Information quality, user satisfaction, and the manifestation of workarounds: a qualitative and quantitative study of enterprise content management system users

Figures & data

Table 1 Causes, forms, and consequences of workarounds

Causes	Workaround behavior	Consequences
Management ∙ Loss of self-esteem, social prestige, or social power (Pfaffenberger, 1992) ∙ To feign compliance with management goals, regulations, or behavioral expectations (Brazel & Dang, 2008; Broadhurst et al, 2009) ∙ To prevent mishaps (Petrides, 2004) User satisfaction ∙ A given technology does not fit the realities and contingencies of day-to-day work (Alter, 2014) ∙ Conditions that prevent users from achieving a desired level of efficiency, effectiveness, or other goals (Alter, 2014) ∙ Lack of specific functions or capabilities (Davison and Ou 2013; Strong & Volkoff, 2010) ∙ Routines and processes used are not well designed (Gasser, 1986; Koppel et al, 2008; Strong and Miller, 1995; Vogelsmeier et al, 2007)	Positive ∙ Creative acts (Ash et al, 2004) ∙ Methods of handling exceptions (Truex et al, 2000) ∙ Improvisation (Alter 2014) ∙ Response to obstacles, expectations, or mishaps (Alter 2014)   Negative ∙ Bricolage (McGann & Lyytinen, 2008) ∙ Deviations from routines, processes, and methods (Truex et al, 2000) ∙ Distortions (Pollock, 2005) ∙ Facades of compliance (Ash et al, 2004; Azad & King, 2011; Halbesleben et al, 2010; Patterson et al, 2006) ∙ Resistance (Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006) Subterfuge (Pollock, 2005) ∙ Usage of shadow systems (Ignatiadis & Nandhakumar, 2009)	Positive ∙ Enables employees to continue working (Koppel et al, 2008; Russell, 2007) ∙ Leads to improvements during implementation (Safadi & Faraj, 2010) Negative ∙ Creates errors (Boudreau & Robey, 2005; Cvach, 2012; Gasparas and Monteiro 2009) ∙ Creates hazards (Boudreau & Robey, 2005; Cvach, 2012; Gasparas & Monteiro, 2009) ∙ Creates inefficiency (Boudreau & Robey, 2005; Cvach, 2012; Gasparas & Monteiro, 2009) ∙ Negative impact on subsequent work activities (Boudreau & Robey, 2005; Cvach, 2012; Gasparas & Monteiro, 2009)

Table 2 Examples of workarounds at the observed financial service provider

Workaround	Description
Calling	Employees call experts by phone when they have any a question instead of searching for the information they need in the ECM system.
E-mail	If experts do not respond by phone, employees write an e-mail requesting help and information.
Hey, Joe	Employees ask their co-workers for help instead of searching for information. If co-workers cannot provide the information, they call experts in the organization.
Shadow systems	Employees use their own local file systems to share information within a group of people.
Tickets	Instead of using the information provided that might solve an IT issue, employees open tickets to get help from the IT department.

Table 3 Representational information quality and its characteristics (N = 34)

Characteristic	Exemplary quotation
Conciseness 26 (76.5%)	The way information is presented is not succinct. I always believe it could be expressed with the half of the words they use.
Presentation 24 (70.6%)	Information is presented in an inexplicable way.
Understandability 14 (41.2%)	The information I need for my work is formatted such that it requires extra effort to understand it.

Note: Total number of interviews the characteristic was mentioned in percentage in relation to N = 34).

Table 4 Contextual information quality and its characteristics (N = 34)

Characteristic	Exemplified quotation
Completeness 15 (44.1%)	The information provided is not complete. I lack explicit information that helps me to prepare my sales talks.
Relevance 27 (79.4%)	The information provided is not relevant to my task. It does not make it easier for me to decide which steps to follow and which department I should forward the customer request to.
Timeliness 12 (35.3%)	I believe the information is not provided in time. We need to answer customer questions about new products but we are not provided with the information when the new product is launched.
Usefulness 28 (82.4%)	The information is simply not usable for our task as there is so much information presented that we cannot use it.

Note: Total number of interviews the characteristic was mentioned in percentage in relation to N = 34).

Table 5 Demographics of survey participants (N = 247)

Age					Gender		Field of activity
<21	21–30	31–40	41–50	>50	Male	Female	Front office (sales)	Back office	Administration
11.4%	29.0%	23.7%	22.0%	13.9%	43.0%	57.0%	64.3%	13.2%	22.5%

Table 6 Mediation tests

Influence of … on ….	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3
	Manifestation of workarounds	User satisfaction	User satisfaction	Manifestation of workarounds (Delta to step 1)
Contextual information quality	−0.421***	0.729***	0.728***	−0.169*
				(0.252)
Representational information quality	−0.319***	0.672***	0.671***	−0.003ns
				(0.316)
System quality	−0.495***	0.774***	0.772***	−0.345***
				(0.150)
Service quality	−0.312***	0.500***	0.498***	−0.111ns
				(0.201)

Note: For all tests, the influence of user satisfaction on the manifestation of workarounds is −0.468***.

*** p < 0.001; ns p > 0.1.

Figure 1 Research model.

Figure 2 Structural model validation for the second-order factor model. The four quality constructs are conceptualized as superordinate constructs as suggested by Gable et al (2008) [reflective first-order and formative second-order constructs; Polites et al (2012) and evaluated as suggested by Wright et al (2012)].

Table A1 Items of workarounds and q-sorting results (items below 0.61 are removed, here: WA-5)

ID	Item	q-sorting  (correct assignment)
WA-1	I always look for ways to avoid using the system.	0.89
WA-2	Instead of using the system, I often use alternatives.	0.92
WA-3	I use alternatives instead of the intended system I should use.	0.92
WA-4	I avoid using the system whenever I can.	0.87
WA-5	Using alternatives instead of the system is an obvious choice for me.	0.60

WA: Workaround.

Table A2 Factor analysis

	Component
	Intention to resist (ITR)	Employee grumbling (EG)	Workarounds (WA)
ITR-1	0.704
ITR-2	0.803
ITR-3	0.835
ITR-4	0.745
EG-1		0.765
EG-2		0.708
EG-3		0.802
WA-1			0.834
WA-2			0.734
WA-3			0.765
WA-4			0.821

Factor loadings below 0.4 are not displayed in the table. We used Varimax method for rotation and Eigenwert 1 for the explorative factor analysis.

ITR: Intention to resist (4 items based on Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009).

EG: Employee grumbling (3 items based on Laumer et al, 2014).

WA: Workarounds (4 items based on steps 1 and 2).

Table A3 q-sorting results

	Representational information quality (%)	Contextual information quality (%)	No assignment (%)
Consistency	16.7	77.8	5.5
Format	0.0	100.0	0.0
Understandability	5.6	88.8	5.6
Completeness	83.3	16.7	0.0
Relevance	88.8	5.6	5.6
Timeliness	77.8	16.7	5.5
Usefulness	94.4	0.0	5.6

Table A4 Definition of quality characteristics

Variable	Characteristics	Definition
System quality	Complexity	The perception that IS complexity causes inconsistent outcomes and the need for expert support.
	Flexibility	Perception of the ease of changing the IS to meet changing business needs.
	Navigation	Perception of the ease of navigating through IS and of searching for information.
	Usability	Perception of the extent to which the IS is visually appealing, consistent, fun and easy to use.
Service quality	Service reliability	Perception of the degree of the accuracy, dependability and consistency of the services provided to use an IS.
	Service responsiveness	Perception of the degree that prompt service is provided to IS users.
Representational information quality	Consistency	Perception that the information is always presented in the same format and is compatible with previous information.
	Format	Perception that the format of the information provided by an IS is simple, sufficient and adequate.
	Understandability	Perception that the information provided by an IS has clear meaning and is easy to comprehend.
Contextual information quality	Completeness	The perception that the information provided by an IS is complete, sufficient and adequate.
	Relevance	Perception of relevancy, clarity, applicability and strength of the information of an IS.
	Timeliness	Perception that the information is provided in a timely, adequate and reasonable manner by the IS.
	Usefulness	Perception that the information of an IS is informative, valuable and useful for the user.

Table A5 Measurement items and loadings

Construct	Item	Loading	Reference
Net benefits	The ECM system helps me to improve my job performance.	0.898	Iivari (2005)
	Using the ECM system improves my content-related work.	0.945
	Using the ECM system increases my productivity.	0.931
	Overall, using the ECM system enhances my content-related work.	0.955
	The ECM system helps me to improve my work efficiency.	0.912
Workarounds	I always look for ways to avoid using the system.	0.831	Self-developed (see Appendix A)
	Instead of using the system, I often use alternatives.	0.749
	I use alternatives instead of the intended system I should use.	0.658
	I avoid using the system whenever I can.	0.655
Satisfaction	Overall, I am very satisfied with the ECM system.	0.928	Bhattacherjee (2001)
	Working with the ECM system is satisfactory.	0.947
	Overall, I am satisfied with the ECM system.	0.900
Contextual information quality
Completeness	The ECM system provides me with complete information.	0.911	Wixom & Todd (2005)
	The ECM system produces comprehensive information.	0.924
Relevance	Information within the ECM system is applicable.	0.887	McKinney et al (2002)
	Information with the ECM system is relevant for my job.	0.740
	In general, information within the ECM system is relevant.	0.867
Timeliness	The information provided within the ECM system is up-to-date.	0.896	Chang & King (2005)
	The information provided within the ECM system is received in a timely manner.	0.896
Usefulness	Information within the ECM system is informative.	0.885	McKinney et al (2002)
	Information within the ECM system is valuable.	0.903
Representational information quality
Format	The information provided within the ECM system is well laid out.	0.926	Wixom & Todd (2005)
	The information provided within the ECM system clearly presented on the screen.	0.821
Consistency	Information within the ECM system is accurate.	0.882	McKinney et al (2002)
	In general, information within the ECM system is reliable.	0.894
Understandability	Within the ECM system, information is easy to comprehend.	0.944	Chang & King (2005)
	Within the ECM system, information that is clear in its meaning.	0.943
System quality
Complexity	The ECM system is too complex to handle appropriately.	0.630	Ragu-Nathan et al (2008)
	It is too complex to use the ECM system to search information.	0.915
	I find it too complex to understand and use the ECM system.	0.905
Flexibility	The ECM system can be adapted to meet a variety of needs.	0.911	Wixom & Todd (2005)
	The ECM system can flexibly adjust to new demands or conditions.	0.925
Navigation	Within the ECM system it is easy to go back and forth between pages.	0.830	McKinney et al (2002)
	With a few clicks it is possible to locate the information in the ECM system.	0.925
	In general, the ECM system is easy to navigate.	0.916
Usability	The ECM system is easy to use.	0.944	McKinney et al (2002)
	In general, the ECM system is user-friendly.	0.939
Service quality
Service reliability	When I have a problem with the ECM system, the IT department shows a sincere interest in solving it.	0.911	Pitt et al (1995)
	When I have a problem with the ECM system, the service provided by the IT department is dependable.	0.943
	When I have a problem with the ECM system, the service provided is effective.	0.927
Service responsiveness	When I have a problem with the ECM system, the service employees respond in a timely manner.	0.895	Chang & King (2005); Pitt et al (1995)
	When I have a problem with the ECM system, the service is completed in a timely manner.	0.956
	When I have a problem with the ECM system, the services is provided in the time promised.	0.965
Controls (single item)
Age	How old are you?	i
Gender	Are you male or female?	i
Usage	How often do you use the ECM system?	i

Table A6 First-order reliability, AVEs, and correlation of constructs

	AVE	Composite reliability	Cronbach's alpha	1	2	3	4.1	4.2	4.3	4.4	5.1
1 Net benefits	0.862	0.969	0.960	0.929
2 Workaround	0.528	0.816	0.720	−0.431	0.727
3 Satisfaction	0.856	0.947	0.915	0.650	−0.459	0.925
4 Contextual information quality (2nd order construct)
4.1 Completeness	0.842	0.914	0.809	0.491	−0.357	0.639	0.917
4.2 Relevance	0.695	0.872	0.781	0.561	−0.368	0.672	0.596	0.834
4.3 Timeliness	0.803	0.891	0.754	0.383	−0.337	0.454	0.622	0.595	0.896
4.4 Usefulness	0.799	0.889	0.746	0.551	−0.391	0.701	0.702	0.773	0.620	0.894
5 Representational information quality (2nd order construct)
5.1 Format	0.767	0.867	0.707	0.429	−0.251	0.641	0.513	0.662	0.529	0.586	0.876
5.2 Consistency	0.788	0.882	0.726	0.385	−0.172	0.432	0.470	0.588	0.607	0.601	0.520
5.3 Understandability	0.890	0.942	0.876	0.512	−0.388	0.635	0.573	0.737	0.559	0.740	0.640
6 System quality (2nd order construct)
6.1 Complexity	0.684	0.864	0.756	−0.422	0.431	−0.668	−0.395	−0.456	−0.327	−0.476	−0.525
6.2 Flexibility	0.842	0.914	0.812	0.592	−0.236	0.541	0.414	0.608	0.414	0.464	0.386
6.3 Navigation	0.795	0.921	0.868	0.348	−0.220	0.459	0.342	0.427	0.315	0.416	0.395
6.4 Usability	0.887	0.940	0.869	0.497	−0.471	0.749	0.428	0.556	0.387	0.509	0.556
7 Service quality (2nd order construct)
7.1 Service reliability	0.859	0.948	0.916	0.394	−0.280	0.439	0.378	0.418	0.336	0.438	0.367
7.2 Service responsiveness	0.882	0.957	0.928	0.407	−0.304	0.515	0.396	0.415	0.302	0.428	0.364
8 Age		Single-item constructs		−0.071	0.038	−0.034	0.008	0.025	0.006	−0.046	−0.127
9 Gender				−0.009	−0.003	0.150	0.082	0.092	0.049	0.054	0.112
10 Usage				−0.270	0.184	−0.219	−0.078	−0.264	−0.147	−0.187	−0.177

	5.2	5.3	6.1	6.2	6.3	6.4	7.1	7.2	8	9	10
1 Net benefits
2 Workaround
3 Satisfaction
4 Contextual information quality (2nd order construct)
4.1 Completeness
4.2 Relevance
4.3 Timeliness
4.4 Usefulness
5 Representational information quality (2nd order construct)
5.1 Format
5.2 Consistency	0.888
5.3 Understandability	0.552	0.943
6 System quality (2nd order construct)
6.1 Complexity	−0.215	−0.485	0.827
6.2 Flexibility	0.294	0.460	−0.374	0.918
6.3 Navigation	0.238	0.400	−0.513	0.371	0.892
6.4 Usability	0.319	0.543	−0.600	0.536	0.492	0.942
7 Service quality (2nd order construct)
7.1 Service reliability	0.380	0.430	−0.324	0.331	0.303	0.341	0.927
7.2 Service responsiveness	0.321	0.428	−0.380	0.337	0.399	0.403	0.849	0.939
8 Age	−0.076	−0.040	0.044	−0.002	−0.062	−0.043	−0.051	−0.010	n.a.
9 Gender	0.069	0.061	−0.115	0.151	0.021	0.126	0.092	0.062	0.091	n.a.
10 Usage	−0.165	−0.192	0.091	−0.185	−0.159	−0.211	−0.130	−0.118	0.135	0.016	n.a.

Table A7 Cross-loadings (first-order constructs)

Item	1	2	3	4.1	4.2	4.3	4.4	5.1	5.2	5.3
1 Net benefits	0.898	−0.414	0.689	0.463	0.562	0.352	0.543	0.464	0.391	0.490
	0.945	−0.352	0.553	0.404	0.481	0.340	0.466	0.369	0.319	0.452
	0.931	−0.355	0.532	0.440	0.463	0.346	0.470	0.369	0.320	0.436
	0.955	−0.371	0.542	0.472	0.503	0.380	0.492	0.362	0.353	0.447
	0.912	−0.484	0.667	0.485	0.573	0.354	0.565	0.409	0.387	0.531
2 Workaround	−0.430	0.831	−0.453	−0.348	−0.426	−0.318	−0.459	−0.262	−0.313	−0.414
	−0.332	0.749	−0.351	−0.322	−0.234	−0.278	−0.242	−0.158	−0.077	−0.232
	−0.112	0.658	−0.214	−0.168	−0.137	−0.183	−0.134	−0.136	0.009	−0.183
	−0.265	0.655	−0.229	−0.123	−0.162	−0.151	−0.178	−0.130	0.026	−0.224
3 Satisfaction	0.562	−0.393	0.928	0.584	0.624	0.417	0.632	0.623	0.411	0.583
	0.612	−0.426	0.947	0.588	0.638	0.406	0.659	0.606	0.432	0.609
	0.632	−0.455	0.900	0.603	0.603	0.439	0.655	0.549	0.355	0.569
4 Contextual information quality (2nd order construct)
4.1 Completeness	0.432	−0.362	0.563	0.911	0.539	0.520	0.635	0.425	0.387	0.543
	0.467	−0.297	0.609	0.924	0.555	0.618	0.653	0.513	0.472	0.510
4.2 Relevance	0.500	−0.333	0.663	0.557	0.887	0.529	0.642	0.664	0.479	0.640
	0.411	−0.241	0.366	0.311	0.740	0.319	0.488	0.346	0.423	0.400
	0.485	−0.330	0.588	0.561	0.867	0.586	0.766	0.566	0.558	0.739
4.3 Timeliness	0.336	−0.267	0.407	0.545	0.567	0.896	0.540	0.480	0.606	0.468
	0.349	−0.337	0.406	0.569	0.498	0.896	0.572	0.468	0.481	0.534
4.4 Usefulness	0.531	−0.354	0.596	0.528	0.736	0.486	0.885	0.464	0.506	0.637
	0.459	−0.346	0.656	0.718	0.652	0.617	0.903	0.578	0.566	0.685
5 Representational information quality (2nd order construct)
5.1 Format	0.427	−0.300	0.656	0.516	0.614	0.482	0.563	0.926	0.434	0.585
	0.307	−0.103	0.433	0.360	0.542	0.446	0.450	0.821	0.498	0.537
5.2 Consistency	0.306	−0.111	0.372	0.364	0.452	0.451	0.469	0.428	0.882	0.464
	0.374	−0.192	0.394	0.467	0.588	0.621	0.595	0.493	0.894	0.515
5.3 Understandability	0.471	−0.380	0.602	0.508	0.687	0.484	0.684	0.595	0.503	0.944
	0.494	−0.352	0.595	0.574	0.704	0.572	0.713	0.613	0.538	0.943
6 System quality (2nd order construct)
6.1 Complexity	−0.205	0.213	−0.355	−0.266	−0.316	−0.264	−0.256	−0.333	−0.116	−0.263
	−0.331	0.387	−0.592	−0.289	−0.324	−0.205	−0.370	−0.390	−0.108	−0.422
	−0.462	0.421	−0.650	−0.410	−0.479	−0.349	−0.509	−0.551	−0.283	−0.477
6.2 Flexibility	0.477	−0.211	0.478	0.352	0.575	0.358	0.443	0.361	0.264	0.408
	0.606	−0.222	0.515	0.407	0.543	0.402	0.411	0.348	0.275	0.436
6.3 Navigation	0.249	−0.123	0.350	0.265	0.319	0.236	0.331	0.309	0.161	0.309
	0.357	−0.227	0.440	0.343	0.398	0.330	0.414	0.359	0.255	0.373
	0.316	−0.224	0.428	0.301	0.416	0.270	0.362	0.385	0.212	0.383
6.4 Usability	0.474	−0.446	0.718	0.394	0.521	0.353	0.491	0.508	0.320	0.542
	0.461	−0.442	0.693	0.412	0.526	0.377	0.467	0.541	0.281	0.480
7 Service quality (2nd order construct)
7.1 Service reliability	0.362	−0.241	0.383	0.313	0.374	0.276	0.374	0.305	0.380	0.392
	0.399	−0.221	0.429	0.375	0.394	0.343	0.423	0.370	0.370	0.431
	0.332	−0.320	0.406	0.361	0.395	0.313	0.420	0.340	0.306	0.371
7.2 Service responsiveness	0.337	−0.251	0.426	0.365	0.365	0.298	0.404	0.386	0.328	0.430
	0.370	−0.269	0.479	0.356	0.389	0.274	0.396	0.304	0.288	0.381
	0.430	−0.330	0.537	0.394	0.411	0.282	0.407	0.341	0.294	0.401
8 Age	−0.071	0.038	−0.034	0.008	0.025	0.006	−0.046	−0.127	−0.076	−0.040
9 Gender	−0.009	−0.003	0.150	0.082	0.092	0.049	0.054	0.112	0.069	0.061
10 Usage	−0.270	0.184	−0.219	−0.078	−0.264	−0.147	−0.187	−0.177	−0.165	−0.192

Item	6.1	6.2	6.3	6.4	7.1	7.2	8	9	10
1 Net benefits	−0.477	0.535	0.362	0.539	0.365	0.391	−0.037	−0.009	−0.283
	−0.369	0.535	0.297	0.413	0.332	0.313	−0.104	−0.004	−0.225
	−0.306	0.542	0.281	0.415	0.341	0.360	−0.079	−0.040	−0.260
	−0.324	0.549	0.300	0.395	0.357	0.371	−0.081	−0.034	−0.239
	−0.454	0.577	0.358	0.515	0.418	0.433	−0.041	0.035	−0.239
2 Workaround	0.383	−0.268	−0.212	−0.435	−0.278	−0.304	−0.060	−0.051	0.163
	0.320	−0.270	−0.157	−0.355	−0.195	−0.247	−0.061	−0.049	0.138
	0.272	0.002	−0.117	−0.283	−0.109	−0.109	0.149	0.060	0.022
	0.252	−0.019	−0.122	−0.252	−0.175	−0.147	0.210	0.100	0.169
3 Satisfaction	−0.646	0.500	0.439	0.722	0.433	0.526	0.001	0.135	−0.188
	−0.611	0.516	0.441	0.734	0.394	0.456	−0.011	0.130	−0.238
	−0.595	0.486	0.391	0.620	0.391	0.448	−0.087	0.150	−0.182
4 Contextual information quality (2nd order construct)
4.1 Completeness	−0.403	0.368	0.328	0.359	0.376	0.354	−0.026	0.048	−0.082
	−0.326	0.392	0.301	0.423	0.320	0.372	0.038	0.100	−0.063
4.2 Relevance	−0.474	0.563	0.402	0.591	0.333	0.373	0.001	0.073	−0.156
	−0.197	0.476	0.243	0.287	0.237	0.219	0.040	0.083	−0.293
	−0.404	0.483	0.384	0.446	0.449	0.407	0.033	0.081	−0.256
4.3 Timeliness	−0.296	0.397	0.305	0.317	0.275	0.254	-0.004	0.102	−0.127
	−0.290	0.345	0.259	0.377	0.328	0.287	0.015	−0.014	−0.137
4.4 Usefulness	−0.435	0.417	0.374	0.427	0.381	0.346	−0.004	0.069	−0.180
	−0.418	0.414	0.370	0.481	0.402	0.416	−0.075	0.030	−0.156
5 Representational information quality (2nd order construct)
5.1 Format	−0.534	0.380	0.372	0.567	0.346	0.358	−0.138	0.142	−0.245
	−0.359	0.282	0.315	0.379	0.292	0.268	−0.075	0.034	−0.022
5.2 Consistency	−0.184	0.228	0.177	0.267	0.361	0.294	−0.062	0.109	−0.121
	−0.198	0.291	0.244	0.299	0.316	0.277	−0.073	0.017	−0.170
5.3 Understandability	−0.453	0.423	0.390	0.532	0.386	0.396	0.009	0.050	−0.198
	−0.463	0.444	0.365	0.492	0.426	0.411	-0.085	0.065	−0.163
6 System quality (2nd order construct)
6.1 Complexity	0.630	−0.189	−0.657	−0.356	−0.173	−0.226	0.016	−0.104	0.061
	0.915	−0.282	−0.363	−0.540	−0.241	-0.293	0.030	−0.120	−0.002
	0.905	−0.417	−0.373	−0.563	−0.357	−0.395	0.055	−0.073	0.158
6.2 Flexibility	−0.357	0.911	0.394	0.507	0.277	0.309	0.013	0.108	−0.170
	−0.330	0.925	0.291	0.478	0.329	0.310	−0.015	0.168	−0.169
6.3 Navigation	−0.374	0.263	0.830	0.349	0.281	0.338	0.001	0.036	−0.089
	−0.501	0.357	0.925	0.473	0.249	0.343	−0.119	0.035	−0.171
	−0.485	0.360	0.916	0.477	0.285	0.387	−0.037	−0.013	−0.158
6.4 Usability	−0.553	0.504	0.482	0.944	0.316	0.369	−0.079	0.085	−0.214
	−0.578	0.505	0.444	0.939	0.327	0.390	0.000	0.152	−0.183
7 Service quality (2nd order construct)
7.1 Service reliability	−0.245	0.294	0.228	0.271	0.911	0.735	−0.063	0.114	−0.149
	−0.315	0.337	0.286	0.318	0.943	0.798	−0.043	0.102	−0.095
	−0.339	0.289	0.324	0.358	0.927	0.827	−0.036	0.041	−0.121
7.2 Service responsiveness	−0.353	0.262	0.335	0.342	0.868	0.895	−0.029	0.033	−0.130
	−0.346	0.327	0.367	0.384	0.779	0.956	−0.005	0.038	−0.073
	−0.372	0.352	0.415	0.404	0.761	0.965	0.002	0.096	−0.131
8 Age	0.044	−0.002	−0.062	−0.043	−0.051	−0.010	1.000	0.091	0.135
9 Gender	−0.115	0.151	0.021	0.126	0.092	0.062	0.091	1.000	0.016
10 Usage	0.091	−0.185	−0.159	−0.211	−0.130	−0.118	0.135	0.016	1.000

Table A8 ECM software vendor's overview based on Gartner’s magic ECM quadrant 2013 (Gilbert et al, 2013)

Vendor	Software	Gartner’s magic quadrant
IBM	IBM Connections, Web Content Manager, IBM Docs	Leader
Microsoft	SharePoint	Leader
Hyland Software	OnBase	Leader
OpenText	OpenText OpenText Cloud	Leader
EMC	Documentum Platform EMC OnDemand	Leader
Oracle	WebCenter Content	Challengers
Xerox	Xerox Transactional Content Manager (XTCM), Xerox mortgage services/BlitzDocs, Xerox litigation services (OmniX, CategoriX and Viewpoint) Xerox DocuShare	Visionaries
Alfresco	Alfresco (on-premises, cloud)	Visionaries

Table A9 User resistance behavior

Category	Dimension/example	References
System usage	Intention to use	Bhattacherjee & Hikmet (2007), Polites et al (2012), Eckhardt et al (2009)
	Discontinuous usage intention	Maier et al (2015a), Maier et al (2015b), Turel (2014)
	Refusal to use system	Klaus et al (2010), Klaus & Blanton (2010), Martinko et al (1996)
	Avoid system use	Klaus et al (2010), Klaus & Blanton (2010), Martinko et al (1996)
	Not utilizing the new system when utilization is voluntary or mandatory/expected	Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
Complaining	Complaints	Klaus et al (2010), Klaus & Blanton (2010), Markus (1983), Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
	Impatient during training	Klaus et al (2010), Klaus & Blanton (2010)
	Voicing dissatisfaction	Lapointe & Rivard (2005)
	Humor	Klaus et al (2010), Rivard & Lapointe (2012), Selander & Henfridsson (2012)
	Voicing opposite views	Lapointe & Rivard (2005), Markus (1983), Rivard & Lapointe (2012), Selander & Henfridsson (2012)
	Gossiping about the implementers and the system	Rivard & Lapointe (2012), Selander & Henfridsson (2012)
	Voicing feelings of fear and concern toward the system/project	Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
	Telling negative stories about the system	Selander & Henfridsson (2012)
	Irony and satire	Selander & Henfridsson (2012)
Motivation and productivity	Decreasing motivation	Klaus et al (2010)
	Decreasing productivity	Klaus et al (2010)
	Procrastinating	Klaus et al (2010)
Cooperation	Intention to resist	Kim & Kankanhalli (2009), Laumer et al (2015a, 2016)
	Rebellion	Lapointe & Rivard (2005), Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
	Inaction/lack of interest	Lapointe & Rivard (2005), Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
	Avoiding involvement in the project	Joshi (1991), Rivard & Lapointe (2012), Selander & Henfridsson (2012)
	Pretending to comply	Kim & Kankanhalli (2009), Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
	Asking others to intervene on project-related issues	Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
	Forming coalitions	Lapointe & Rivard (2005), Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
	Boycotting project activities	Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
	Boycotting the system	Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
	Going on strike	Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
Turnover	Quit job/job change	Klaus et al (2010), Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
	Turnover intention	Lapointe & Rivard (2005), Maier et al (2013)
	Calling in sick	Selander & Henfridsson (2012)
Sabotage	Hacking the system	Klaus et al (2010)
	Entering information inappropriately	Klaus et al (2010), Marakas & Hornik (1996)
Workarounds	Using shadow system	Klaus et al (2010)
	Performing job differently than directed	Klaus et al (2010)
	Trying to use old system	Klaus et al (2010)
	Persisting in using a former system in parallel with the new system when usage is voluntary	Rivard & Lapointe (2012)
	Persisting in using the former system in parallel with the new system when usage is mandatory/expected	Rivard & Lapointe (2012)

PfaffenbergerBTechnological dramasScience, Technology & Human Values199217328231210.1177/016224399201700302

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BrazelJFDangLThe effect of ERP system implementations on the management of earnings and earnings release datesJournal of Information Systems200822212110.2308/jis.2008.22.2.1

 Google Scholar

Broadhurst K, Wastell D, White S, Hall C, Peckover S, Thompson K, Pithouse A and Davey D (2009) Performing ‘initial assessment’: identifying the latent conditions for error at the front-door of local authority children’s services. British journal of social work.

 Google Scholar

PetridesLACosts and benefits of the workaround: inventive solution or costly alternativeInternational Journal of Educational Management2004182100108

 Google Scholar

AlterSTheory of WorkaroundsCommunications of the Association for Information Systems201434155

 Google Scholar

Davison RM and Ou CXJ (2013) Sharing knowledge in technology deficient environments: individual workarounds Amid corporate restrictions. Proceedings of the 2013 European Conference on Information Systems.

 Google Scholar

StrongDMVolkoffOUnderstanding organization-enterprise system fit: a path to theorizing the information technology artifactMIS Quarterly2010344731756

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

GasserLThe integration of computing and routine workACM Transactions on Information Systems19864320522510.1145/214427.214429

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Koppel R, Wetterneck T, Telles JL and Karsh B-T (2008) Workarounds to barcode medication administration systems: their occurrences, causes, and threats to patient safety. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association15(4), 408–423.

 Google Scholar

StrongDMMillerSMExceptions and exception handling in computerized information processesACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS)199513220623310.1145/201040.201049

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

VogelsmeierAAHalbeslebenJRScott-CawiezellJRTechnology implementation and workarounds in the nursing homeJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association200715111411910.1197/jamia.M2378

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

AshJSBergMCoieraESome unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errorsJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association200411210411210.1197/jamia.M1471

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

TruexDBaskervilleRTravisJAmethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methodsAccounting, management and information technologies2000101537910.1016/S0959-8022(99)00009-0

 Google Scholar

Mcgann ST and Lyytinen K (2008) The improvisation effect: a case study of user improvisation and its effects on information system evolution. Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Information Systems.

 Google Scholar

PollockNWhen is a work-around? Conflict and negotiation in computer systems developmentScience, Technology & Human Values200530449651410.1177/0162243905276501

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

AzadBKingNInstitutionalized computer workaround practices in a Mediterranean country: an examination of two organizationsEuropean Journal of Information Systems201121435837210.1057/ejis.2011.48

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HalbeslebenJRBSavageGTWakefieldDSWakefieldBJRework and workarounds in nurse medication administration processHealth Care Management Review201035212413310.1097/HMR.0b013e3181d116c2

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

PattersonESRogersMLChapmanRJRenderMLCompliance with intended use of bar code medication administration in acute and long-term care: an observational studyHuman Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society2006481152210.1518/001872006776412234

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FerneleyEHSobreperezPResist, comply or workaround? An examination of different facets of user engagement with information systemsEuropean Journal of Information Systems200615434535610.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000629

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

IgnatiadisINandhakumarJThe effect of ERP system workarounds on organizational control: An interpretivist case studyScandinavian Journal of Information Systems20092123

 Google Scholar

RussellB‘You Gotta lie to IT’: software applications and the management of technological change in a call centreNew Technology, Work and Employment200722213214510.1111/j.1468-005X.2007.00189.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Safadi H and Faraj S (2010) The role of workarounds during an opensource electronic medical record system implementation. Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Information Systems.

 Google Scholar

Boudreau M-C and Robey D (2005) Enacting integrated information technology: a human agency perspective. Organization Science16(1), 3–18.

 Google Scholar

CvachMMonitor alarm fatigue: an integrative reviewBiomedical Instrumentation & Technology201246426827710.2345/0899-8205-46.4.268

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Gasparas J and Monteiro E (2009) Cross-contextual use of integrated information systems. Proceedings of the 2009 European Conference on Information Systems.

 Google Scholar

GableGGSederaDTaizanCHANRe-conceptualizing Information System Success: The IS-Impact Measurement ModelJournal of the Association for Information Systems200897132

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

PolitesGLRobertsNThatcherJConceptualizing models using multidimensional constructs: a review and guidelines for their useEuropean Journal of Information Systems2012211224810.1057/ejis.2011.10

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

WrightRTCampbellDEThatcherJBRobertsNOperationalizing Multidimensional Constructs in Structural Equation Modeling: Recommendations for IS ResearchCommunications of the Association for Information Systems201230123

 Google Scholar

Kim H-W and Kankanhalli A (2009) Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly33(3), 567–582.

 Google Scholar

Laumer S, Maier C, Eckhardt A and Weitzel T (2014) Why are they grumbling about my new system? Theoretical foundation and empirical evidence of employee grumbling as a user resistance behavior. Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Information Systems.

 Google Scholar

IivariJAn empirical test of the DeLone-McLean model of information system successACM SIGMIS Database200536282710.1145/1066149.1066152

 Google Scholar

BhattacherjeeAUnderstanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation modelMIS Quarterly200125335137010.2307/3250921

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

WixomBHToddPAA theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptanceInformation Systems Research20051618510210.1287/isre.1050.0042

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McKinneyVYoonKZahediFMThe Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation ApproachInformation Systems Research200213329631510.1287/isre.13.3.296.76

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ragu-NathanTSTarafdarMRagu-NathanBSTuQThe Consequences of Technostress for End Users in Organizations: Conceptual Development and Empirical ValidationInformation Systems Research200819441743310.1287/isre.1070.0165

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

PittLFWatsonRTKavanCBService Quality: A Measure of Information Systems EffectivenessMIS Quarterly199519217310.2307/249687

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chang JC-J and King WR (2005) Measuring the Performance of Information Systems: A Functional Scorecard. Journal of Management Information Systems22(1), 85.

 Google Scholar

Gilbert MR, Shegda KM, Chin K, Tay G and Koehler-Kruener H (2013) Magic quadrant for enterprise content management.

 Google Scholar

BhattacherjeeAHikmetNPhysicians’ resistance toward healthcare information technology: a theoretical model and empirical testEuropean Journal of Information Systems200716672573710.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000717

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

EckhardtALaumerSWeitzelTWho influences whom? Analyzing workplace referents’ social influence on IT adoption and non-adoptionJournal of Information Technology2009241112410.1057/jit.2008.31

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MaierCLaumerSEckhardtAWeitzelTGiving too much social support: social overload on social networking sitesEuropean Journal of Information Systems201524544746410.1057/ejis.2014.3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MaierCLaumerSWeinertCWeitzelTThe effects of technostress and switching stress on discontinued use of social networking services: a study of Facebook useInformation Systems Journal201525327530810.1111/isj.12068

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Turel O (2014) Quitting the use of habituated hedonic information systems. European Journal of Information Systems.

 Google Scholar

KlausTWingreenSCBlantonJEResistant groups in enterprise system implementations: a Q-methodology examinationJournal of Information Technology20102519110610.1057/jit.2009.7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KlausTBlantonJEUser resistance determinants and the psychological contract in enterprise system implementationsEuropean Journal of Information Systems201019662563610.1057/ejis.2010.39

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MartinkoMJZmudRWHenryJWAn attributional explanation of individual resistance to the introduction of information technologies in the workplaceBehaviour & Information Technology199615531333010.1080/014492996120085a

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

RivardSLapointeLInformation Technology Implementers’ Responses to User Resistance: Nature and EffectsMIS Quarterly2012363897

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MarkusMLPower, Politics, and MIS ImplementationCommunications of the ACM198326643044410.1145/358141.358148

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LapointeLRivardSA Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology ImplementationMIS Quarterly20052931

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SelanderLHenfridssonOCynicism as user resistance in IT implementationInformation Systems Journal201222428931210.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00386.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LaumerSMaierCEckhardtAWeitzelTUser personality and resistance to mandatory information systems in organizations. A theoretical model and empirical test of dispositional resistance to changeJournal of Information Technology2015311678210.1057/jit.2015.17

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LaumerSMaierCEckhardtAWeitzelTWork routines as an object of resistance during information systems implementations. Theoretical foundation and empirical evidenceEuropean Journal of Information Systems201625431734310.1057/ejis.2016.1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

JoshiKA Model of Users’ Perspective on Change: The Case of Information Systems Technology ImplementationMIS Quarterly199115222910.2307/249384

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MaierCLaumerSEckhardtAWeitzelTAnalyzing the impact of HRIS implementations on HR personnel’s job satisfaction and turnover intentionThe Journal of Strategic Information Systems201322319320710.1016/j.jsis.2012.09.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MarakasGMHornikSPassive resistance misuse: overt support and covert recalcitrance in IS implementationEuropean Journal of Information Systems19965320821910.1057/ejis.1996.26

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar