Information Systems in Transition Economies: Does Ownership Matter?

Figures & data

Table 1. Recent empirical studies on IS in transition economies.

	Main research areas
Macro-economic level
Samoilenko and Osei-Bryson (2015)	ICT systems
Weerakkody et al. (2012)	E-government
Dobija et al. (2012)	IT investments
Roztocki and Weistroffer (2009)	ICT systems
Samoilenko (2008)	ICT systems
Harindranath (2008)	ICT systems
Micro-economic level
Soja (2015)	ES
Kokles et al. (2015)	IT systems
Soja and Paliwoda-Pękosz (2013)	ES
Soja (2011)	ES
Themistocleous et al. (2011)	ES
Bernroider et al. (2011)	ERP system absorption

ES = Enterprise Systems; ERP = Enterprise Resource Planning.

Figure 1. Research framework.

Table 2. Profiles of respondent firms.

Company characteristic	Percentage	Company characteristic	Percentage
Number of employees		Business categories
≥ 5000	1.5	Durable consumer goods	13.8
1000–4999	11.9	Fast moving consumer goods	25.0
500–999	12.8	Materials and components	11.2
300–499	17.1	Industrial capital equipment	4.9
100–299	29.1	Industrial services	5.6
20–99	23.7	Consumer services	11.5
0–20	3.9	Other	28.0
Industry of operation		Major field of operation
Agriculture	5.6	B2B	45.2
Building industry	8.2	B2C	54.8
Transportation	4.3
Wholesale commerce	20.5	Ownership
Financial services	5.9	Private domestic	49.1
Mining	0.3	Private foreign	50.9
Processing industry	30.9
Telecommunication and broadcasting	4.9
Retail and commerce	14.1
Other services	4.0
Other	1.3

Table 3. Measurement model summary.

Construct	Standardized loading	Composite reliability	Cronbach’s alpha	Average variance extracted
Perceived usefulness of IS		0.93	0.92	0.73
PU1	0.75
PU2	0.85
PU3	0.84
PU4	0.89
PU5	0.93
Technological turbulence of the industry		0.80	0.79	0.57
TUR1	0.77
TUR2	0.73
TUR3	0.77
Social orientation		0.81	0.80	0.58
SO1	0.85
SO2	0.71
SO3	0.72
Formalization		0.76	0.74	0.51
FOR1	0.74
FOR2	0.65
FOR3	0.76
Organizational commitment		0.90	0.88	0.64
OC1	0.87
OC2	0.90
OC3	0.73
OC4	0.71
OC5	0.79
Ease of use		0.76	0.75	0.51
EU1	0.71
EU2	0.74
EU3	0.70

Model fit: (χ2 = 310.20, df = 190; χ2/df = 1.633; p = 0.000; AGFI = 0.889, GFI = 0.917, NFI = 0.919, IFI = 0.967, CFI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.046). All of the loadings are significant at the p < 0.001 level.

Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

	Overall sample (N = 304)		Domestic firms (N = 149)		Foreign firms (N = 155)		Correlations in the overall sample (N = 304)
Constructs	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
Perceived usefulness of IS	3.64	0.93	3.64	0.93	3.64	0.93	1
Technological turbulence of industry	3.18	0.92	3.07	0.91	3.28	0.92	0.16**	1
Social orientation	2.82	0.87	2.79	0.85	2.85	0.89	0.15**	0.19**	1
Formalization	2.96	0.79	3.00	0.76	2.92	0.83	0.29**	0.10	0.25**	1
Organizational commitment	3.89	0.77	3.97	0.75	3.81	0.79	0.25**	0.03	0.24**	0.19**	1
Ease of use	3.28	0.87	3.25	0.87	3.30	0.87	0.56**	0.07	0.20**	0.29**	0.12*	1

SD = Standard Deviation.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Table 5. Parameter estimates (standardized structural coefficients) and variance explained (R²).

Hypo-theses	Direct effects	Path coefficient
H1	Technological turbulence → Perceived usefulness of IS	0.125*
H2	Social orientation → Perceived usefulness of IS	−0.111
H3	Formalization → Perceived usefulness of IS	0.142*
H4	Organizational commitment → Perceived usefulness of IS	0.139*
H5	Ease of use → Perceived usefulness of IS	0.650***
	Covariates
	B2B/B2C market→ Perceived usefulness of IS	0.088
	Company tenure → Perceived usefulness of IS	−0.079
	Variance explained (R^2)
	Perceived usefulness of IS	0.505

Model fit: χ2(633) = 928.816, χ2/df = 1.467; RMSEA = 0.028; SRMR = 0.064; NNFI = 0.957; CFI = 0.946. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Table 6. Results of multi-group analysis.

	Domestic companies (n = 149)		Foreign companies (n = 155)		Significance of domestic–foreign differences
Relationship	Std. β	sig.	Std. β	sig.	z-score
Technological turbulence → Perceived usefulness of IS	0.213	0.017*	0.105	0.195	−0.918
Social orientation → Perceived usefulness of IS	0.049	0.605	−0.272	0.011*	−2.191**
Formalization → Perceived usefulness of IS	0.114	0.264	0.216	0.024*	0,847
Organizational commitment → Perceived usefulness of IS	−0.040	0.628	0.276	0.000***	2,746***

Notes. z-score significance: 0.01 level if it is greater than 2.58, 0.05 level if greater than 1.96, and 0.10 level if greater than 1.65 (Byrne, 2010).

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Table

Perceived usefulness of IS (Davis, 1989; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
PU1		Using IS improves my job performance.
PU2		Using IS in my job increases my productivity.
PU3		Using IS enhances my effectiveness on the job.
PU4		I find using IS useful in my job.
PU5		Using IS in my job enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly.
Technological turbulence of the industry (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
TUR1		Technological changes provide big opportunities in our industry.
TUR2		The technology in our industry is changing rapidly.
TUR3		A large number of new product ideas have been made possible through technological breakthroughs in our industry.
Social orientation (Maltz et al., 2001; 1 = very untypical, 5 = very typical)
SO1		How typical are the following activities involving individuals from different functional areas organized by your SBU or corporation: Recreation and sport events?
SO2		How typical are the following activities involving individuals from different functional areas organized by your SBU or corporation: After work or evening get-togethers (pub, dinners, etc.)?
SO3		How typical are the following activities involving individuals from different functional areas organized by your SBU or corporation: Joint celebrations, parties (e.g., X-Mas party, birthday, and celebrations)?
Formalization (Deshpandé & Zaltman, 1982; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
FOR1	There is a complete written job description for my position.
FOR2	We follow strict operational procedures at all times.
FOR3	The organization keeps a written record of everyone’s performance.
Organizational commitment (McGee & Ford, 1987; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
OC1	I feel emotionally attached to this organization.
OC2	This company has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
OC3	I would be glad to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
OC4	I enjoy discussing this organization with people outside of it.
OC5	I really feel this organization’s problems are my own.
Ease of use (Davis, 1989; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
EU1	It is easy to learn how to use our system.
EU2	I find it easy to get the IS to do what I want it to do.
EU3	It is easy for me to become skillful at using our IS.
Ownership: 1 = majority of the firm is owned by domestic owner; 2 = majority of the firm is owned by foreign owner (Nominal scale, dummy variable)
Company tenure: For how many years have you been working for this company? (open ended question)
B2B vs. B2C: 1 = Majority of incomes derive from B2B markets; 2 = Majority of incomes derive from B2C markets (Nominal scale, dummy variable)

Samoilenko, S., & Osei-Bryson, K. (2015). Before and after joining the European Union: The impact of investments in telecoms on the Visegrád group of countries and Baltic states. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 18(2), 94–109. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2015.1052685

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, R., Sabol, T., Ghoneim, A., & Dzupka, P. (2012). E-government implementation strategies in developed and transition economies: A comparative study. International Journal of Information Management, 32(1), 66–74. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.10.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dobija, D., Klimczak, K. M., Roztocki, N., & Weistroffer, H. R. (2012). Information technology investment announcements and market value in transition economies: Evidence from Warsaw stock exchange. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(4), 308–319. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2012.07.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roztocki, N., & Weistroffer, H. R. (2009). Research trends in information and communications technology in developing, emerging and transition economies. Collegium of Economic Analysis, 20, 113–127.

 Google Scholar

Samoilenko, S. (2008). Contributing factors to information technology investment utilization in transition economies: An empirical investigation. Information Technology for Development, 14(1), 52–75. doi:10.1002/itdj.20087

 Google Scholar

Harindranath, G. (2008). ICT in a transition economy: The case of Hungary. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 11(4), 33–55. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2008.10856478

 Google Scholar

Soja, P. (2015). A stakeholder analysis of barriers to enterprise system adoption: The case of a transition economy. Information Technology & Management, 16(3), 253–271. doi:10.1007/s10799-015-0245-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kokles, M., Romanová, A., & Hamranová, A. (2015). Information systems in the post-transition period in enterprises in Slovakia. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 18(2), 110–126. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2015.1052686

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Soja, P., & Paliwoda-Pękosz, G. (2013). Comparing benefits from enterprise system adoption in transition and developed economies: An ontology-based approach. Information Systems Management, 30(3), 198–217. doi:10.1080/10580530.2013.794606

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Soja, P. (2011). Examining determinants of enterprise system adoptions in transition economies: Insights from Polish adopters. Information Systems Management, 28(3), 192–210. doi:10.1080/10580530.2011.585584

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Themistocleous, M., Soja, P., & da Cunha, P. R. (2011). The same, but different: Enterprise systems adoption lifecycles in transition economies. Information Systems Management, 28(3), 223–239. doi:10.1080/10580530.2011.585585

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bernroider, E. W. N., Sudzina, F., & Pucihar, A. (2011). Contrasting ERP absorption between transition and developed economies from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Information Systems Management, 28(3), 240–257. doi:10.1080/10580530.2011.585581

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70. doi:10.2307/1251854

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Maltz, E., Souder, W. E., & Kumar, A. (2001). Influencing R&D/marketing integration and the use of market information by R&D managers: Intended and unintended effects of managerial actions. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 69–82. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00096-X

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Deshpandé, R., & Zaltman, G. (1982). Factors affecting the use of market research information: A path analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1), 14–31. doi:10.2307/3151527

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 638–641. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.4.638

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar