Computer user satisfaction: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:06, 7 January 2025

Latest revision as of 14:52, 23 May 2025

(19 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|AttitudeHow tosatisfied a computeruser systemis usedwith fora computer workprogram}}

{{multiple|

{{needs inline citations|date=April 2023}}

{{underlink|date=January 2025}}

{{technical|date=January 2025}}

}}

'''Computer user satisfaction''' is the systematic [[measurement]] and evaluation of how well a [[computer system]] or [[computer application|application]] fulfills the needs and expectations of individual users. While sometimes referred to as '''System Satisfaction'''—especially when examining broader user groups or entire [[customer]] bases—it is also known simply as '''User Satisfaction''' in other contexts. These related terms can vary in scope, survey depth, [[anonymity]], and in how the findings are applied or translated to value.

'''Computer user satisfaction (CUS)''' is the systematic measurement and evaluation of how well a [[computer system]] or [[Computer application|application]] fulfills the needs and expectations of individual users. The measurement of computer user satisfaction studies how interactions with [[technology]] can be improved by adapting it to [[Psychology|psychological]] preferences and tendencies.

Evaluating [[user satisfaction]] helps gauge product stability, track industry trends, and measure overall user contentment. These insights are valuable for [[Strategic management|business strategy]], [[market research]], and [[sales forecasting]], as they enable [[Organization|organizations]] to preempt dissatisfaction and protect their [[market share]] and revenue by addressing issues before they escalate.

Evaluating [[user satisfaction]] helps gauge product stability, track industry trends, and measure overall user contentment.

Fields like [[User Interface]] (UI) [[User interface design|Design]] and [[User experience|User Experience]] (UX) [[User experience design|Design]] focus on the direct interactions people have with a system. While UI and UX often rely on separate [[Methodology|methodologies]], they share the goal of making systems more intuitive, efficient, and appealing. By emphasizing these [[design principles]] and incorporating user insights, developers can create systems that meet real-world needs and encourage people to keep using them.

Fields like [[User Interface]] (UI) Design and [[User experience|User Experience]] (UX) Design focus on the direct interactions people have with a system. While UI and UX often rely on separate methodologies, they share the goal of making systems more intuitive, efficient, and appealing.

== User Compliance ==

Using findings, [[Product design|product designers]], [[Business analysis|business analysts]], and [[Software engineering|software engineers]] anticipate change, and prevent user loss by identifying missing features, shifts in requirements, general improvements, or corrections. ''[[end user|End user]] computing satisfaction'' is also [[Psychology|psychological]], in that the findings can sometimes represent objective views, rather than subjective truths. For example, previous success or failure impact next generation products. [[Organization|Organizations]] emphasize value in how products and opinions thereof manifest, preserving what is valued and caring how this is perceived.

==The Problem of Defining Computer User Satisfaction==

This often creates a [[Positive feedback|positive feedback loop]] and creating a sense of agency for the user. These surveys assist to steer the system towards stable product sector positions. This is important, because the effects of satisfied or dissatisfied users could be difficult to change as time goes on. Real world examples are [[End user|end-user]] loyalty in the premium [[mobile device]] segment, opinion and perception of dependable [[Automotive industry|automotive]] brands, or lower quality products originate from certain nationalities based on [[Stereotype|stereotypes]]. In such cases, the [[Corrective and preventive action|corrective action]] is not made on a product level, rather it is handled in another business process via [[change management]], which aims to educate, inform and promote the system with the users, swaying opinions which could not be other altered amending product.

In the literature, there are a variety of terms for computer user satisfaction (CUS): "user satisfaction" and "user information satisfaction," (UIS) "system acceptance,"<ref>{{Cite book |last=Igersheim |first=Roy H. |chapter=Managerial response to an information system |date=1976-06-07 |title=Proceedings of the June 7–10, 1976, national computer conference and exposition on – AFIPS '76 |chapter-url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1499799.1499918 |___location=New York, NY |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |pages=877–882 |doi=10.1145/1499799.1499918 |isbn=978-1-4503-7917-5}}</ref> "perceived usefulness,"<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Larcker |first1=David F. |last2=Lessig |first2=V. Parker |date=1980 |title=Perceived Usefulness of Information: A Psychometric Examination |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1980.tb01130.x |journal=Decision Sciences |language=en |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=121–134 |doi=10.1111/j.1540-5915.1980.tb01130.x |issn=1540-5915|url-access=subscription }}</ref> "MIS appreciation,"<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Swanson |first=E. Burton |date=1 October 1974 |title=Management Information Systems: Appreciation and Involvement |url=https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.21.2.178 |journal=Management Science |volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=178–188 |doi=10.1287/mnsc.21.2.178 |issn=0025-1909 |via=InformsPubsOnLine|url-access=subscription }}</ref> "feelings about information system's,"<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Maish |first=Alexander M. |date=March 1979 |title=A User's Behavior toward His MIS |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/249147 |url-status=dead |journal=MIS Quarterly |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=39–52 |doi=10.2307/249147 |jstor=249147 |issn=0276-7783 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> and "system satisfaction".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Khalifa |first1=Mohamed |last2=Liu |first2=Vanessa |date=2004-01-01 |title=The State of Research on Information System Satisfaction |url=https://aisel.aisnet.org/jitta/vol5/iss4/4/ |journal=Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application |volume=5 |issue=4 |issn=1532-4516}}</ref> For our purposes, we will refer to CUS, or user satisfaction. Ang and Koh (1997) describe user information satisfaction as "a perceptual or subjective measure of system success."<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Ang

|first1 = James

|last2 = Koh

|first2 = Stella

|date = June 1997

|title = Exploring the relationships between user information satisfaction and job satisfaction

|journal = International Journal of Information Management

|volume = 17

|issue = 3

|pages = 169–177

|doi = 10.1016/S0268-4012(96)00059-X

}}</ref> This means that CUS may differ in meaning and significance dependent on the author's definition. In other words, users who are satisfied with a system according to one definition and measure may not be satisfied according to another, and vice versa.

According to Doll and Torkzadeh, CUS is defined as the opinion of the user about a specific computer application that they use. Ives and colleagues defined CUS as "the extent to which users believe the information system available to them meets their information requirements."<ref name="DollTorkzadeh1988">{{cite journal

The satisfaction measurements are often used in industry, [[manufacturing]], or other large [[Organization|organizations]] for obtain internal user satisfaction. This could be used to motivate internal changes to improve or correct existing [[Business process|business processes]]. This could be by discontinuing use of systems, or prompt adopting to more applicable solutions. It could also be based on [[Job satisfaction|employee satisfaction]] which is important to promote productive [[Work environment|work environments]].

|last1 = Doll

|first1 = William J.

|last2 = Torkzadeh

|first2 = Gholamreza

|date = June 1988

|title = The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction

|journal = MIS Quarterly

|volume = 12

|issue = 2

|pages = 259–274

|doi = 10.2307/248851

|jstor = 248851

}}</ref>

Several studies have investigated whether or not certain factors influence the CUS. Yaverbaum's study found that people who use their computers irregularly tend to be more satisfied than regular users.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Yaverbaum |first=Gayle J. |date=1988 |title=Critical Factors in the User Environment: An Experimental Study of Users, Organizations and Tasks |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/248807 |journal=MIS Quarterly |publication-date=March 1988 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=75–88 |doi=10.2307/248807 |jstor=248807 |issn=0276-7783 |access-date=8 January 2025 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Doll and Torkzadeh's (1988) definition of user satisfaction is, ''the opinion of the user about a specific computer application, which they use''. In a broader sense, the definition of user satisfaction can be extended to user satisfaction with any computer-based [[electronics|electronic]] appliance. The term user can further be removed from objective and individual contexts, as "user" refers to the collective, from [[Individual|individuals]], groups and across [[Organization|organizations]]. The term "user" is sometimes used to refer to the account or profile of an operator, and this is not excluded from the context, as can be seen when reference is made to "users" of a [[Network topology|network]], the system, by the owner of the system, and by the [[Distribution (marketing)|distributor]] or [[Developer (software)|developer]] of the system.

Mullany, Tan, and Gallupe claim that CUS is chiefly influenced by prior experience with the system or an analogue. Conversely, motivation, they suggest, is based on beliefs about the future use of the system.<ref name=":1" />

==The CUS and the UIS==

Bailey and Pearson's (1983) 39‑Factor ''Computer'' ''User Satisfaction (CUS) questionnaire and its de''rivative, the ''User Information Satisfaction (UIS)'' short-form of Baroudi, Olson and Ives are typical of instruments which one might term as 'factor-based'. They consist of lists of factors, each of which the respondent is asked to rate on one or more multiple point scales. Bailey and Pearson's CUS asked for five ratings for each of 39 factors. The first four scales were for quality ratings and the fifth was an importance rating. From the fifth rating of each factor, they found that their [[Sampling (statistics)|sample]] of users rated as most important: ''[[Accuracy and precision|accuracy]]'', ''[[Reliability (statistics)|reliability]]'', ''timeliness'', ''[[Relevance|relevancy]]'' and ''[[confidence]] in the system''. The factors of least importance were found to be ''feelings of control'', ''volume of output'', ''vendor support'', ''degree of training'', and ''organizational position of EDP'' (the electronic data processing, or computing department). However, the CUS requires 39 x 5 = 195 individual seven‑point scale responses.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bailey |first1=James E. |last2=Pearson |first2=Sammy W. |title=Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction |journal=Management Science |date=May 1983 |volume=29 |issue=5 |pages=530–545 |doi=10.1287/mnsc.29.5.530 }}</ref> Ives, Olson and Baroudi (1983), amongst others, thought that so many responses could result in errors of [[Attrition (research)|attrition]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ives |first1=Blake |last2=Olson |first2=Margrethe H. |last3=Baroudi |first3=Jack J. |title=The measurement of user information satisfaction |journal=Commun. ACM |date=1 October 1983 |volume=26 |issue=10 |pages=785–793 |doi=10.1145/358413.358430 }}</ref> This means, the respondent's failure to return the questionnaire or the increasing carelessness of the respondent as they fill in a long form. In [[psychometrics]], such errors not only result in reduced sample sizes but can also distort the results, as those who return long questionnaires, properly completed, may have differing [[Trait theory|psychological traits]] from those who do not. Ives, et al. thus developed the UIS. This only requires the respondent to rate 13 factors that remain in significant use. Two seven‑point scales are provided per factor (each for a quality), requiring 26 individual responses. However, in a recent article, Islam, Mervi, and Käköla (2010) argued that measuring user satisfaction in industry settings is difficult as the response rate often remains low. Thus, a simpler version of the user satisfaction measurement instrument is necessary.

== Applications ==

==The problem with the dating of factors==

Using findings from CUS, [[product design]]ers, [[Business analysis|business analysts]], and [[Software engineering|software engineers]] anticipate change and prevent user loss by identifying missing features, shifts in requirements, general improvements, or corrections.

An early [[criticism]] of these measures was that the factors date as [[computer technology]] evolves and changes. This suggested the need for updates and led to a sequence of other factor-based instruments. Doll and Torkzadeh (1988), for example, produced a factor-based instrument for a new type of user emerging at the time, called an [[end user]]. They identified end-users as users who tend to interact with a [[Interface (computing)|computer interface]] only, while previously users interacted with developers and operational staff as well. McKinney, Yoon and Zahedi (2002) developed a model and instruments for measuring web-customer satisfaction during the information phase.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McKinney |first1=Vicki |last2=Yoon |first2=Kanghyun |last3=Zahedi |first3=Fatemeh “Mariam” |title=The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach |journal=Information Systems Research |date=September 2002 |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=296–315 |doi=10.1287/isre.13.3.296.76 }}</ref> Cheung and Lee (2005) in their development of an instrument to measure user satisfaction with e-portals, based their instrument on that of McKinney, Yoon and Zahedi (2002), which in turn was based primarily on instruments from prior studies.

Satisfaction measurements are most often employed by companies or organizations to design their products to be more appealing to consumers, identify practices that could be streamlined,<ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is a Customer Satisfaction Survey? |url=https://www.salesforce.com/service/customer-service-incident-management/customer-satisfaction-survey/#surveys-are-important |access-date=2025-01-08 |website=Salesforce |language=en}}</ref> harvest personal data to sell,<ref>{{Cite web |date=16 January 2024 |title=Privacy Policy |url=https://www.govexec.com/about/privacy-policy/ |access-date=2025-01-08 |website=Government Executive |at=Under the section "How We Collect Data," the subsection "Other Information you Choose to Provide" applies to the subsection "For Other Purposes" under the section "Who We Share Your Data With." |language=en}}</ref> and determine the highest price they can set for the least quality.<ref>{{Cite web |title=How to use Pricing Surveys |url=https://www.surveymonkey.com/market-research/resources/pricing-surveys/ |access-date=2025-01-08 |website=SurveyMonkey |language=en-US}}</ref> For example, based on satisfaction metrics, a company may decide to discontinue support for an unpopular service. CUS may also be extended to [[Job satisfaction|employee satisfaction]], for which similar motivations arise. As an ulterior motive, CUS surveys may also serve to pacify the group being surveyed, as it gives them an outlet to vent frustrations.

==The problem of defining ''user satisfaction''==

As none of the [[instruments]] in common use really rigorously define their construct of user satisfaction, some scholars such as Cheyney, Mann and Amoroso (1986) have called for more research on the factors which influence the success of end-user [[computing]]. Little subsequent effort which sheds new light on the matter exists, however. All factor-based instruments run the risk of including factors irrelevant to the respondent, while omitting some that may be highly significant to him/her. Needless to say, this is further exacerbated by the ongoing changes in [[information technology]].

Doll and Torkzadeh's definition of CUS is "the opinion of the user about a specific [[Application software|computer application]], which they use." Note that the term "user" can refer to both the user of a product and the user of a device to access a product.<ref name="DollTorkzadeh1988" />

In the literature there are two definitions for user satisfaction, 'User satisfaction' and 'User Information Satisfaction' are used interchangeably. According to Doll and Torkzadeh (1988), 'user satisfaction' is defined as the opinion of the user about a specific [[computer application]] that they use. Ives et al. (1983) defined 'User Information Satisfaction' as "the extent to which users believe the information system available to them meets their information requirements." Other terms for User Information Satisfaction are "system acceptance" (Igersheim, 1976), "perceived usefulness" (Larcker and Lessig, 1980), "MIS appreciation" (Swanson, 1974) and "feelings about information system" (Maish, 1979). Ang and Koh (1997) have described user information satisfaction (UIS) as "a perceptual or subjective measure of system success." This means that user information satisfaction will differ in meaning and significance from person to person. In other words, users who are equally satisfied with the same system according to one definition and measure may not be similarly satisfied according to another.

== The CUS and the UIS ==

Several studies have investigated whether or not certain factors influence the UIS, such as those by Yaverbaum (1988) and Ang and Soh (1997). Yaverbaum's (1988) study found that people who use their computers irregularly tend to be more satisfied than regular users. Ang and Soh's(1997)research, on the other hand, could find no evidence that computer background affects UIS.

Bailey and Pearson's 39-Factor Computer User Satisfaction (CUS) questionnaire and the User Information Satisfaction (UIS) were both surveys with multiple qualities; that is to say, the survey asks respondents to rank or rate multiple categories. Bailey and Pearson asked participants to judge 39 qualities, dividing them into five groups, each with different scales to rank or rate the qualities. The first four scales were for favorability ratings, and the fifth was an importance ranking. In the group asked to rank the importance for each quality, researchers found that their [[Sampling (statistics)|sample]] of users rated most important: "accuracy, reliability, timeliness, relevancy, and confidence.''"'' The qualities of least importance were found to be "feelings of control, volume of output, vendor support, degree of training, and organizational position of [[Electronic data processing|EDP]] (the electronic data processing or computing department)." However, the CUS requires 39 x 5 = 195 responses.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bailey |first1=James E. |last2=Pearson |first2=Sammy W. |date=May 1983 |title=Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction |journal=Management Science |volume=29 |issue=5 |pages=530–545 |doi=10.1287/mnsc.29.5.530}}</ref> Ives, Olson, and Baroudi, amongst others, thought that so many responses could result in errors of [[Attrition (research)|attrition]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ives |first1=Blake |last2=Olson |first2=Margrethe H. |last3=Baroudi |first3=Jack J. |date=1 October 1983 |title=The measurement of user information satisfaction |journal=Commun. ACM |volume=26 |issue=10 |pages=785–793 |doi=10.1145/358413.358430}}</ref> This indicates that the respondent's failure to return the questionnaire directly correlated with the length of the surveys. This can result in reduced sample sizes and distorted results, as those who return long questionnaires may have differing [[Trait theory|psychological traits]] from those who do not. Ives and colleagues developed the User Information Satisfaction (UIS) as a means of addressing this. The UIS only requires the respondent to rate 13 metrics. 2 scales are provided per metric, yielding 26 individual responses. However, in a recent article, Islam, Mervi, and Käköla argued that measuring CUS in industry settings is difficult as the response rate often remains low. Thus, a simpler version of the CUS measurement method is necessary.<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Islam

|first1 = A.K.M. Najmul

|last2 = Koivulahti-Ojala

|first2 = Mervi

|last3 = Käkölä

|first3 = Timo

|date = August 2010

|title = A lightweight, industrially-validated instrument to measure user satisfaction and service quality experienced by the users of a UML modeling tool

|journal = AMCIS 2010 Proceedings

|url = https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/287

}}</ref>

==The Problem With Dating of Metrics==

Mullany, Tan, and Gallupe (2006) essay a [[definition]] of user satisfaction, claiming that it is based on memories of the past use of a system. Conversely, motivation, they suggest, is based on beliefs about the future use of the system. (Mullany et al., 2006).

An early criticism of these measures was that surveys would become outdated as [[computer technology]] evolves. This led to the synthesis of new metric-based surveys. Doll and Torkzadeh, for example, produced a metric-based survey for the "[[end user]]." They define end-users as those who tend to interact with a [[Interface (computing)|computer interface]] alone without the involvement of operational staff.<ref name="DollTorkzadeh1988" /> McKinney, Yoon, and Zahedi developed a model and survey for measuring web customer satisfaction.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McKinney |first1=Vicki |last2=Yoon |first2=Kanghyun |last3=Zahedi |first3=Fatemeh “Mariam” |date=September 2002 |title=The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach |journal=Information Systems Research |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=296–315 |doi=10.1287/isre.13.3.296.76}}</ref>

==Grounding in Theory==

The large number of studies over the past few decades, as cited in this article, shows that user information satisfaction remains an important topic in research studies despite somewhat [[Contradiction|contradictory]] results.

Another difficulty with most of these surveys is their lack of a foundation in psychological theory. Exceptions to this were the model of web site design success developed by Zhang and von Dran<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Zhang

==A lack of theoretical underpinning==

|first1 = Ping

Another difficulty with most of these instruments is their lack of theoretical underpinning by [[Psychology|psychological]] or managerial theory. Exceptions to this were the model of web site design success developed by Zhang and von Dran (2000), and a measure of user satisfaction with e-portals, developed by Cheung and Lee (2005). Both of these models drew upon Herzberg's two-factor theory of [[motivation]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herzberg |first1=Frederick |title=Work and the nature of man |date=1972 |publisher=Staples Press |___location=London |isbn=978-0286620734 |edition=reprint}}</ref> Consequently, their factors were designed to measure both 'satisfiers' and 'hygiene factors'. However, Herzberg's theory itself is criticized for failing to distinguish adequately between the terms ''motivation'', ''job motivation'', ''job satisfaction'', and so on. Islam (2011) in a recent study found that the sources of dissatisfaction differs from the sources of satisfaction. He found that the environmental factors (e.g., system quality) were more critical to cause dissatisfaction while outcome specific factors (e.g., perceived usefulness) were more critical to cause satisfaction.

|last2 = von Dran

|first2 = Gisela M.

|date = October 2000

|title = Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: A two-factor model for website design and evaluation

|journal = Journal of the American Society for Information Science

|volume = 51

|issue = 14

|pages = 1253–1268

|doi = 10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID-ASI1039>3.0.CO;2-O

}}</ref> and the measure of CUS with e-portals developed by Cheung and Lee.<ref>C. M. K. Cheung and M. K. O. Lee, "The Asymmetric Effect of Website Attribute Performance on Satisfaction: An Empirical Study," ''Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences'', Big Island, HI, USA, 2005, pp. 175c-175c, doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2005.585.</ref> Both of these models drew on Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herzberg |first1=Frederick |title=Work and the nature of man |date=1972 |publisher=Staples Press |isbn=978-0286620734 |edition=reprint |___location=London}}</ref> Consequently, their qualities were designed to measure both "satisfiers" and "hygiene factors". However, Herzberg's theory has been criticized for being too vague, particularly in its failure to distinguish between terms such as motivation, job motivation, job satisfaction, etc.<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Islam

|first1 = A.K.M. Najmul

|date = July 2011

|title = Information Systems Post-Adoption Satisfaction And Dissatisfaction: A Study In The E-Learning Context

|journal = PACIS 2011 Proceedings

|url = https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/83

}}</ref>

==Cognitive style==

A study by Mullany (2006) showed that during the life of a [[system]], satisfaction from users will on average increase in time as the users' experiences with the system increase.<ref Whilstname=":0">{{cite thethesis overall|last=Mullany findings|first=Michael John |title=The Use of theAnalyst-User studiesCognitive showedStyle onlyDifferentials ato weakPredict linkAspects betweenof theUser gapSatisfaction inwith theInformation users'Systems and|date=2006 analysts|degree=PhD |publisher=Auckland University of Technology |url=https://hdl.handle.net/10292/338}}</ref> The study found that users' [[cognitive style]] (measuredpreferred usingapproach theto KAIproblem scalessolving) andwas not an accurate predictor of the user's satisfactionactual CUS. Similarly, developers of the system participated, and they too did not have a morestrong significantcorrelation linkbetween wascognitive foundstyle inand theactual regionsCUS. ofHowever, a strong correlation was observed between 85 and 652 days into using the systems' usagesystem. This link showsmeans that one's manner of thinking and how their attitude towards a largeparticular absoluteproduct gapbecame betweenincreasingly usercorrelated andas analysttime cognitivewent styleson. oftenSome yieldsresearchers have hypothesized that familiarity with a highersystem ratemay ofcause userone dissatisfactionto thanmentally aassimilate smallerto gapaccommodate that system. FurthermoreMullany, anTan, analystand withGallupe devised a moresystem adaptive(the cognitiveSystem styleSatisfaction thanSchedule the(SSS)), which utilizes user-generated atqualities and so avoids the earlyproblem andof latedating stagesqualities.<ref (approximatelyname=":0" days/> 85They define CUS as the absence of user dissatisfaction and 652)complaint, as assessed by users who have had at least some experience of using the system. usageMotivation, tendsconversely, tois reducebased useron dissatisfactionbeliefs about the future use of the system.<ref name=":1">{{cite journal

|last1 = Mullany

|first1 = Miachael J.

Mullany, Tan, and Gallupe (2006) devised an instrument (the System Satisfaction Schedule (SSS)), which utilizes user-generated factors (that is, almost exclusively, and so avoids the problem of the dating of factors. Also aligning themselves to Herzberg, these authors argue that the perceived usefulness (or otherwise) of tools of the trade are contextually related, and so are special cases of hygiene factors. They consequently define [[user satisfaction]] as the absence of user dissatisfaction and complaint, as assessed by users who have had at least some experience of using the system. In other words, satisfaction is based on memories of the past use of a system. Motivation, conversely, is based on beliefs about the future use of the system. (Mullany et al., 2007, p. 464)

|last2 = Tan

|first2 = Felix B.

|last3 = Gallupe

|first3 = R. Brent

|date = July 2007

|title = The Impact Of Analyst-User Cognitive Style Differences On User Satisfaction

|journal = PACIS 2007 Proceedings

|pages = 462–476

|url = https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2007/42

}}</ref>{{Rp|464}}

==Future developments==

Currently, some [[Scholar|scholars]] and practitioners are experimenting with other measurement methods and further refinements ofto the definition for ''satisfaction'' and ''userof satisfaction''CUS. Others are replacing structured questionnaires bywith unstructured ones, where the respondent is asked simply to write down or dictate all the factorseverything about a system whichthat either satisfies or dissatisfies them. One problem with this approach, however, is that theit instruments tendtends not to yield [[Quantitative research|quantitative]] results, making comparisons and [[Statistical inference|statistical analysis]] difficult. Also, if scholars cannot agree on the precise meaning of the term ''satisfaction'', respondents will be highly unlikely to respond consistently to such instruments. Some newer instruments contain a mix of structured and unstructured items.

== References ==

{{Reflist}}

*Ang, J. and Koh, S. "Exploring the relationships between user information satisfaction and job satisfaction", ''International Journal of Information Management'' (17:3), 1997, pp 169-177.

*Ang, J. and Soh, P. H. "User information satisfaction, job satisfaction and computer background: An exploratory study", ''Information & Management'' (32:5), 1997, pp 255-266.

== Further reading ==

*Bailey, J.E., and Pearson, S.W. "Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction", ''Management Science'' (29:5), May 1983, pp 530-545.

*{{cite journal

*Bargas-Avila, J., Loetscher, J., Orsini, S. and Opwis, K. "Intranet Satisfaction Questionnaire: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Measure User Satisfaction with the Intranet" Paper submitted to Information & Management. 2008.

|last1 = Bargas-Avila

*Baroudi, J.J., and Orlikowski, W.J. "A Short-Form Measure of User Information Satisfaction: A Psychometric Evaluation and Notes on Use", ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (4:2), Spring 1988, pp 44-58.

|first1 = Javier A.

*Cheung, C.M.K., and Lee, M.K.O. "The Asymmetric Effect of Website Attribute Performance on Satisfaction: An Empirical Study", ''38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press'', Hawaii, 2005, pp. 175-184.

|last2 = Lötscher

*Cheyney, P. H., Mann, R.L., and Amoroso, D.L. "Organizational factors affecting the success of end-user computing", ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' 3(1) 1986, pp 65-80.

|first2 = Jonas

*DeLone, W.H., and Mclean, E.R. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable", ''Information Systems Research'' (3:1), March 1992, pp 60-95.

|last3 = Orsini

*DeLone, W.H., Mclean, and R, E. "Information Systems Success Revisited", ''35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press'', Los Alamitos, CA, 2002, pp. 238-248.

|first3 = Sébastien

*DeLone, W.H., and Mclean, E.R. "The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update", ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (19:4), Spring 2003, pp 9-30.

|last4 = Opwis

*Doll, W.J., and Torkzadeh, G. "The Measurement of End User Computing Satisfaction", ''MIS Quarterly'' (12:2), June 1988, pp 258-274.

|first4 = Klaus

*Doll, W.J., and Torkzadeh, G. "The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction: theoretical considerations", ''MIS Quarterly'' (15:1), March 1991, pp 5-10.

|date = November 2009

*Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. ''The motivation to work''. Wiley, New York, 1959, p. 257.

|title = Intranet satisfaction questionnaire: Development and validationof a questionnaire to measure user satisfaction with the Intranet

*Herzberg, F. ''Work and the nature of man'' World Publishing, Cleveland, 1966, p. 203.

|journal = Computers in Human Behavior

*Herzberg, F. "One more time: How do you motivate employees?", ''Harvard Business Review'' (46:1), January-February 1968, pp 53-62.

|volume = 25

*Igersheim, R.H. "Management response to an information system", ''Proceedings AFIPS National Computer Conference'', 1976, pp 877-882.

|issue = 6

*Islam, A.K.M. Najmul, Koivulahti-Ojala, M., and Käkölä, T. "A lightweight, industrially-validated instrument to measure user satisfaction and service quality experienced by the users of a UML modeling tool", ''Proceedings AMCIS'' 2010.

|pages = 1241–1250

*Islam, A.K.M. Najmul, "Information Systems Post-adoption Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction: A Study in the E-Learning Context", ''Proceedings PACIS'' 2011.

|doi = 10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.014

*Ives, B., Olson, M.H., and Baroudi, J.J. "The measurement of user information satisfaction", ''Communications of the ACM'' (26:10), October 1983, pp 785-793.

}}

*Larcker, D.F. and Lessig, V.P. "Perceived usefulness of information: a psychometric examination", ''Decision Science'' (11:1), 1980, pp 121-134.

*{{cite journal

*Maish, A.M. "A user's behavior towards his MIS", ''MIS Quarterly'' (3:1), 1979, pp 37-52.

|last1 = Baroudi

*McKinney, V., Yoon, K., and Zahedi, F.M. "The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach", ''Information Systems Research'' (13:3), September 2002, pp 296-315.

|first1 = Jack J.

*Mullany, Michael John, and Auckland University of Technology. "The use of Analyst-User Cognitive Style Differentials to Predict Aspects of User Satisfaction with Information Systems" 2006. Print.

|last2 = Orlikowski

*Mullany, M. J., Tan, F. B. and Gallupe, R. B., 2006, "The S-Statistic: a measure of user satisfaction based on Herzberg's theory of motivation", Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Adelaide.

|first2 = Wanda J.

*Mullany, M. J., Tan, F. B. and Gallupe, R. B., 2007, "The Impact Of Analyst-User Cognitive Style Differences On User Satisfaction", Proceedings of the 11th Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Auckland.

|date = Spring 1988

*Swanson, E.B. "Management and information systems: an appreciation and involvement", ''Management Science'' (21:2), 1974, pp 178-188.

|title = A Short-Form Measure of User Information Satisfaction: A Psychometric Evaluation and Notes on Use

*Zhang, P., and Von Dran, G.M. "Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: a two-factor model for Website design and evaluation.", ''Journal of the American Society for Information Science'' (51:14), December 2000, pp 1253-1268.

|journal = Journal of Management Information Systems

*Yaverbaum, G. J. "Critical factors in the user environment - an experimental study of users, organizations and tasks", ''MIS Quarterly'' (12:1), 1988, pp 75-88.

|volume = 4

|issue = 4

|pages = 44–59

|doi = 10.1080/07421222.1988.11517807

|url = http://archive.nyu.edu/handle/2451/14483

}}

*{{cite journal

|last1 = Delone

|first1 = William H.

|last2 = McLean

|first2 = Ephraim R.

|date = March 1992

|title = Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable

|journal = Information Systems Research

|volume = 3

|issue = 1

|pages = 60–95

|doi = 10.1287/isre.3.1.60

}}

*{{cite book

|last1 = Delone

|first1 = William H.

|last2 = McLean

|first2 = Ephraim R.

|date = January 2002

|article = Information systems success revisited

|title = Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

|publisher = IEEE Computer Society Press

|___location = Los Alamitos, CA

|pages = 238–248

|doi = 10.1109/HICSS.2002.994345

|url = https://figshare.com/articles/conference_contribution/Information_Systems_Success_Revisited/23888820

}}

*{{cite book

|title=The Motivation to Work

|publisher=John Wiley and Sons

|___location=New York

|first1=Frederick

|last1=Herzberg

|author-link1=Frederick Herzberg

|first2=Bernard

|last2=Mausner

|first3=Barbara B.

|last3=Snyderman

|edition=2nd

|year=1959

|page=257

|isbn=0-471-37389-3

}}

*{{cite journal

|last1 = Herzberg

|first1 = Frederick

|date = January–February 1968

|title = One more time: How do you motivate employees?

|journal = Harvard Business Review

|volume = 46

|issue = 1

|pages = 53–62

|url = https://hbr.org/2003/01/one-more-time-how-do-you-motivate-employees

|author-link = Frederick Herzberg

}}

[[Category:Human–computer interaction]]