspective, it is beneficial to verify and find a
specific interrelated set of influential perceived characteristics in a con-
temporary BI&A use environment so as to provide a more parsimonious
model (Hong et al., 2013). Tsui (2007) explains that contextualization
can serve as a starting point for a new theory as it can discover context-
free regularities. Further, following the recommendation of Moore and
Benbasat (1991) that empirical relationships between performance per-
ceptions and compatibility constructs should be more thoroughly ex-
amined, our study advances the investigation in this domain. While
previous studies, mostly investigating and operationalizing the opera-
tional side of compatibility, either in a BI&A context-specific domain
(Yoon et al., 2014) or accepting personal infrastructure technology in
general (Karahanna et al., 1999), have found that the constructs load
onto the same factor, our empirical analysis reveals that the constructs
are sufficiently discriminable and can be treated as separate factors.
Moreover, we demonstrated the mechanism through which they operate
in a specific context, which is that performance perceptions’ impact on BI
&A use intentions is mediated by compatibility perceptions, while per-
formance perceptions per se do not carry a direct effect. This contradicts
Agarwal and Prasad’s (1997) findings in which compatibility perceptions
of use intentions do not seem to be significant, but performance per-
ceptions are. They explain their findings with the fact that, after some
time, the innovation and the user’s work style have been modified to the
extent that they fit with each other. In the BI&A context, these percep-
tions are different due to the ever changing needs of users. This ‘fit’ is
always a significant aspect, while performance perceptions are detected
through it. In addition to the already explored general understanding of
the importance of socio-organizational determinants in the context of BI
&A use intentions (Grublješič & Jaklič, 2015; Grublješič et al., 2014), we
advance this body of knowledge by showing their importance in
strengthening the perceptions of compatibility to stream into BI&A use.
Here we further corroborate the importance of socio-organizational
considerations in IS acceptance models (Bala, Massey, & Hsieh, 2016;
Eckhardt, Laumer, & Weitzel, 2009; Mao & Palvia, 2006). This emphasis
is consistent with the encouragement of Junglas, Goel, Abraham, and
Ives (2013) that “future IS research should consider the inclusion of a
social component into its utilization and acceptance models”.
Context-specific results further provide richness and practical re-
levance in IS research, allowing a better assessment of research find-
ings’ applicability (Hong et al., 2013). If the available BI&A systems are
not used appropriately, this is of little value to the organizations as the
anticipated productivity gains cannot be realized (Trieu, 2017). Hence,
examining the relevant perceptions is pragmatically important since
“they can be proactively influenced by management action” (Agarwal &
Prasad, 1997). Our results provide some considerable practical con-
tributions and guidelines for organizations they should follow if they
wish to extract value from BI&A through BI&A use.
Although the processes in which BI&A is used are typically less
structured, making it more difficult to identify information needs up front,
given the importance of compatibility perceptions it is necessary to ap-
propriately identify the needs for the routine parts of those processes or
enable sufficient system flexibility to provide the right data and in-
formation to users. One possible response to this problem is the recent
trend in the use of self-service BI&A which has, as one of its key objectives,
314
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318
precisely to provide information not given by systemic BI&A and thereby
increases the task-technology fit perceptions. On the other hand, it is also
useful to introduce more structured approaches into managerial processes
such as Corporate Performance Management, as that enables easier iden-
tification of the necessary indicators, analyses, or reports for achieving the
organizational goals. This enables a better understanding of users’ needs
and thus brings the task-technology fit perceptions up to higher levels.
The data in BI&A systems is usually aggregated and integrated at the
level of the entire organization, allowing greater sharing of information
(Bose, 2009). BI&A solutions should be as integrated as possible, but
should not be the same for all types of users, and should offer some
functional agility (Krawatzeck & Dinter, 2015). These solutions should
enable the use of various analytical technologies or means of in-
formation access and analysis of information tailored to the needs and
users’ work styles. Therefore, analytical and data-oriented users should
be given possibilities for in-depth analytics, scalability, drilling-down,
and suitable self-service BI tools for processing data and solving com-
plex problems to achieve the stated goals. The organized user who is
oriented to details should be provided with detailed, timely, and ac-
curate information. Supportive, expressive users should be provided
with capabilities to facilitate information sharing. Finally, strategic and
idea-oriented users should be provided with more integrated views,
abilities to compare plans with realizations, trends, and dashboards in
order for them to be able to see the “big picture” (Tate, 2015).
Since BI&A implementation significantly changes the organizational
work environment, i.e. by carrying out business processes (Deng & Chi,
2012), users need to adapt their work styles to these external stimuli. This
includes changes in the work environment by engaging in adaptation
cycles to achieve a better fit between the system and the new context
becoming accustomed to the new tasks and carrying them out (Sun, 2012).
It is thus necessary to carefully introduce changes in those processes which
are the result of BI&A implementation. In practice, these issues are not
usually given adequate attention compared to the operational process
redesign with IT implementation. The reason lies exactly in the processes’
lower structuredness and the consequent incomprehension of the needs
required for the management of change. Nonetheless, as shown by our
research results it is particularly important that users understand these
new activities or changes in the way of carrying out their activities and
their placement within the improved organizational decision processes. In
this way, it will become easier for users to understand the compatibility
between what the BI&A system can offer, and what they expect from the
system and their requirements (compatibility system-needs-requirements
alignment). The development of a culture of analyzing data (fact-based
decision-making) will then add to this assessment of compatibility, further
affecting use intentions. In an environment where the level of analytical
culture is high, users will more easily understand how the BI&A system
helps in accomplishing their tasks.
Since the performance benefits of BI&A use are difficult to evaluate,
our results show that performance perceptions impact use intentions
only indirectly through compatibility. On the other hand, when
studying compatibility perceptions the importance of visibility and
communicability of the results (result demonstrability) of BI&A use in
the organizational environment again appeared to be greatly important
(Grublješič et al., 2014). It would therefore be beneficial for organiza-
tions to reach a consensus and communicate the importance of using
the BI&A, even if the results of its use cannot be measured directly. This
includes managers’ or organizational promotional incentives and sup-
port (Sun, 2012), while leading by example of the management and
wider leadership team, by using, encouraging, and justifying decisions
based on use of the information provided by BI&A, is especially of
immense importance. In this way, the leadership also enables higher
levels of social influence across the organization.
6.3. Limitations and future research
Although our results provide important contributions to theory and
J. Jaklič et al. International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318

practice in a contemporary BI&A use environment, we discuss some
limitations to keep in mind when interpreting the results of this study,
while also suggesting some potential opportunities for future research. In
our context theorizing, we combined the relevant core constructs from
general technology adoption theories (Davis, 1989; Moore & Benbasat,
1991; Venkatesh et al., 2003) based on the profiles and demographic
analysis of our respondents. Here we omitted some core constructs that
might be important, such as voluntariness of use, trialability, and ex-
perience. Future research on different survey respondents could capture
these beliefs. We also omitted facilitating conditions from UTAUT
(Venkatesh et al., 2003) since it was originally modelled to impact di-
rectly on use, while our dependent variable was use intentions. Further,
we used a well-known and validated three-item scale to measure com-
patibility that is theorized to be multidimensional (Moore & Benbasat,
1991). While we were able to demonstrate and discuss two important
facets of influential compatibility evaluations, we were unfortunately
unable to decompose the core construct into context-specific factors
constituting a multidimensional construct (Hong et al., 2013) due to the
small number of indicator items. Developing indicator items for the two
dimensions of compatibility evaluations provides another potential
avenue for future research. Finally, in line with the attempts to achieve
parsimony and simplicity in conveying the research findings we did not
consider other organizational factors, apart from the core constructs in
general theories, that might be important in the researched context such
as management support, user training, information culture, customer
orientation, etc. Since numerous features are to be considered in a spe-
cific context (Hong et al., 2013), these should be examined in the future.
7. Conclusion
BI&A is an important driver of performance for firms operating
amidst highly competitive environments. This study advances the body
of knowledge in the IT/IS acceptance field by providing empirical
evidence on the interrelationships between the predictors of BI&A use
intentions and corroborate the explanation that a shift to socio-orga-
nizational considerations in explaining individuals’ use intentions in the
contemporary BI&A context is underway. Drawing on the IT/IS accep-
tance and BI&A literature facilitated the development of research hy-
potheses and a conceptual framework that explicates these relation-
ships. We conducted an empirical study among medium and large-size
business organizations to test the research model and hypotheses.
This study represents a significant advance in our theoretical un-
derstanding of the role of compatibility in predicting the use of BI&A.
Our results also provide valuable guidance for organizations by shed-
ding light on the key perceptions that affect and motivate BI&A ac-
ceptance. Acceptance research provides critical insights for organiza-
tions on how to manage IT/IS acceptance and use. Without
contextualizing traditional well-researched technology acceptance
models in the context of BI&A use intentions, organizations might
overlook important determinants and hence focus on an inaccurate set
of factors that do not lead to their effective utilization. Our results thus
provide an important basis and input for future studies of the successful
acceptance and further long-term use and viability of BI&A. We hope
that this work inspires future attempts to elaborate on our findings.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the project (Big Data Analytics: From
Insights to Business Process Agility, ID J5-7287) was financially sup-
ported by the Slovenian Research Agency.

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Table A1
IT/IS acceptance research.
Author(s) Theory/model Aim Key constructs Dependent variable(s)

Davis (1989) Technology acceptance model (TAM) To explain how users come to accept and use a Perceived usefulness; Attitude toward using;
technology Perceived ease-of-use Behavioral intention to
use;
Actual system use
Venkatesh et al. (2003) Unified theory of acceptance and use of To explain user intentions to use an IS and Performance expectancy; Usage intention;
technology (UTAUT) subsequent usage behavior Effort expectancy; User behavior
Social influence;
Facilitating conditions

Appendix B

See Table B1.

Table B1
Compatibility in IT/IS acceptance research.
Author(s) How compatibility was used to explain innovation adoption behavior in general/IT adoption in particular

Moore and Benbasat (1991)
Mao and Palvia (2006)
Agarwal and Prasad (1997)
Karahanna et al. (1999)
Karahanna et al. (1999)
Cho and Kim (2001)
Compatibility is considered one of the five general attributes of innovations that influence adoption
Drawing on Technology acceptance model (TAM), the authors consider compatibility at an antecedent of attitude toward use, which in turn
influences behavioral intention to use an IT
Drawing on technology acceptance and innovation diffusion works, compatibility is proposed to directly impact behavioral intentions to use an IT.
From the IT adoption perspective, compatibility is considered as one of the behavioral beliefs directly affecting an individual’s attitude toward
adopting IT.
From the IT continued use perspective, compatibility is considered as one of the behavioral beliefs directly affecting an individual’s attitude toward
using IT.
Compatibility is considered a multi-dimensional construct composed of beliefs about the compatibility of a technology with values, compatibility
of a technology with preferred work style, compatibility of a technology with existing work practices, and compatibility of a technology with prior
experience. Each of these dimensions is linked with perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and with system usage.
Compatibility is considered as one of innovation attributes directly influencing IT assimilation stages.

315
J. Jaklič et al. International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318

Appendix C

See Table C1.

Table C1
Survey items (Indicators of the initial measurement model).
Construct Label Indicator

Indicate to what extent you agree/disagree with the following statements (1 = totally disagree; 7 = totally agree; X = don’t know)

Compatibility C1 Using BI&A is compatible with all aspects of my work.

C2 I think that using BI&A fits well with the way I like to work.
C3 Using BI&A fits with my work style.

Performance Perceptions PP1 I would find BI&A useful in my job.

PP2 Using BI&A would improve my job performance.
PP3 Using BI&A would make it easier to do my job.
PP4 If I use BI&A, I spend less time on routine job tasks.
PP5 If I use BI&A, I increase the quality of my work output.

Social Influence SI1 People who influence my behavior think that I should use BI&A.
SI2 People who are important to me think that I should use BI&A.
SI3 The senior management of this business has been helpful in the use of BI&A.
SI4 In general, the organization has supported the use of BI&A.

Result Demonstrability RD1 I have no difficulty telling others about the results of using BI&A.
RD2 I believe I could communicate to others the consequences of using BI&A.
RD3 The results of using BI&A are apparent to me.
RD4a I would have difficulty explaining why using BI&A may or may not be beneficial (reversed).

Use intentions UI1 If it depended on me, I would intend to use BI&A as a routine part of my job.
UI2 If it depended on me, I would intend to use BI&A at every opportunity.
UI3 If it depended on me, I would plan to increase my use of BI&A.

a
The item was dropped due to the insufficient indicator loadings. The initial analysis of the measurement items was provided in Grublješič et al. (2014) and
Henseler et al. (2009).

References
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived
voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3),
557–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of
new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01614.x.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracin,
B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.). Handbook of attitudes and attitude change: Basic
principles. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Audzeyeva, A., & Hudson, R. (2016). How to get the most from a business intelligence
application during the post implementation phase? Deep structure transformation at
a U.K. retail bank. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 29–46. https://doi.
org/10.1057/ejis.2014.44.
Bala, H., Massey, A. P., & Hsieh, C. J. (2016). A multimethod study of enterprise social
media implementation and use. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing,
28(3), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2016070109.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business
strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482.
https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37:2.3.
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical
examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479–504. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579670.
Bose, R. (2009). Advanced analytics: Opportunities and challenges. Industrial Management
& Data Systems, 109(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570910930073.
Bronzo, M., de Resende, P. T. V., de Oliveira, M. P. V., McCormack, K. P., de Sousa, P. R.,
& Ferreira, R. L. (2013). Improving performance aligning business analytics with
process orientation. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 300–307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.11.011.
Brooks, P., El-Gayar, O., & Sarnikar, S. (2015). A framework for developing a domain
specific business intelligence maturity model: Application to healthcare. International
Journal of Information Management, 35(3), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2015.01.011.
Chang, Y.-W., Hsu, P.-Y., & Wu, Z.-Y. (2015). Exploring managers’ intention to use
business intelligence: The role of motivations. Behaviour & Information Technology,
34(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.968208.
Chen, X., & Siau, K. (2011). Impact of business intelligence and IT infrastructure flex-
ibility on competitive performance: An organizational agility perspective. Paper
Presented at the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).
Chen, H., Chiang, R. H. L., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics:
From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165–1188.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling.
MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii–xvi.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent
variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte
Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information
Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.
Cho, I., & Kim, Y.-G. (2001). Critical factors for assimilation of object-oriented pro-
gramming languages. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 125–156.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed). McGraw-Hill/
Irwin.
Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A
technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123–139.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Sage Publications.
Davenport, T. H., Barth, P., & Bean, R. (2012). How ‘big data’ is different. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 54(1), 43–46.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/
249008.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8),
982–1003.
Deng, X., & Chi, L. (2012). Understanding postadoptive behaviors in information systems
use: A longitudinal analysis of system use problems in the business intelligence
context. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(3), 291–326. https://doi.org/
10.2753/MIS0742-1222290309.
Eckhardt, A., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2009). Who influences whom? Analyzing
workplace referents’ social influence on IT adoption and non-adoption. Journal of
Information Technology, 24(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2008.31.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action
approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
Foshay, N., & Kuziemsky, C. (2014). Towards an implementation framework for business
intelligence in healthcare. International Journal of Information Management, 34(1),
20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.09.003.
Gartner (2016). Building the digital platform: Insights from the 2016 Gartner CIO agenda
reportRetrieved fromhttps://www.gartner.com/imagesrv/cio/pdf/cio_agenda_
insights_2016.pdf.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph:
Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 16(5), 91–109.
Grublješič, T., & Jaklič, J. (2015). Business intelligence acceptance: The prominence of

316
J. Jaklič et al.
organizational factors. Information Systems Management, 32(4), 299–315. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10580530.2015.1080000.
Grublješič, T., Coelho, P. S., & Jaklič, J. (2014). The importance and impact of de-
terminants influencing business intelligence systems embeddedness. Issues in
Information Systems, 15(1), 106–117.
Henseler, J., & Fassott, G. (2010). Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: An
illustration of available procedures. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, &
H. Wang (Eds.). Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications
(pp. 713–735). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing. New challenges to international marketing, Vol. 20,
Emerald Group Publishing Limited277–319.
Hong, W., Chan, F. K. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon, G. (2013). A fra-
mework and guidelines for context-specific theorizing in information systems re-
search. Information Systems Research, 25(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.
2013.0501.
Hou, C.-K. (2012). Examining the effect of user satisfaction on system usage and in-
dividual performance with business intelligence systems: An empirical study of
Taiwan’s electronics industry. International Journal of Information Management, 32(6),
560–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.03.001.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A
review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of
Management Review, 31(2), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208687.
Junglas, I., Goel, L., Abraham, C., & Ives, B. (2013). The social component of information
systems–How sociability contributes to technology acceptance. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 14(10), 585.
Kapoor, K. K., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Williams, M. D. (2014a). Innovation adoption attributes:
A review and synthesis of research findings. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 17(3), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-08-2012-0083.
Kapoor, K. K., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Williams, M. D. (2014b). Rogers’ innovation adoption
attributes: A systematic review and synthesis of existing research. Information Systems
Management, 31(1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2014.854103.
Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness
and ease-of-use. Information & Management, 35(4), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.
1016/s0378-7206(98)00096-2.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption
across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs.
MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183–213. https://doi.org/10.2307/249751.
Knoppen, D., Ateş, M. A., Brandon-Jones, A., Luzzini, D., van Raaij, E., & Wynstra, F.
(2014). A comprehensive assessment of measurement equivalence in operations
management. International Journal of Production Research, 53(1), 166–182. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.944629.
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM. International Journal of e-
Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101.
Kock, N., & Lynn, G. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based
SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 13(7), 546–580.
Kowalczyk, M., & Buxmann, P. (2015). An ambidextrous perspective on business in-
telligence and analytics support in decision processes: Insights from a multiple case
study. Decision Support Systems, 80, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.08.
010.
Krawatzeck, R., & Dinter, B. (2015). Agile business intelligence: Collection and classifi-
cation of agile business intelligence actions by means of a catalog and a selection
guide. Information Systems Management, 32(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10580530.2015.1044336.
Li, X., Hsieh, J. J. P.-A., & Rai, A. (2013). Motivational differences across post-acceptance
information system usage behaviors: An investigation in the business intelligence
systems context. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 659–682. https://doi.org/10.
1287/isre.1120.0456.
Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model transfor-
mation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsis.2015.08.002.
Luo, W. (2016). Responsibility and skills requirements for entry level analytics profes-
sionals. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 28(4), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.4018/joeuc.2016100101.
Mao, E., & Palvia, P. (2006). Testing an extended model of IT acceptance in the Chinese
cultural context. ACM SIGMIS Database, 37(2–3), https://doi.org/10.1145/1161345.
1161351.
Mao, Y., & Quan, J. (2015). IT enabled organisational agility. Journal of Organizational
and End User Computing, 27(4), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2015100101.
Marchand, D. A., Kettinger, W. J., & Rollins, J. D. (2004). Information orientation: The link
to business performance. Oxford University Press.
May, C., & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An
outline of normalization process theory. Sociology, 43(3), 535–554. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0038038509103208.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the per-
ceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems
Research, 2(3), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192.
Nam, D., Lee, J., & Lee, H. (2018). Business analytics use in CRM: A nomological net from
IT competence to CRM performance. International Journal of Information Management.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.005.
Negash, S., & Gray, P. (2008). Business intelligence. In F. Burstein, & C. W. Holsapple
(Eds.). Handbook on decision support systems 2 (pp. 175–193). Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer.
317
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Olszak, C. M. (2016). Toward better understanding and use of business intelligence in
organizations. Information Systems Management, 33(2), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10580530.2016.1155946.
Palvia, P., Kakhki, M. D., Ghoshal, T., Uppala, V., & Wang, W. (2015). Methodological
and topic trends in information systems research: A meta-analysis of IS journals.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 630–650.
Peng, Z., Sun, Y., & Guo, X. (2018). Antecedents of employees’ extended use of enterprise
systems: An integrative view of person, environment, and technology. International
Journal of Information Management, 39, 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2017.11.007.
Peters, T., Işık, Ö., Tona, O., & Popovič, A. (2016). How system quality influences mobile
BI use: The mediating role of engagement. International Journal of Information
Management, 36(5), 773–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.05.003.
Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. R. (2013). Information systems success: The quest for
the independent variables. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 7–62.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290401.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Popovič, A., Coelho, P. S., & Jaklič, J. (2009). The impact of business intelligence system
maturity on information quality. Information Research, 14(4).
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS
GmbH.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in
social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-
9004.2011.00355.x.
Ryans, A. B. (1974). Estimating consumer preferences for a new durable brand in an
established product class. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(4), https://doi.org/10.
2307/3151290.
Seah, M., Hsieh, M. H., & Weng, P.-D. (2010). A case analysis of Savecom: The role of
indigenous leadership in implementing a business intelligence system. International
Journal of Information Management, 30(4), 368–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2010.04.002.
Shah, S., Horne, A., & Capellá, J. (2012). Good data won’t guarantee good decisions.
Harvard Business Review, 90, 23–25.
Sharma, R., Mithas, S., & Kankanhalli, A. (2014). Transforming decision-making pro-
cesses: A research agenda for understanding the impact of business analytics on or-
ganisations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(4), 433–441. https://doi.
org/10.1057/ejis.2014.17.
Sharma, R., Yetton, P. W., & Zmud, R. W. (2008). Implementation costs of IS-enabled
organizational change. Information and Organization, 18(2), 73–100. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.infoandorg.2007.09.001.
Shin, D.-H. (2016). Demystifying big data: Anatomy of big data developmental process.
Telecommunications Policy, 40(9), 837–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.
03.007.
Sinha, J. B. P. (2014). Psycho-social analysis of the Indian mindset – 2014. India: Springer.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312. https://doi.org/10.2307/
270723.
Stern, B. B., Royne, M. B., Stafford, T. F., & Bienstock, C. C. (2008). Consumer acceptance
of online auctions: An extension and revision of the TAM. Psychology & Marketing,
25(7), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20228.
Sun, H. (2012). Understanding user revisions when using information systems features:
Adaptive system use and triggers. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 453–478.
Tate, C. (2015). Differing work styles can help team performance. Harvard Business
Review.
Trieu, V.-H. (2017). Getting value from Business Intelligence systems: A review and re-
search agenda. Decision Support Systems, 93, 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.
2016.09.019.
Trkman, P., McCormack, K., de Oliveira, M. P. V., & Ladeira, M. B. (2010). The impact of
business analytics on supply chain performance. Decision Support Systems, 49(3),
318–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.007.
Tsui, A. S. (2007). From homogenization to pluralism: International management re-
search in the academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6),
1353–1364. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28166121.
van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement in-
variance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda
on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5915.2008.00192.x.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://
doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of in-
formation technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of tech-
nology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Vukšić, V. B., Bach, M. P., & Popovič, A. (2013). Supporting performance management
J. Jaklič et al.
with business process management and business intelligence: A case analysis of in-
tegration and orchestration. International Journal of Information Management, 33(4),
613–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.03.008.
Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and
technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/
10.1287/isre.1050.0042.
Xiao, X., & Wang, T. (2016). The implications of social influence theory on continuance
intention for social networking among Chinese university students. Journal of
Organizational and End User Computing, 28(4), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.
318
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 305–318
2016100104.
Xu, X., Wang, X., Li, Y., & Haghighi, M. (2017). Business intelligence in online customer
textual reviews: Understanding consumer perceptions and influential factors.
International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 673–683. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.06.004.
Yoon, T. E., Ghosh, B., & Jeong, B. K. (2014). User acceptance of business intelligence (BI)
application: Technology, individual difference, social influence, and situational
constraints. Paper Presented at the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences.