Qualitative Assessment of User Acceptance within Action Design Research and Action Research: Two Case Studies


Nowadays, there are several models to evaluate technological acceptance of software developed through Action Design Research and Action Research. These models rely on quantitative techniques to study user behavioural intentions and thus predict the use of a technology. This paper presents our experiences in using qualitative methods to assess such acceptance in the development of specialized tools for Strategic Scanning. Our study suggests that qualitative methods can be an alternative to evaluate technology acceptance in situations where the number of users is small or where there are requirements for continuous improvement.



Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Alex Fernando Buitrago Hurtado, Univ. Grenoble Alpes


I. Benbasat and R.W. Zmud, “Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance”, MIS Q., vol. 23, no1, pp. 3, Mars 1999.

M. Rosemann and I. Vessey, “Toward Improving the Relevance of Information Systems Research to Practice: The Role of Applicability Checks”, MIS Q., vol. 32, no1, pp. 1–22, Mars 2008.

R. Baskerville and A.T. Wood-Harper, “Diversity in information systems action research methods”, Eur. J. Inf. Syst., vol. 7, no2, pp. 90-107, May 1998.

A.R.Hevner, S.T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram, “Design Science in Information Systems Research”, MIS Q., vol. 28, no1, pp. 75–105, Mars 2004.

M.K. Sein, O. Henfridsson, S. Purao, M. Rossi, and R. Lindgren, “Action Design Research”, MIS Q., vol. 35, no1, pp. 37–56, Mars 2011.

K. Vogelsang, M. Steinhueser, and U. Hoppe, “A Qualitative Approach to Examine Technology Acceptance”, ICIS 2013 Proc., Dec. 2013.

N. Nistor, “When technology acceptance models won’t work: Non-significant intention-behavior effects”, Comput.Human Behavior, vol. 34, pp. 299-300, 2014.

P. Wu, “A Mixed Methods Approach to Technology Acceptance Research”, J. of the Assoc. for Inf. Syst., vol. 13, no3, Mars 2012.

S. Kemmis, R. McTaggart and R. Nixon, The Action Research Planner. Singapore: Springer, 2014.

R.L. Baskerville and A.T. Wood-Harper, “A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research”, J. of Inf. Technology, vol. 11, no3, pp. 235-246, Jan. 1996.

D. Avison, R. Baskerville and M. Myers, “Controlling action research projects”, Info. Tech. & People, vol. 14, no1, pp. 28-45, Mars 2001.

R. Baskerville and M.D. Myers, “Special Issue on Action Research in Information Systems: Making is Research Relevant to Practice–foreword”, MIS Q., vol. 28, no3, pp. 329–335,Sept. 2004.

J. McNiff, Action Research: Principles and Practice. London: Routledge, 2013.

G.I. Susman, “Action Research: A Sociotechnical systems perspective”, in Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Science Research, G. Morgan (ed.), Sage Publications, London, 1983.

W. Orlikowski and S. Iacono, “Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research--A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact”, Inf. Syst. Research, vol. 12, no2, pp. 121-134, Jun 2001.

W.H. DeLone and E.R. McLean, “Information SystemsSuccess: The Quest for the Dependent Variable”, Inf. Syst. Research, vol. 3, no1, pp. 60-95, Mars 1992.

S.A. Brown, A. PP. Massey, M. M. Montoya-weiss and J. R. Burkman, “Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology”, Eur. J. Inf. Syst., vol. 11, no4, pp. 283-295, Dec. 2002.

F.D. Davis, R. Bagozzi and PP. Warshaw, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models”, Manage. Sci., vol. 35, no8, pp. 982-1003, Aug.1989.

V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis and F.D.Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View”, MIS Q., vol. 27, no3, pp. 425–478, Sept. 2003.

V. Venkatesh and F.D. Davis, “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies”, Manage. Sci., vol. 46, no2, pp. 186-204, Feb. 2000.

V. Venkatesh and H. Bala, “Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions”, Decision Sci., vol. 39, no2, pp. 273-315, May 2008.

V. Venkatesh, J.Y.L. Thong and X. Xu, “Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology”, MIS Q., vol. 36, no1, pp. 157–178, Mars 2012.

M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 1975

I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, no2, pp. 179-211, Dec. 1991.

I. Ajzen and T.J. Madden, “Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control”, J. of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 22, no5, pp. 453-474, Sept. 1986.

I. Ajzen and M. Fishbein, “The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior”, in The handbook of attitudes, D. Albarrac, B. T. Johnson, and M. PP. Zanna, Éd. Mahwah,NJ,US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2005, pp. 173-221.

A. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, no2, pp. 248-287, Dec. 1991.

E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, NY: The Free Press, 1983.

J. Lu, J.E. Yao, and C.-S. Yu, “Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless Internet services via mobile technology”, The J. of Strategic Inf. Syst., vol. 14, no3, pp. 245-268, Sept. 2005.

A.S.Lee and R.L. Baskerville, “Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research”, Inf. Syst. Research, vol. 14, no3, pp. 221-243, Sept. 2003.

R.D. Galliers and F.F. Land, “Viewpoint: Choosing Appropriate Information Systems Research Methodologies”, Commun. ACM, vol. 30, no11, pp. 901–902, nov. 1987.

B. Kaplan and D. Duchon, “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Inf. Syst. Research: A Case Study”, MIS Q., vol. 12, no4, pp. 571-586, Dec. 1988.

M.D. Myers, Qualitative Research in Business and Management. SAGE, 2013.

T.S.H. Teo and W.Y. Choo, “Assessing the impact of using the Internet for competitive intelligence”, Inf. & Manage., vol. 39, no1, pp. 67-83, nov. 2001.

N. Lesca, M.-L. Caron-Fasan, and S. Falcy, “How managers interpret scanning information”, Inf. & Manage., vol. 49, no2, pp. 126-134, Mars 2012.

X.M. Xu, G.R. Kaye and Y. Duan, “UK executives’ vision on business environment for information scanning: A cross industry study”, Inf. & Manage., vol. 40, no5, pp. 381-389, May 2003.

C.W. Choo, “The Art of Scanning the environment”, Bulletin of the American S, vol. 25, pp. 13-19, Mars 1999.

C.W. Choo, “Environmental scanning as information seeking and organizational learning”, Inf. Research, vol. 1, 2001.

R.C. May, W.H. Stewart and R. Sweo, “Environmental Scanning Behavior in a Transitional Economy: Evidence from Russia”, Acad. Mange. J, vol. 43, no3, pp. 403-427, Jan. 2000.

B.A. Walters, J.J. Jiang and G. Klein, “Strategic information and strategic decision making: the EIS/CEO interface in smaller manufacturing companies”, Inf. & Manage., vol. 40, no6, pp. 487-495, July 2003.

F.J. Aguilar, Scanning the business environment. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

H. Lesca and N. Lesca, Strategic decisions and weak signals: anticipation for decision-making. London:Wiley, 2014.

H. Lesca and N. Lesca, Weak Signals for Strategic Intelligence: Anticipation Tool for Managers, London: Wiley-ISTE, 2011.

M. Xu, V. Ong, Y. Duan, and B. Mathews, “Intelligent agent systems for executive information scanning, filtering and interpretation: Perceptions and challenges”, Inf. Processing and Manage., vol. 47, pp. 186-201, 2011.

V.K. Garg, B.A. Walters and R.L. Priem, “Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance”, Strat. Mgmt. J., vol. 24, no8, pp. 725-744, Aug.2003.

K.S. Albright, “Environmental scanning: radar for success”, Inf. Manage. J., vol. May/June, pp. 38-44, Jun 2004.

N. Lesca and M.-L. Caron-Fasan, “Strategic Scanning Project Failure and Abandonment Factors: Lessons Learned”, Eur. J. of Inf. System,, no17,, 2008.

M. Pagell and Z. Wu, “Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars”, J. of Supply Chain Manage., vol. 45, no2, pp. 37–56, 2009.

C.R. Carter andD.S. Rogers, “A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory”, International J. of Physical Distribution & Logistics Manage., vol. 38, no5, pp. 360-387, Jun 2008.

R. Johansen, Groupware : computer support for business teams. New York; London: Free Press; Collier Macmillan, 1988.

E.F. Loza Aguirre, M.-L. Caron-Fasan, H. Haddad and N. Lesca, “Using a meeting room system to improve targeting of Strategic Scanning”, in Enterprise Syst. Conference, 2013, pp. 1-10.

R.T. Rust and B. Cooil, “Reliability Measures for Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications”, J. of Marketing Research, vol. 31, no1, pp. 1, Feb.. 1994.

J.C. Nunnally and I.H. Bernstein, Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

H. Lesca, “Veille stratégique pour le management stratégique, état de la question and axes de recherche”, Economies et sociétés, Série Sciences de gestion, vol. 20, pp. 31-50, 1994.

Y. Duan, V.K. Ong, M. Xu and B. Mathews, “Supporting decision making process with “ideal” software agents –What do business executives want?”, Expert Syst. with Applications, vol. 39, no5, pp. 5534-5547, Avr. 2012.

M.R. Nelson, “We have the information you want, but getting it will cost you!: held hostage by information overload.”, Crossroads, vol. 1, no1, pp. 11-15, Sept. 1994.

H. Bettis-Outland, “Decision-making’s impact on organizational learning and information overload”, J. of Business Research, vol. 65, no6, pp. 814-820, 2012.

P.P. Runeson and M. Höst, “Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering”, Empirical Softw. Engg., vol. 14, no2, pp. 131–164, Avr. 2009.

How to Cite
E. Loza-Aguirre and A. Buitrago Hurtado, “Qualitative Assessment of User Acceptance within Action Design Research and Action Research: Two Case Studies”, LAJC, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 12, Sep. 2014.
Research Articles for the Regular Issue