Abstract
Advanced mobile technology continues to shape professional environments. Smart cell phones, pocket computers and laptop computers reduce the need of users to remain close to a wired information system infrastructure and allow for task performance in many different contexts. Among the consequences are changes in technology requirements, such as the need to limit weight and size of the devices. In the current paper, we focus on the factors that users find important in mobile devices. Based on a content analysis of online user reviews that was followed by structural equation modeling, we found four factors to be significantly related with overall user evaluation, namely functionality, portability, performance, and usability. Besides the practical relevance for technology developers and managers, our research results contribute to the discussion about the extent to which previously established theories of technology adoption and use are applicable to mobile technology. We also discuss the methodological suitability of online user reviews for the assessment of user requirements, and the complementarity of automated and non-automated forms of content analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Buchanan G, Farrant S, Jones M, Thimbleby H, Marsden G, Pazzani M (2001) Improving mobile internet usability. In: Shen VY, Saito N, Lyu MR, Zurko ME (eds) Proceedings of the tenth international World Wide Web conference ACM, New York, pp 673–680 (available at http://www10.org/cdrom/papers/230, accessed 15 August 2007)
Chan SS, Fang X, Brzezinski J, Zhou Y, Xu S, Lam J (2002) Usability for mobile commerce across multiple form factors. J Electron Commer Res 3(3):187–199
Chiu CWT, Wolfe EW (2002) A method for analyzing sparse data matrices in the generalizability theory framework. Appl Psychol Meas 26(3):321–338
Computerworld (2003) Executive briefings: the wireless corporation. Strategic Insights from the Editors of Computerworld
D’Ambra J, Wilson CS (2004) Explaining perceived performance of the World Wide Web: uncertainty and the task-technology fit model. Internet Res 1(4):294–310
Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manag Inf Syst Q 13(3):319–339
Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35(8):982–1003
Fang X, Chan S, Brzezinski J, Xu S (2005–2006) Moderating effects of task type on wireless technology acceptance. J Manag Inf Syst 22(3):123–157
Gebauer J, Ginsburg M (2008) Exploring the black box of task-technology fit: the case of mobile information systems. Commun ACM (in press)
Gebauer J, Shaw MJ (2004) Success factors and impacts of mobile business applications: results from a mobile e-procurement study. Int J Electron Commer 8(3):19–41
Gefen D, Straub D (2000) The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption. J Assoc Inf Syst 1(8)
Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. Manag Inf Syst Quart 27(1):51–90
Goodhue DL, Thompson RL (1995) Task-technology fit and individual performance. Manag Inf Syst Quart 19(2):213–236
Hui M, Liu B (2004a) Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, Seattle, pp 168–177
Hui M, Liu B (2004b) Mining opinion features in customer reviews. In: Proceedings of the nineteenth national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-04), San Jose, pp 755–760
Kim H, Kim J, Lee Y, Chae M, Choi, Y (2002) An empirical study of the use contexts and usability problems in mobile Internet. In: Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii international conference on system science, Big Island, Hawaii
Lederer AL, Maupin DJ, Sena MP, Zhuang Y (2000) The technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web. Decis Support Syst 29:269–282
Lee C-C, Cheng HK, Cheng HH (2007) An empirical study of mobile commerce in insurance industry: task-technology fit and individual differences. Decis Support Syst 43:95–110
Lopperi K, Sengupta S (2004) Are we ready? The state of wireless e-business in the USA. Inf Syst e-Bus Manag 2:293–307
Mennecke BE, Strader TJ (2003) Mobile commerce: technology, theory, and applications. Idea Group, Hershey
Moon J-W, Kim Y-G (2001) Extending TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Inf Manag 38:217–230
Morris R (1994) Computerized content analysis in management research: a demonstration of advantages and limitations. J Manag 20(4):903–931
Mylonopoulos NA, Doukidis GI (2003) Introduction to the special issue: mobile business: technological pluralism, social assimilation, and growth. Int J Electron Commer 8(1):5–22
Nielsen J (1994) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco
Perry M, O’Hara K, Sellen A, Brown B, Harper R (2001) Dealing with mobility: understanding access anytime, anywhere. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 8(4):323–347
Rosenberg SD, Schnurr PP, Oxman TE (1990) Content analysis: a comparison of manual and computerized systems. J Pers Assess 54(1–2):298–310
Schwarz A, Junglas IA, Krotov V, Chin WW (2004) Exploring the role of experience and compatibility in using mobile technology. Inf Syst e-Bus Manag 2:337–356
Shneiderman B (1980) Software psychology: human factors in computer and information systems. Winthrop, Cambridge
Weber RP (1990) Basic content analysis. Sage, Newbury Park
Wei C-P, Chen Y-M, Yang C-S, Yang CC (2006) A semantic-based approach to supporting product feature extraction from customer reviews. In: Proceedings of the fifth workshop on e-Bus, Milwaukee
Wiegers K (2003) Software requirements. 2nd edn, Microsoft, Seattle
Yourdon E (1989) Modern structured analysis. Yourdon, Englewood Cliffs
Zhang M, Dellarocas C (2006) The lord of the ratings: how a movie’s fate is influenced by reviews. In: Proceedings of the twenty-seventh international conference on inf syst, Milwaukee
Zigurs I, Buckland B (1998) A theory of task-technology fit and group support system effectiveness. Manag Inf Syst Quart 22(3):313–334
Acknowledgments
We thank Alfred Hubler for feedback and guidance. A related paper was presented at the Fifth Workshop on e-Business (WeB 2006), and we thank reviewers and participants for helpful comments. All errors remain our own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Below, we provide the coding scheme for online user reviews of mobile technology that was developed as part of the current research study. The scheme is based on 144 reviews of four devices that included a smart cell-phone (n = 44), two PDAs (n = 19, n = 40), and one ultra-light laptop (n = 41). The percentages that are reported in the first column of the table below were calculated as the averages of four devices, thus giving equal weight to each device. For the data analysis with SEM, we approximated equal weights by assigning a weight of two for each review of PDA 1. As a result of the weighting, Table 4 reports a weighted sample size of n = 163.
Category (% reviews, average of four devices) | Description | Rating |
|---|---|---|
Overall evaluation | ||
Rating (100%)a | Reviewer provides a numeric rating on a scale from 1 to 10 | 1: Abysmal; 10: Excellent |
Overall performance (88%)a | Reviewer comments on the overall quality of the technology (system or device) without giving more specific details on functionality, form factors, etc. | 1: Overall performance of technology is extremely poor 5: Overall performance of technology is extremely good |
Price, value (35%)a | Reviewer comments on the value of the technology, including the price for a device and related contracts | 1: Value of the technology is extremely poor; 5: Value of the technology is extremely good |
Control variable | ||
User experience (64%)a | Reviewer reports previous experience with similar technology and devices (e.g. previous models of the same device, competitor products and comparable forms of mobile technology), comments on the fact that he/she might have used or managed similar technology and devices, referring to the number of models, or to a particular length of time | 1: Reviewer has no experience with similar technology; 5: Reviewer has great experience with similar technology |
Functionality | ||
Voice communication (54%)a | Reviewer comments on the quality of the technology to support voice communication | 1: Quality of support for voice communication is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support for voice communication is extremely good |
Messaging communication (29%)a | Reviewer comments on the quality of the technology to support written communication, including email, instant messenger, and multimedia messaging | 1: Quality of support for messaging communication is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support for messaging communication is extremely good |
Information and data access (28%)a | Reviewer comments on the quality of the technology to enable access and a process information provided on private intranets and the public Internet and World Wide Web | 1: Quality of support for information and data access is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support for information and data access is extremely good |
Personal productivity (24%)a | Reviewer comments on the quality of the technology to help stay organized, such as by maintaining a calendar, task lists, and personal address book | 1: Quality of support for personal productivity is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support for personal productivity is extremely good |
Multifunctionality (23%)a | Reviewer comments on the availability and quality of support for a variety of different uses (functionalities) | 1: Multifunctionality is extremely poor or non-existent; device is extremely specialized; 5: Multifunctionality extremely good; device supports many different uses (functionalities) well |
Entertainment and multimedia applications (23%)a | Reviewer comments on the quality of the technology to support entertainment and multimedia applications, including watching, making, and editing movies; watching TV; storing and listening to music; editing and looking at pictures; playing games | 1: Quality of support for entertainment and multimedia applications is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support for entertainment and multimedia applications is extremely good |
Camera, video, audio recorder (20%)a | Reviewer comments on the availability and the quality of an integrated camera, video, and audio recorder, including resolution of pictures and videos taken | 1: Quality of integrated camera, video and audio recorder is extremely poor; 5: Quality of integrated camera, video and audio recorder is extremely good |
Alerts (13%) | Reviewer comments on the quality of the alerts that are provided by the system, e.g., including comments on the availability of various types of alerts (ring tone, vibration, visual cues) | 1: Quality of alerts is extremely poor; 5: Quality of alerts is extremely good |
Support for business purposes (12%) | Reviewer comments on the quality of the support provided by the technology for work and business purposes | 1: Quality of support for business purposes is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support for business purposes is extremely good |
Office applications (12%) | Reviewer comments on the quality of the technology to support office applications, such as word processing, presentation, spreadsheet, database, and other interactive applications (e.g. programming) | 1: Quality of support for office applications is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support for office applications is extremely good |
Video and audio player (9%) | Reviewer comments on the availability and the quality of an integrated video player and audio player | 1: Quality of integrated video and audio player is extremely poor; 5: Quality of integrated video and audio player is extremely good |
Voice dialing (8%) | Reviewer comments on the availability and quality of voice dialing, including voice recognition | 1: Quality of voice dialing is extremely poor; 5: Quality of voice dialing is extremely good |
Support for personal purposes (4%) | Reviewer comments on the quality of the support provided by the technology for non-work-related (personal) purposes | 1: Quality of support for personal purposes is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support for personal purposes is extremely good |
Document manage-ment, attachment processing (3%) | Reviewer comments on the availability and quality of document management attachment processing capabilities | 1: Quality of document management and attachment processing is extremely poor; 5: Quality of document management and attachment processing is extremely good |
Voice mail (2%) | Reviewer comments on the availability and quality of voice mail features | 1: Quality of voice mail is extremely poor; 5: Quality of voice mail is extremely good |
Support for continuous and immediate access to computer and network resources, and to perform work promptly (1%) | Reviewer comments on the quality and extent to which the technology allows for continuous and immediate access to computer and network resources, independent of the particular type of resource (Internet/Web, intranet, databases) or application | 1: Quality of support for continuous and immediate access to computer and network resources is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support for continuous and immediate access to computer and network resources is extremely good |
Support for immediate and constant interaction with various communication partners, and to perform work promptly (1%) | Reviewer comments on the quality and extent to which the technology allows for prompt and continuous interaction with various communication partners, such as clients, customers, staff, colleagues, business partners, family, and friends, independent of the particular type of communication (voice, messaging, etc.) | 1: Quality of support for prompt and continuous interaction with various communication partners is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support for prompt and continuous interaction with various communication partners is extremely good |
Non-functional features related to portability and ubiquitous use of the device | ||
Form factors (60%)a | Reviewer comments on the physical device in terms of size weight, general built-quality (e.g., sturdiness) and layout (e.g., buttons and ports) | 1: Quality of form factors is extremely poor; 5: Quality of form factors is extremely good |
Limited equipment to be carried (19%)a | Reviewer comments on the extent to which the device limits the total weight and/or number of pieces of equipment to be carried along while mobile | 1: Technology does not limit the total weight and/or number of pieces of equipment to be carried along while mobile; 5: Technology greatly limits the total weight and/or number of pieces of equipment to be carried along while mobile |
Adaptability and customizability (14%) | Reviewer comments on the extent and quality with which technology can adapt automatically to changes of location (location awareness), for example enabled by the ability to adjust time when entering a different time zone and by the availability of Global Positioning System (GPS) functionality, and/or be customized according to personal preferences, including menus, background themes, buttons, ring-tones, etc. | 1: Technology cannot adapt automatically or be customized by the user; 5: Technology adapts automatically or can be customized extremely well by the user |
Support during travel (12%) | Reviewer comments on the quality of support during travel | 1: Quality of support during travel is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support during travel is extremely good |
Support during commute (10%) | Reviewer comments on the quality of support during commute | 1: Quality of support during commute is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support during commute is extremely good |
Support while working on location (7%) | Reviewer comments on the quality of support during work on location | 1: Quality of support during work on location is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support during work on location is extremely good |
Support while telecommuting (5%) | Reviewer comments on the quality of support during telecommuting (i.e. working from non-office locations, such as from home) | 1: Quality of support while telecommuting is extremely poor; 5: Quality of support while telecommuting is extremely good |
Support while having limited access to power (4%) | Reviewer comments on the quality and the amount of time of which the technology can be used while having limited access to power | 1: Technology cannot be used while having limited access to power; 5: Technology can be used extremely well while having limited access to power |
Support where network connection is limited or unavailable (2%) | Reviewer comments on the quality with which the technology can be used while having limited access to network connection, including situations of low bandwidth, unstable connections, as well as situations where there is no wireless Internet (Wifi) and/or no cell phone reception | 1: Technology cannot be used while having limited network connection; 5: Technology can be used extremely well while having limited network connection |
Support while having limited time to work and concentrate on particular location (1%) | Reviewer comments on the extent to which the technology can be used while being distracted due to background noise and other factors that compete for the reviewer attention, and on the extent to which technology can be used for (very) limited periods of time, e.g., while waiting for a plane | 1: Technology cannot be used while being distracted, and during very limited periods of time; 5: Technology can be used extremely well while being distracted, and during very limited periods of time |
Non-functional features related to operation and performance | ||
Links and compatiblity w/other devices (34%)a | Reviewer comments on the compatibility of the technology with other devices and systems, related to physical connections (e.g., availability of various ports), and software-related (e.g., related to synchronization) | 1: Technology does not link with other technologies 5: Technology links extremely well with other technologies |
Speed (33%)a | Reviewer comments on the performance (speed, responsiveness) of the technology in general, mainly as a result of the strength of the processor | 1: Quality of performance is extremely poor; 5: Quality of performance is extremely good |
Battery (33%)a | Reviewer comments on the life of the battery, on the availability of extended batteries, and on the availability of power saving features | 1: Quality of battery is extremely poor; 5: Quality of battery is extremely good |
Stability (24%)a | Reviewer comments on the stability of the technology in general and on the operating system in particular | 1: Technology is extremely unstable; 5: Technology is extremely stable |
Storage (24%)a | Reviewer comments on the amount of available storage in the form of a hard disk, onboard memory and availability of disk drives; also includes comments on the extendibility of storage | 1: Quality of storage extremely poor; 5: Quality of storage is extremely good |
Operation (15%) | Reviewer comments on the operation of the technology, e.g., on the noise from a fan during operation and heat generated by the device | 1: Quality of operation extremely poor; 5: Quality of operation is extremely good |
Non-functional features related to usability and appearance | ||
Display (49%)a | Reviewer comments on the quality of the output displayed by the technology including the quality of the screen and (size, resolution, color depth, brightness) and the performance of the graphics and video card | 1: Quality of output devices is extremely poor; 5: Quality of output devices is extremely good |
Keyboard (48%)a | Reviewer comments on the ease with which information can be keyed into the system, including use of the keyboard, mouse, buttons, and also including the availability of shortcuts | 1: Quality of input devices is extremely poor; 5: Quality of input devices is extremely good |
Design (41%)a | Reviewer comments on the overall quality of the design, including aesthetics, colors, shapes, etc. of the devices | 1: Design is extremely poor; 5: Design is extremely good |
Customer service (39%)a | Reviewer comments on the level and quality of customer service received from the manufacturer, retailer, and service provider, including comments on responsiveness, replacement, warranty, and contract | 1: Customer service is extremely poor; 5: Customer service is extremely good |
Ease of use (34%)a | Reviewer comments on the usability of the system, referring to menu structures but also to the usability of buttons and other hardware-related features | 1: Ease of use is extremely poor; 5: Ease of use is extremely good |
External sound (20%)a | Reviewer comments on the quality of the speakers to be used by a phone (speakerphone), as well as for videos and music | 1: External sound quality is extremely poor; 5: External sound quality is extremely good |
Internal sound (17%)a | Reviewer comments on the internal sound quality of the phone feature | 1: Internal sound quality is extremely poor; 5: Internal sound quality is extremely good |
Backlight of screen and keyboard (13%) | Reviewer comments on the availability and the quality of a backlight for the keyboard and the brightness of the screen, allowing for the use in very dark and in very bright environments | 1: Quality of backlight is extremely poor; 5: Quality of backlight is extremely good |
Non-functional features related to network connectivity | ||
Network access and reception (35%)a | Reviewer comments on the availability and quality of network access (including bandwidth), and on the level of reception provided by the device and service provider (if applicable) | 1: Quality of network access and reception is extremely poor; 5: Quality of network access and reception is extremely good |
Bluetooth (25%)a | Reviewer comments on the availability and quality of wireless connections of the device with other devices (e.g. headset, printer, modem, PC), and the ease with which such connections can be set up and managed | 1: Quality of hands-free features (Bluetooth) is extremely poor; 5: Quality of hands-free features (Bluetooth) is extremely good |
WiFi (10%) | Reviewer comments on the availability and quality of wireless Internet (WiFi) features | 1: Quality of WiFi is extremely poor; 5: Quality of WiFi is extremely good |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gebauer, J., Tang, Y. & Baimai, C. User requirements of mobile technology: results from a content analysis of user reviews. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 6, 361–384 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-007-0074-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-007-0074-9