University of Wollongong

Research Online
Faculty of Commerce - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Business

2011

Viewing systems as services: the role of service

quality
Shahriar Akter
University of New South Wales, sakter@[Link]

Pradeep Ray
University of New South Wales

John D'Ambra
University of New South Wales

Publication Details
Akter, S., D'Ambra, J. & Ray, P. (2011). Viewing systems as services: the role of service quality. 2011 International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS2011) (pp. 1-18). Shanghai, China: AIS Electronic Library.

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library:
research-pubs@[Link]
Viewing systems as services: the role of service quality
Abstract
The significant and sustained growth in services worldwide prompts IS researchers to give special attention to
service and service concepts as core aspects of the IS field. This study proposes that ‘viewing systems as
services’ is critical to extend the focus of technology-business alignment in service science research. The study
evaluates the influence of mHealth service quality on satisfaction, perceived value and continuance intentions
using an interdisciplinary approach. The conceptual model is rooted in the traditional cognition - affective–
conation chain but explicitly identifies system quality, interaction quality and information quality as the core
dimensions of mHealth service quality. The model is validated in the context of a business-to-consumer
(B2C) mHealth service systems using PLS path modeling. The results confirm that service quality has a direct
impact on continuance intentions and an indirect impact through perceived value and satisfaction in mHealth
service systems.

Disciplines
Business | Social and Behavioral Sciences

Publication Details
Akter, S., D'Ambra, J. & Ray, P. (2011). Viewing systems as services: the role of service quality. 2011
International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS2011) (pp. 1-18). Shanghai, China: AIS Electronic
Library.

This conference paper is available at Research Online: [Link]

 Viewing Systems as Services: The Role of
Service Quality

Shahriar Akter Pradeep Ray

Australian School of Business Australian School of Business
The University of New South Wales The University of New South Wales
[Link]@[Link] [Link]@[Link]

John D’Ambra
Australian School of Business
The University of New South Wales
[Link]@[Link]

Abstract
The significant and sustained growth in services worldwide prompts IS researchers to
give special attention to service and service concepts as core aspects of the IS field. This
study proposes that ‘viewing systems as services’ is critical to extend the focus of
technology-business alignment in service science research. The study evaluates the
influence of mHealth service quality on satisfaction, perceived value and continuance
intentions using an interdisciplinary approach. The conceptual model is rooted in the
traditional cognition - affective– conation chain but explicitly identifies system quality,
interaction quality and information quality as the core dimensions of mHealth service
quality. The model is validated in the context of a business-to-consumer (B2C) mHealth
service systems using PLS path modeling. The results confirm that service quality has a
direct impact on continuance intentions and an indirect impact through perceived value
and satisfaction in mHealth service systems.

Keywords: Service quality, perceived value, satisfaction, continuance intentions.

Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 1

Service Science

Introduction
The global economy is becoming characterized by services with more than 70% contribution in GDP from
the service sector (Ostrom et al. 2010). This shift to service as a driver of economic growth is caused by
the predominant presence of services industries. This global phenomenon of significant and sustained
service growth is projected to continue unabated for both developed and developing countries. In this
growth, IT organizations increasingly find themselves in a world of service systems to build business
models, accelerate adoptions of new service platforms, deliver value and drive innovation. As such,
‘viewing a system as a service’ can help IT organizations align its interests with the services economy by
improving service quality, capturing the business value of IT, and above all, enhancing satisfaction and
continuance intentions (Maglio et al. 2009; Alter 2010). This service orientation requires firms to
embrace service quality in order to perform better both at front stage and back stage (Sousa & Voss 2006;
Akter et al. 2010). Indeed, for better performance, IT organizations increasingly emphasize on quality to
address the challenge: “how can the voice of the customer and voice of the process be matched for the best
overall performance?” (ifm & IBM 2008, P. 5). Despite the importance of quality in service systems, there
is a paucity of research that explores the antecedents to and consequence of service quality in this domain
(Jen et al. 2008). Indeed, service oriented thinking and quality dominant decision making are only
beginning and a few preliminary guidelines for these links have been proposed. Therefore, Alter (2010)
states that, “Viewing systems as services (and other aspects of the work system approach) should be used
to explore and possibly reinterpret many of the results from prior research on the business value of IT”.

‘Service’ is defined as the application of specialized competences, through deeds, processes, and
performances for the benefit of another entity or the entity itself (Vargo & Lusch 2008, p. 26), whereas
‘service system’ is defined as a value co-creating process using resources include people, technology,
organization and shared information in order to satisfy customer needs better than competing
alternatives (ifm & IBM 2008, p. 5). Service system is also defined as a dynamic configuration of
resources that co-creates value through interaction with its stakeholders (Spohrer et al. 2007). Viewing a
system as a service necessitates focusing on ‘customers first’ because changes in customers’ needs lead to
the desired changes in service quality, which, in turn influences perceived value, satisfaction and
continuance intentions (Alter 2010). This study focuses on mHealth, which is a transformative service
system in healthcare for shifting the care paradigm from crisis intervention to promoting wellness,
prevention, and self-management (Kaplan & Litewka 2008). ‘mHealth’ is defined as the application of
mobile communications—such as mobile phones and PDAs—to deliver right time health services to
customers (or, patients).This service system centers on “creating uplifting changes and improvements in
the well-being of both individuals and communities” (Ostrom et al., 2010). Although this service system
creates positive changes, there are growing concerns about the overall service quality of such services, and
their impact on critical service outcomes (Ahluwalia & Varshney 2009; Angst & Agarwal 2009; Akter et
al. 2010; Kaplan & Litwka 2008; Akter et al. 2011; Varshney 2005).

Researchers in service systems consider quality as the single most important determinant of businesses’
long term success (Alter 2010). In health service system, quality is also seen as a means for achieving
increased patronage, competitive advantage, long-term profitability and to ensure better health outcomes
for patients (Dagger and Sweeney 2006; Dagger et al. 2007). mHealth, the new health service system,
considers quality as a means for achieving perceived value, satisfaction and continuance intentions (Akter
et al. 2010). This study defines service quality (SQ) as consumers’ (or, patients’) judgment about the
overall excellence or superiority of mHealth service system (Dagger et al. 2007). The role of consumers
(or, patients) in evaluating the nature of quality becomes a critical competitive consideration due to its
enormous impact on outcome constructs (O’Connor et al. 2000). If the system can not be trusted to
guarantee a threshold level of quality, it will have a negative impact on satisfaction and continuance
intentions (Andaleeb 2001). As a result, mHealth service systems are struggling to develop meaningful
quality assessment measures and their association with outcome constructs. Given the innovative nature
of mHealth service system and the infancy stage of mHealth implementation, there is a paucity of
matrices which can adequately measure the complexities of this new service system. A review of the
literature reveals that still most of the research in this domain (i.e., mHealth service system) remains
largely anecdotal, fragmented and atheoretical (Chatterjee et al. 2009; Akter et al. 2010).

2 Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011

 Viewing Systems as Services: The Role of Service Quality

Therefore, the main objective of this study is to identify the dimensions of service quality and model its
overall impact on perceived value, satisfaction and continuance intentions in mHealth service systems.
This modeling extends the notion of ‘viewing systems as services’ by embracing service systems, quality
dominant logic and customer centricity concepts in the emerging service science paradigm. This extension
clearly contributes to the business-technology alignment in service science by framing the impact of
perceived service quality on critical service outcomes in an interdisciplinary manner.

The organization of this paper is as follows: Next section focuses on the conceptual model and hypotheses
development. The subsequent section describes research methodology and empirical findings. Finally, the
study discusses the implications in terms of contributions and future research directions, and provides the
concluding remarks.

Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Development

The conceptual model is based on the literature in marketing, information systems and healthcare
management as we focus on a technology mediated health service platform. In service systems research,
such an interdisciplinary approach is important and necessary to adequately address the challenges and
opportunities (Ostrom et al., 2010). In Figure 1, the conceptual model elucidates quality dominant logic
in service systems by showing the associations in terms of cognitive (perceived quality & value)-affective
(satisfaction)-conative (continuance intentions) framework (Oliver 1997, 1999; Bhattacherjee 2001;
Taylor and Baker 1994, Cronin and Taylor 1992; Patterson 1997; Woodside et al. 1989). The model links
consumer beliefs, affect, and intention within the traditional consumer attitude structure. This
relationship highlights the quality dominant decision making process when we view a system as a service
(e.g., B2C mHealth care). In this relationship, satisfaction plays the key mediating role between quality,
value and continuance intentions. In the following sections, the study defines each construct and presents
justification for all the hypotheses with further elaboration regarding the proposed relationships.

Service
Quality H3 (+)

H1 (+)

H2 (+) Continuance
H4 (+)
Satisfaction Intentions

H5 (+)

H6 (+)

Perceived
Value

Figure 1: The role of service quality in a service system

Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 3

Service Science

Service Quality

Quality is an important ingredient for any service. However, quality is a complicated and indistinct
concept and there is no single universal definition of quality in the literature (Brady & Cronin 2001). Due
to its ‘elusive’ nature, research in this sector has still remained ‘unresolved’ (Caruana et al. 2000, p. 57).
Indeed, it has remained a difficult concept to grasp (Brady & Cronin, 2001) and “far from conclusive”
(Athanassopoulos 2000, p. 191). This study focuses on perceived service quality which focuses on users’
perceptions about the excellence or superiority of any service. European Union’s R&D in Advanced
Communications technologies in Europe (RACE, 1994) program defines quality of service as “a set of user
perceivable attributes of that which makes a service what it is. It is expressed in user-understandable
language and manifests itself as a number of parameters, all of which have either subjective or objective
values”.

In order to recognize the expanding service role and to measure the performance of service systems,
researchers in IS (e.g., Jiang et al. 2000, 2002; Pitt et al. 1995, 1997, Kettinger & Lee, 1994, 1995, 1999;
Watson et al. 1998) have predominantly focused on SERVQUAL to measure service performance. But they
faced huge challenges because of the reliability and validity of the generic SERVQUAL measures and lack
of IT artifact in IS context (Van dyke et al. 1997, 1999; Orlikowski & Iacono 2001). Although such studies
have been important in explaining IT usage, they are relatively abstract in capturing human technology
interactions and provide limited guidance for system designers (Nelson et al. 2005). Besides, some
researchers found that the application of SERVQUAL model in e-services collapse and most dimensions
lose their reliability and validity (e.g., Gefen 2002). Overall, the extant literature on SERVQUAL model in
IS did not focus on an integrated perspective to measure overall IT service quality. In order to address
these challenges, several powerful models have been developed to address the issues of services quality
over electronic platform, such as, E-S-QUAL (Parasuraman et al. 2005), electronic service quality model
(Fassnacht & Koese 2006). However, these models are primarily based on front office though service
quality failures are frequently related to back office operations. Since overall customer satisfaction is
influenced by service quality of all moments of contact (Shaw & Ivens 2002), researchers (e.g.,
Parasuraman et al. 2005; Sousa & Voss, 2006) suggest incorporating both front office and back office
dimensions in evaluating service quality in IT.

A review of the mobile healthcare literature reveals that there are few studies which have measured the
service quality of mHealth. For instance, Varshney (2006) mentions that coverage of wireless and mobile
networks, reliability of wireless infrastructure, and general limitations of hand-held devices
predominantly influence quality in wireless healthcare. Chatterjee et al. (2009) evaluates mHealth using
IS success framework and identifies that system quality, information quality and service quality influence
mHealth success. Recently, Akter et al. (2010) presents a service quality model for mHealth; however, it
did not model the impact of service quality on perceived value and related outcomes.

Synthesis of literatures in service systems brings some overlapping dimensions of service quality to
measure users’ perceptions. These are system quality, interaction quality and information quality. First,
system quality refers to the performance of overall service delivery platform; second, interaction quality
refers to the quality of interaction between provider and user over IT platform and finally, information
quality indicates the quality of information service benefits. It is also agreed that no single model is
absolutely better than other, so conceptualization and measurement of variables are often influenced by
the context and objective of the study (DeLone & McLean 2003). Furthermore, users prefer different
quality measures depending on the type of system being evaluated (Jiang et al. 1999). Thus, service
quality modeling in service systems is identified as context specific, multidimensional and hierarchical
(Akter et al. 2010).

4 Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011

 Viewing Systems as Services: The Role of Service Quality

Service Quality, Satisfaction and Continuance Intentions

Satisfaction plays an instrumental role in helping IT organizations clarify objectives, define measures of
performance, and develop performance information systems. Rai et al. (2002), in their study to assess the
validity of DeLone and McLean's (1992) and Seddon's (1997) IS success models, find that IS user
satisfaction impacts IS use: a higher level of satisfaction creates greater user dependence on the system.
Most of the published academic studies in the services sector have also emphasized the link between
services quality and satisfaction (Dagger et al. 2007; Zineldin 2006). User satisfaction theory has argued
that user satisfaction is an attitude which should be measured by the totaling of the subjective
assessments of multidimensional attributes associated with the care experience (Zviran & Erlich 2003). In
user-oriented health care, users and their satisfaction are considered first and foremost at every point in
the planning, implementation, and evaluation of service delivery (Dagger et al. 2007, Akter et al. 2010).

Studies find both a direct relationship between service quality and satisfaction and an indirect
relationship between service quality and intention to use through satisfaction (Mahmood et al. 2000,
Zviran & Erlich 2003; Cronin and Taylor 1992; Dabholkar et al. 2000). DeLone & McLean (2003) confirm
that service quality leads to user satisfaction and increased user satisfaction leads to future intentions to
use. They highlight a strong relationship between service satisfaction and future use intentions through a
meta analysis. In health services, satisfaction is generally viewed as more closely aligned with behavioral
intentions. Satisfaction is typically modeled as mediating the relationship between service quality and
behavioral intentions (e.g., Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Brady and Robertson 2001; Cronin and Taylor
1992; Dabholkar et al. 2000). However, in this study, we are using ‘intention to continue using’ instead of
‘intention to use’ which is defined as a usage behavior, commonly labeled as post-implementation (Saga
and Zmud 1994) or post-adoption (Jasperson et al. 2005), is at least equally important to attaining service
systems implementation.

Whereas ‘intention to use’ is related to initial adoption stage and considered a first step toward overall IS
success, ‘intention to continue using’ focuses on how to promote continued IS use or, how to promote
discontinuance (Limayem et al. 2007). Indeed, in order to consider service systems use a true success, a
significant number of users should have moved beyond the initial adoption stage, using the service
systems on a continued basis. Bhattacherjee (2001) confirms the viability of this construct by citing “long-
term viability of an IS and its eventual success depend on its continued use rather than [its] first-time
use.” Thus, IS continuance intentions, IS continuance behavior, or IS continuous usage describes
“behavioral patterns reflecting continued use of a particular IS which is a form of post adoption behavior”
(Limayem et al. 2007). In this study, we focus on post-adoption which actually refers to a suite of
behaviors that follow initial acceptance (Rogers 1995), including continuance, routinization, infusion,
adaptation, assimilation, etc., which is often used as a synonym for continuance intentions in the
literature (Karahanna et al. 1999). Past IS research is based on the implicit assumption that IS usage is
mainly determined by ‘intention to use’ (in case of initial adoption), however, this assumption may not be
applicable to continued IS usage behavior (Limayem et al. 2007), such as, continued usage of mobile
health services. Because of lack of knowledge of continuance intentions in service systems, researchers
recommend exploring this area in more detail (Akter et al. 2010). In addition, there is a research call to
model the direct impact of service quality on continuance intentions and indirect impact through
satisfaction in service systems. Thus, the study posits that:

H1: mHealth service quality has a significant positive impact on satisfaction.

H2: User satisfaction has a significant positive impact on continuance intentions.

H3: mHealth service quality has a significant positive impact on continuance intentions.

Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 5

Service Science

Service Quality, Value and Continuance Intentions

When we view a system as a service, perceived value plays a critical role in developing the service value
chain for the system (Alter 2010). According to Porter & Teisberg (2004, p. 9), “In most businesses, it is
common sense to create products and services that create unique value.” One of the fundamental building
blocks of services systems is co-creation of value (Maglio et al. 2009). Value refers to the consumer’s
evaluation of the utility of perceived benefits and perceived sacrifices (Zeithaml, 1988). In other words, it
refers to users’ perception regarding what they receive as benefits and what they give up as sacrifices in
order to achieve a service (Choi et al. 2004). According to Porter & Teisberg (2004, p.5), “Payers,
employers and providers pay insufficient attention to achieving better outcomes and improving value over
time, which are what really matter.” Superior service value represents a significant competitive advantage
for the firm in building profits and customer satisfaction (Parasuraman et al. 2005). Service providers
always try to increase service benefits and reduce costs or both (Sheth et al. 1999). In service Systems,
service quality is widely acknowledged to play a vital role in increasing perceived value and firm’s
performance (Nault and Dexter 1995; Oh & Pinsonneault 2007). Service quality also streamlines business
operations, increases perceived value and enhances retention (or, continuance). In mobile technology
based services, value is an important parameter as firms use this channel to create superior value for
customers (Kalakota and Robinson 2001). As noted by Chatterjee et al. (2009), the demand side of
mHealth service is a search for value, and hence there is a need to build an understanding of the elements
and special features of wireless electronic channels that are value-adding from the consumer’s point of
view. For mHealth consumers, the key value proposition of mobility is the creation of choice, or new
freedoms, for users (Akter et al. 2010). In other words, the key advantages of mHealth include flexibility,
convenience, and ubiquity. Empirical findings by Akter et al. (2011) indicate that IT continuance decisions
by users are determined by their perceived value of a channel in comparison to existing alternatives.
Thus, mHealth platforms create value for patients in a manner that is different from that which has been
achieved in traditional healthcare platforms.

The extant literature reports that value perceptions of services will be directly influenced by perceived
service quality. The relationship between service quality and perceived value is evident for healthcare
(Cronin et al. 1997) and for other services (Fornell et al. 1996; Wakefield and Barnes 1996;
Athanassopoulos, 2000). It is also argued that “customer satisfaction is the result of a customer’s
perception of the value received” (Hallowell 1996, p. 29). According to Fornell (1996. P. 9), “The first
determinant of overall customer satisfaction is perceived quality. . . the second determinant of overall
customer satisfaction is perceived value. .” Thus user satisfaction is highly associated with value and both
these constructs are conceptually based on the overall quality attributes (Athanassopoulos 2000).
According to Cronin et al. (2000, P.195), “Specifically, there has been a convergence of opinion that
favorable service quality perceptions lead to improved satisfaction and value attributions and that, in
turn, positive value directly influences satisfaction”.

The majority of studies in marketing indicate that service quality has an indirect impact on behavioral
intentions through value and satisfaction (e.g., Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Gotlieb et al. 1994; Patterson
and Spreng 1997; Roest and Pieters 1997; Taylor, 1997), though others argue for a direct impact (e.g.,
Boulding et al., 1993; Parasuraman et al. 1988, 1991; Taylor and Baker, 1994; Zeithaml et al. 1996).
However, these findings are based on ‘intention to use’, not ‘intention to continue using’. Furthermore,
there is a paucity of research in IT services or specifically, in mHealth service systems, which explores the
service quality-value-satisfaction link or, service quality-value-continuance link. Thus the study postulates
that:

H4: mHealth service quality has a significant positive impact on perceived value.

H5: Perceived value has a significant positive impact on user satisfaction.

H6: Perceived value has a significant positive impact on continuance intentions.

6 Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011

 Viewing Systems as Services: The Role of Service Quality

Methodology

Research Context

This study focuses on mobile telemedicine service systems in Bangladesh, which is one of the leading
mHealth service providing developing nations (Akter & Ray 2010; Akter et al. 2011). In recent years, this
particular mHealth platform becomes very popular in the developing world ( e.g., India, Bangladesh,
Pakistan, Mexico, South Africa, Peru etc.) and serves millions by delivering right time medical services at
an affordable cost (Ivatury et al. 2009). Currently, more than 24 million people in Bangladesh have access
to such B2C mHealth services provided by the leading mobile operator “Grameen phone”. Under this
platform, a customer (or, a patient) can access health service at anytime by dialing ‘789’ from his/her own
mobile phones and receive services in the form of medical information, consultation, treatment,
diagnosis, referral, treatment and counseling from registered physicians. In addition, customers who do
not have their own mobile phones can access this mHealth service from local mobile phone kiosks which
are widely available at every corner of the country.

Qualitative Research

In order to identify the dimensions of service quality in mHealth, this study obtained qualitative data
from 3 focus group discussions and 10 depth interviews in Bangladesh. Participants ranged in age from 18
to 62 years and both genders had equal participation. The study asked the following questions to identify
the service quality dimensions:

a. In your opinion, what makes mHealth different from other health services?
b. What are the major merits and demerits of mHealth services?
c. Any positive or negative experience that you had while receiving mHealth services?

The answers were recorded, synthesized and sorted into different categories to identify the core
dimensions and their link to service quality constructs. In qualitative study, service quality was frequently
identified as a multidimensional and context specific concept. Users expressed their opinion on different
service-level attributes (e.g., “I can access mHealth whenever I want” or, “The physician shows sincere
interest to solve my problems,” or, “mHealth information serves my purpose”) under multiple
dimensions. Overall, the study found that service quality is a second order construct, which consists of
three core dimensions in mHealth, that is, system quality, interaction quality and information quality.

Instrument Development

The questionnaire consists of previously published multi-item scales with favorable psychometric
properties and items from qualitative research (Table 1). All the constructs in the model, except
satisfaction, were measured using 7 point likert scale (e.g., strongly disagree - strongly agree). Satisfaction
was measured using bi-polar semantic differential scale (e.g., very dissatisfied - very satisfied). The study
developed the primary version of the questionnaire in English, and then translated the measures into the
local language (Bangla). The local version was retranslated and confirmed by a panel of judges that both
versions reflect the same content. Before the final study, the study conducted a pretest over 15 convenient
samples to ensure that the question content, wording, sequence, format and layout, question difficulty,
instructions and the range of the scales were appropriate. Upon response from the pretest, the study made
context specific adjustments to refine the final version of the questionnaire.

Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 7

Service Science

Table 1: Operationalization of Constructs

Model Constructs Operational definitions Measures

First order System Performance of mHealth platform in terms of Adapted from Parasuraman et al.
Model Quality reliability and availability. (2005); Akter et al. (2010)
Interaction Quality of communication between patients Parasuraman et al. (2005); Akter
Quality and physicians over mHealth platform. et al. (2010)
Information Attributes of mHealth information in terms of Fassnacht & Koese (2006); Akter
Quality service benefits. et al. (2010)
Second order Service It indicates overall excellence or superiority Wetzels et al. (2009), Bagozzi
Model Quality of the mHealth service systems. It consists of (2010), Akter et al. (2010)
all the items of the first order model since it
represents a hierarchical construct.

Constructs in Perceived Users’ trade-off between benefits and costs. Parasuraman et al. (2005)
the structural Value
model Service Users' affect with (or, feelings) about prior Spreng et al. (1996)
satisfaction mHealth services use.

Continuance Users' intention to continue using mHealth Bhattacherjee (2001)

Intentions services.

Sampling
Data were collected from Bangladesh under a global mHealth assessment project from January 07 to
March 17, 2010. In the absence of lists for drawing a random sample, about six hundred interviews were
planned from using area wise cluster sampling. A total of 623 respondents were approached, of which 480
(77%) surveys were ultimately completed. Of the total number of completed surveys, seven were
considered problematic and excluded, because of excessive missing data, don’t know answers, or N/A
answers, and response biases. Finally, 473 surveys were analyzed. The demographic profile of the
respondents represents a diverse cross section of the population (Table 2). The respondent group ranged
in age from 18 to 62, were 59 percent male, 58 percent lived in rural areas, 47 percent had income less
than US $ 70 per month, employed to a wide range of professions (students, professionals, self-employed,
academics, farmers, housewives, day laborers, retirees), and had various educational levels (from illiterate
to doctoral degrees).

Table 2: Demographic profile of respondents

Items Categories % Items Categories %

Gender Male 59 18-25 25.3

Female 41 Age 26-33 31.5
34-41 21.2
Location Urban 42 42-49 16.9
Rural 58 50+ 5.1

Income < $ 70 46.9 Working full time 38.4

$ 71- $141 21.8 Occupation Working part time 34.3
(per month $ 142 - $212 10.1 Housewife 15.7
in US $) $ 212 + 21.2 Others 11.6

8 Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011

 Viewing Systems as Services: The Role of Service Quality

Data Analysis
Service quality in this study serves as a second order, reflective construct which consists of system quality,
interaction quality and information quality as the first order dimensions. According to Bagozzi (2010, p.
209), “The second-order factor approach is most valid and conceptually meaningful when the first-order
factors loading on the second-order factor can be interpreted as subdimensions or components of a more
abstract, singular construct”. Though covariance based SEM is the predominant approach in estimating
such hierarchical model, this study uses component based SEM (or, PLS path modeling) because this
method leads to higher theoretical parsimony and lower model complexity (Bagozzi and Yi 1994; Chin,
2010; Lohmoller 1989; Noonan & Wold 1983; Petter et al. 2007; Wold 1982; Edwards 2001; Law et al.,
1998; MacKenzie et al., 2005; Wetzels et al. 2009). Thus, this study applies PLS path modeling to
estimate the reflective, second-order service quality model through the repeated use of manifest variables
(Chin and Gopal 1995; Chin 2010; Lohmöller, 1989; Wetzels et al., 2009; Wold 1985). As we have
undertaken a hierarchical approach, the manifest variables will be used two times: for the first-order
latent variables (e.g., system quality, interaction quality and information quality) and for the second-order
latent variable (e.g., service quality) (see Table 3).

Table 3: Estimation of Service quality as a second-order, reflective Model Using PLS

First Order model Second order model

yi = Λ y . η j + ε i η j = Γ . ξk + ζ j

yi = manifest variables (e.g., items/ measures / η j = first order factors(e.g., convenience)

indicators)
Γ = loadings of second order latent variable
Λ y = loadings of first order latent variable
ξk = second order latent variable (e.g., service
ηj = first order latent variable (e.g., system quality, quality)
interaction quality, information quality) ζj = measurement error of first order factors
εi = measurement error of manifest variables

Findings

Measurement Model
In order to assess the second order reflective model of service quality, this study uses PLS Graph 3.0 (Chin
2001) to estimate the parameters in the outer and inner model. In this case, the study applies PLS path
modeling with a path weighting scheme for the inside approximation (Chin 1998; Tenenhaus et al. 2005;
Wetzels et al. 2009). Then the study uses nonparametric bootstrapping (Chin 1998; Efron and Tibshirani
1993; Tenenhaus et al. 2005; Wetzels et al. 2010) with 1000 replications to obtain the standard errors of
the estimates. In estimating the second order service quality model, the study uses the approach of
repeated indicators suggested by Wold (cf. Lohmoller 1989, pp 130-133).

A complete picture of the first-order measurement model emerges in Table 4 after applying the testing
criteria and eliminating the items that damage the soundness of the criteria. The study assesses the
psychometric properties of the first-order measurement model by examining reliability, convergent
validity and discriminant validity. The study confirms that all the item loadings, Cronbach’s alphas,
composite reliabilities (CRs) and average variance extracted (AVEs) exceed the cut off values of 0.7, 0.7,
0.7 and 0.5 respectively, which ensure adequate scale reliability (Chin 1998; Fornell and Larcker 1981).
This estimation also ensures convergent validity as all the PLS indicators load much higher on their
hypothesized factor than on other factors (own loading are higher than cross loadings) (Chin 1998, 2010).

Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 9

Service Science

In addition, in Table 5, this study calculates the square root of the AVE that exceeds the intercorrelations
of the construct with the other constructs in the model to ensure discriminant validity (Chin, 2010, 1998b;
Fornell & Larcker 1981). Thus, the study ensures a valid measurement model with the evidence of
adequate reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. This process paves the way for testing
the higher order measurement model and the research model.

Table 4: Psychometric Properties of the first order constructs

Constructs Items Loadings Alpha CR AVE

System Quality mHealth service platform is always available. 0.901 0.883 0.920 0.744
I can receive health service right away. 0.929
This service platform performs reliably. 0.868
This service platform is dependable. 0.743

Interaction Quality Physicians of mHealth platform provide prompt service. 0.860 0.906 0.934 0.780
Physicians are willing to help me. 0.916
Physicians have my best interests at heart. 0.917
Physicians understand my specific needs. 0.838

Information Quality mHealth information is complete. 0.786 0.828 0.886 0.660

mHealth information is comprehensive. 0.818
mHealth information is easy to understand. 0.831
mHealth gives me all the health information I need. 0.815

The amount of money I paid for mHealth is appropriate. 0.896 0.935 0.954 0.837
The value I receive for my money is worthwhile. 0.906
Perceived Value This service is very convenient to me. 0.934
Overall, this service serves its purpose very well. 0.924

Service satisfaction I am satisfied with my use of mHealth service. 0.949 0.961 0.971 0.896
I am contented with my use of mHealth service. 0.952
I am pleased with my use of mHealth service. 0.950
I am delighted with my use of mHealth service. 0.935

Continuance I intend to continue using mHealth to get medical 0.939 0.936 0.959 0.886
Intentions information services.
My intention is to continue using this service rather than 0.923
use any alternative means (e.g., going to local clinics)
I will not discontinue my use of this service. 0.962

Table 5: Mean, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations among constructs

Construct Mean SD SQ IQ NQ VA SA CI

System quality (SQ) 5.78 0.98 0.863*

Interaction quality (IQ) 5.75 1.12 0.456 0.883*

Information quality 5.64 1.18 0.526 0.812*

0.523
(NQ)
Perceived value (VA) 5.74 1.17 0.547 0.915*
0.438 0.429
Satisfaction (SA) 5.75 1.18 0.434 0.554 0.592 0.947*
0.412
Continuance Intentions 5.59 1.26 0.438 0.350 0.501 0.521 0.572 0.941*
(CI)
*square root of AVE on the diagonal.

10 Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011

 Viewing Systems as Services: The Role of Service Quality

This study also estimates the second order ‘service quality’ construct, which consists of 3 first order
reflective constructs (system quality, interaction quality and information quality) representing (4*3) 12
items. The results show that the CR & AVE of the second order ‘service quality’ construct are 0.943 and
0.579 respectively, which provide evidence of a reliable measure. The degree of explained variance of the
second order service quality construct is reflected in its first order components, that is, system quality (78
%), interaction quality (80%), and information quality (83 %). All the path coefficients from service
quality to first order components are significant at P<0.01. The study analyzes the implications of these
results in the discussion section.

System Quality
(0.776)
0.881

mHealth
Interaction Service
0.893
Quality (0.798) Quality

0.911

Information
Quality (0.830)

Figure 2: mHealth service quality

Structural Model
In order to assess the research model, this study estimates the impact of overall mHealth service quality
on satisfaction, perceived value and continuance intentions (Figure 3). Initially, the study estimates the
service quality-satisfaction-continuance link and the results give a standardized beta of 0.348 from service
quality to satisfaction, 0.327 from satisfaction to continuance and 0.191 from service quality to
continuance intentions. Based on these findings, this study confirms that overall mHealth service quality
has both direct and indirect impact on continuance intentions, which prove H1, H2 and H3 (see
Appendix). Furthermore, the study estimates the service quality-value-continuance link and the results
give a standardized beta of 0.751 from service quality to perceived value, 0.531 from perceived value to
satisfaction and 0.319 from perceived value to continuance intentions. These results confirm the impact of
service quality on perceived value, perceived value on satisfaction, and finally, perceived value on
continuance intentions, thereby proving H4, H5 and H6 respectively (see Appendix). Overall, the
variance explained by the model in terms of R2 is 0.681 for customer satisfaction, 0.564 for perceived
value and 0.601 for continuance intentions, which are significantly large according to the effect sizes
defined for R2 by Cohen (1988).

In order to assess the overall validity of PLS based research model, first, this study estimates the power
(1-β) of the model in order to assess its ability to reject a false null hypothesis (H0) (Cohen, 1988). In this
study, the power of the main effects model is 0.99 which compellingly exceeds the 0.80 cut off value.
Second, this study estimates the predictive relevance (Q2) of the endogenous constructs by using sample
reuse technique based on blindfolding procedure (Stone, 1974, Geisser, 1975, Fornell and Cha, 1994, Chin,
1998a). This study obtains Q2 of 0.595 (> 0) for satisfaction, 0.470 (> 0) for value and 0.513 (> 0) for
continuance intentions, which are indicative of a highly predictive model (Chin, 2010). Finally, this study
estimates the global fit (GoF) index to assess the global validity of PLS based research model (Tenenhaus
et al., 2005). This study obtains a GoF index of 0.723 for the complete model, which exceeds the cut-off

Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 11

Service Science

value of 0.36 for the large effect size (Wetzels et al. 2009). Thus, GoF index allows us to conclude that the
model has a better prediction power which adequately validates the PLS model globally.

mHealth
Service
Quality H3
(β = 0.191)

H1
(β = 0.348)
H2
H4 (β = 0.327) Continuance
(β = 0.751) Satisfaction Intentions
2
R = 0.681 R2 = 0.601
Q2 = 0.595 Q2 = 0.513
H5
(β = 0.531)

H6
(β = 0.319)
Perceived
Value
R2 = 0.564
Q2 = 0.470

Figure 3: Results of Hypotheses Testing

Discussion

Summary of Findings
The main thrust of this study was to model the impact of service quality on satisfaction, value and
continuance intentions in a service system. As such, the study developed the higher order service quality
model based on three dimensions (system quality, interaction quality and information quality) and
framed its impact on subsequent latent variables. The findings show that service quality in mHealth
service system has a strong impact on satisfaction, value and continuance intentions. This finding
highlights that the emphasis on service quality in ‘systems as service’ viewpoint is the perfect starting
point for identifying and solving IT business problems (Alter 2010). These findings also put forward the
concept of ‘customer centricity’ in visualizing system related problems in the business domain.

In particular, the findings suggest that all the primary service quality dimensions have a significant
positive association with overall service quality. Among these dimensions, ‘information quality’ emerged
as the strongest component, suggesting that greater gains in overall service quality can be realized by
providing right information. It also indicates that it is necessary to deliver information according to the
needs of customers in mHealth setting. Then ‘interaction quality’ was identified as an important
dimension which indicates that providers must be responsive to the needs of the users. Finally, ‘system
quality’ was identified as a key predictor of mHealth service quality which emphasizes the right time
availability of this platform so that anyone can receive health services at anytime from anywhere. In the
context of a low resource setting, this ubiquity is a central element in the promise of mHealth to transform
the healthcare delivery system (Akter & Ray 2010). Though the study has prioritized the importance of
service quality dimensions in terms of explained variance, however, the magnitude of difference among
them is very small. Thus, an equal attention should be paid to all the dimensions to improve overall
service quality.

12 Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011

 Viewing Systems as Services: The Role of Service Quality

The findings in the structural model confirm that overall service quality is a significant predictor of
satisfaction (explaining 68 % of variance), perceived value (explaining 58 % of variance) and continuance
intentions (explaining 60 % of variance). This finding is consistent with the service dominant logic (Vargo
& Lusch 2008), which implies that exchange process in business should focus on perceived value and
satisfaction for promoting service continuance. These findings also confirm that satisfaction and value are
the key mediators or, the necessary condition for strong continuance intentions. Overall, these findings
suggest that mHealth service system should consider ‘service quality’ as an important strategic objective
to predict satisfaction, value and continuance intentions.

Contribution to Theory and Practice

Since service science research is a new area in IS domain, scholars still strive to frame its impact on
critical service outcomes. According Bardhan et al. (2010), “The deployment of IS and technology by firms
increasingly determines their competitiveness in the service economy. In this milieu, there is a
corresponding need to apply robust research findings in the appropriate managerial and organizational
contexts on services innovation, quality, architecture, and design and delivery, as well as the customer
satisfaction and business value that results.” Thus, this study extends the scope of service science research
by modeling the impact of quality dominant logic on value, satisfaction and continuance in mHealth
service systems through an expanded theory based framework. The implications of this research are
highly relevant to practitioners. For managers of mHealth services, the findings of the study improve an
overall understanding of how service quality is linked to critical service outcomes in a service system.
According to Jia et al. (2008), “Equipped with a deeper understanding of the IT service quality
phenomenon, IT managers will be enabled to improve customer service, increase customer satisfaction,
and achieve stronger business- IT alignment.”

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the context of the study is single provider, single country based.
Future research could examine the sensitivity of the findings over multiple service providers in a cross
country setting. Second, the study is based on cross sectional design, which contains typical limitations
associated with this kind of research methodology. Future studies could undertake longitudinal study to
unfold the impact of service quality on outcome constructs over time. Future Studies could also explore
the impact of contextual factors, such as, demographic variables (income, education, gender etc.) and
situational constructs (usage frequency, cost etc.) on the research model.

Future Research Directions

Overall, it is widely believed that viewing systems as services will vitalize research into wide scale
interoperability (e.g., cloud computing, service-oriented architecture, web services, platform as a service).
The service metaphor of a system will also help enhance quality and associated outcomes. It will also
facilitate service systems to reconcile with mainstream service research notions. Advancing this
reconciliation of currently disparate research streams remains an important research priority for service
science in the foreseeable future.

Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 13

Service Science

Appendix: Path Coefficients and T-Statistics

Relationships Path Coefficients Standard Error T-Statistics

Service Quality - System Quality 0.881004 0.027649 31.863693

Service Quality - Interaction Quality 0.893152 0.031060 28.755423

Service Quality - Information Quality 0.911246 0.023931 38.077741

Service Quality - Satisfaction 0.347840 0.107759 3.227950

Service Quality - Perceived Value 0.751072 0.051408 14.610004

Service Quality – Continuance Intentions 0.191378 0.107330 1.783083

Satisfaction – Continuance Intentions 0.326757 0.137523 2.376009

Value - Satisfaction 0.531106 0.103765 5.118366

Value – Continuance Intentions 0.319305 0.134959 2.365933

References

Akter, S., & Ray, P. 2010. “mHealth-an ultimate platform to serve the unserved”. IMIA Yearbook of
Medical Informatics, pp. 75–81.
Akter, S., D’Ambra, J. & Ray, P. 2011. “Trustworthiness in mHealth Information Services: An Assessment
of a Hierarchical Model with Mediating and Moderating Effects using Partial Least Squares (PLS)”,
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, (62:1), pp. 100-116
Akter, S., D’Ambra, J. & Ray, P. 2010. “Service Quality of mHealth: Development and Validation of a
Hierarchical Model using PLS’, Electronic Markets, (20:3), pp. 209-227.
Ahluwalia, P., & Varshney, U. 2009. “Composite quality of service and decision making perspectives in
wireless networks”. Decision Support Systems, (46:2), pp. 542–551.
Alter, S. 2010. “Viewing Systems as Services: A Fresh Approach in the IS Field”, Communications of the
AIS, (26:11), PP. 195-224.
Angst, M. C., & Agarwal, R. 2009. “Adoption of electronic health records in the presence of privacy
concerns: the elaborate likelihood model and individual persuasion”. MIS Quarterly, (33:2), pp. 339–
370.
Anderson, E. W. and Sullivan M. W., 1993. “The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction
for Firms”, Marketing Science, (12 :2) , pp. 125-143 (Spring).
Athanassopoulos A. D., 2000. “Customer Satisfaction to Support Market Segmentation and Explain
Switching Behaviour”. Journal of Business Research, (47:3), pp. 191-207.
Bardhan, I.R., Demirkan, H. , Kannan, P.K., Kauffman, R.J., Sougstad, R. 2010. “An Interdisciplinary
Perspective on IT Services Management and Service Science”, Journal of Management Information
Systems,( 26:4), pp. 13–64.
Bagozzi, R. P., 2010. “Structural equation models are modelling tools with many ambiguities: comments
acknowledging the need for caution and humility in their use”. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20,
pp. 208-214.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., and Zeithaml, V.A. 1993 . “A Dynamic Model of Service Quality:
From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (February): 7–27.

14 Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011

 Viewing Systems as Services: The Role of Service Quality

Brady M. K. and Cronin J.J., 2001. “Some New Thoughts on Conceptualizing Perceived Service Quality: A
Hierarchical Approach”, Journal of Marketing, 65, pp. 34-49 (July).
Bhattacherjee, A., 2001. “Understanding information systems continuance. An expectation–confirmation
model”. MIS Quarterly, (25:3), pp. 351–370.
Brady M.K. and Robertson C. J. 2001. “Searching for a Consensus on the Antecedent Role of Service
Quality and Satisfaction: An Exploratory Cross-National Study”, Journal of Business Research, (51
:1), pp. 53-60.
Caruana, A., Ewing M. T. and Ramaseshan R. B., 2000. “Assessment of the Three-Column Format
SERVQUAL: An Experimental Approach”, Journal of Business Research, (49:I), pp. 57-65.
Chatterjee, S., Chakraborty, S., Sarker, S., Sarker, S., & Lau, F. Y. 2009. “Examining the success factors for
mobile work in healthcare: a deductive study”. Decision Support Systems, (46:3), pp. 620–633.
Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. 1995. “Adoption intention in GSS: importance of beliefs.” Data Base Advance,
26, pp. 42–64.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling,” MIS Quarterly,
22 (March), vii–xvi.
Chin, W. W. 2010. “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Handbook of Partial Least Squares:
Concepts, Methods and Application. Esposito Vinzi, V.; Chin, W.W.; Henseler, J.; Wang, H. (Eds.),
Springer, Germany, pp. 645-689.
Choi K.S., Cho W.H., Lee S., Lee H. K, Kim C., 2004. “The relationships among quality, value, satisfaction
and behavioural intention in health care provider choice: a South Korean study”. Journal of Business
Research, (57:8), pp. 913–21
Cohen, J. 1988. “Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences”, Hillside, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cronin J. J, Taylor S.A., 1992. “Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension.” Journal of
Marketing, 56 , 55 – 68 (July).
Cronin, J.J.., Brady, M.K. , Brand, RR., Hightower, R. , and Shemwell, D.J. 1997. “A Cross-Sectional Test
of the Effect and Conceptualization of Service Value,” The Journal of Services Marketing, (11:6), pp.
375–391.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., Hult, G.T.M. 2000. “Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer
Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments”, Journal of Retailing,
(76:2), pp. 193–218.
Dabholkar, P. A., David, C. S., & Dayle, I. T. 2000. “A comprehensive framework for service quality: an
investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal study”. Journal of
Retailing, (72:2), pp. 139–173.
Dagger, T. S., & Sweeney, C. J. 2006. “The effect of service evaluations on behavioral intentions and
quality of life,” Journal of Service Research, (9:1), pp. 3–18.
Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C., & Johnson, L. W. 2007. “A hierarchical model of health service quality: scale
development and investigation of an integrated model”. Journal of Service Research, (10:2), 123–142.
DeLone, W. H. and McLean, E. R. 1992. “Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent
Variable”, Information Systems Research, 3(1), pp. 60-95.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. 2003. “The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a
ten-year update”. Journal of Management Information Systems, (19:4), pp. 9–30.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Fassnacht, M. A., & Koese, I. 2006. “Quality of electronic services: conceptualizing and testing a
hierarchical model”. Journal of Service Research, 9(19), pp. 19–37.
Fornel, C. , Johnson, M.D. , Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. 1996. “The American Customer
Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (October): 7–18.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”. Journal of Marketing Research, (18:1), pp. 39–50.
Gefen, D. 2002. “Customer Loyalty in E-Commerce,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
3, pp. 27-51.
Gotlieb, J.B., Grewal, D. and Brown, S.W. 1994. “Consumer Satisfaction and Perceived Quality:
Complementary or Divergent Constructs?” Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (6): 875–885.
Headly D. E. and Miller S.J. 1993. “Measuring service quality and its relationship to future consumer
behavior”. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 13(4), pp. 32 – 41.

Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 15

Service Science

IfM and IBM .2008. Succeeding through service innovation: A service perspective for education,
research, business, and government. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Institute for
Manufacturing.
Ivatury, G., Moore, J., & Bloch, A. 2009. “A doctor in your pocket: health hotlines in developing
countries”. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 4(1), 119–153.
Jasperson, J., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. 2005. “A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive
behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems”. MIS Quarterly, (29:3), pp.
525–557.
Jia, R., Reich, B.H., Pearson, J.M. 2008. “IT service climate: An Extension to IT service Quality
Research”, Journal of AIS, (9:5), pp. 294-320.
Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. 1999. “User Evaluation of Information Systems: By System Typology”. IEEE
Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics, 29(1), pp. 111-116.
Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., Roan, J., Lin, T.M. 2001. “IS service performance: self-perceptions and user
perceptions”, Information & Management, 2001, 38(8), pp. 499–506.
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Crampton, S. 2000. “A note on SERVQUAL reliability and validity in information
system service quality measurement”. Decision Sciences, 31(3), pp. 725–745.
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Carr, C. 2002. “Measuring information systems quality: SERVQUAL from the
other side”, MIS Quarterly, (26:2), pp. 145–166.
Kalakota, R., and M. Robinson, M-Business: The Race to Mobility, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001.
Kaplan, B., & Litewka, S. 2008. “Ethical challenges of telemedicine and telehealth”. Cambridge Quarterly
of Healthcare Ethics, 17, pp. 401–416.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., and Chervany, N. L. 1999. “Information Technology Adoption across Time:
A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs,” MIS Quarterly, (23:2),
pp. 183-213.
Kettinger, W.J. and Lee, C.C. 1994. “Perceived service quality and user satisfaction with the information
services function”, Decision Sciences 25(5/6), pp. 737–766.
Kettinger, W. J., & Lee, C. C. 1995. “Exploring a ‘gap’ model of information services quality”. Information
Resources Management Journal, 8(3), pp. 5–16.
Kettinger, W. J., & Lee, C. C. 1999. “Replication of measures in information systems research: the case of
IS SERVQUAL”. Decision Sciences, 30(3), pp. 893–899.
Kettinger, W. J., & Lee, C. C. 2005. “Zones of tolerance: alternative scales for measuring information
systems service quality”. MIS Quarterly, 29(4), pp. 607-623.
Limayem, M., Hirt, S.G. and Cheung, M.K.C. 2007. “How habit limits the predictive power of intention :
the case of information systems continuance”, MIS Quarterly, (31 :4), pp. 705-737
Lohmöller, J.-B. 1989. Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares, Heidelberg: Physica-
Verlag.
Mahmood, M. A. 2000. “Variables Affecting Information Technology End-User Satisfaction: A Meta-
Analysis of the Empirical Literature”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, (52:5), pp.
751-771.
Maglio, P. P., Vargo, S.L., Caswell, N. and Spohrer, J. 2009. “The service system is the basic abstraction of
service science”, Information Systems and e-Business Management, (7), pp. 395-406
Nault, B., and Dexter, A. 1995. “Added Value and Pricing with Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly
(19:4), pp. 449-464.
Nelson, R. R., Todd, P. A., & Wixom, B. H. 2005. “Antecedents of information and systems quality: an
empirical examination within the context of data warehousing”. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 21(4), pp. 199–235.
Noonan, R., and Wold, H. 1982. “PLS Path Modeling with Indirectly Observed Variables: A Comparison of
Alternative Estimates for the Latent Variable”, in Systems Under Indirect Observation, Part II, K.G.
Jöreskog and H. Wold (eds.), Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 75-94.
Oliver R.L., 1980. “A Cognitive Model for the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction”, Journal of
Marketing Research, 17, pp. 460-469
Oliver R.L., 1993. “A conceptual model of service quality and service satisfaction.” In: Swartz TA, Bowen
DE, Brown SW, editors. Advances in services marketing and management. Research and practice ; 2:
65– 80, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Oliver R.L., 1997. “Satisfaction: a behavioural perspective on the consumer”. Boston, MA: Irwin-McGraw-
Hill.

16 Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011

 Viewing Systems as Services: The Role of Service Quality

O’Connor Stephen J, Trinh Hanh, Shewchuk, Richard M 2000. “Perceptual Gaps in Understanding
Patient Expectations for Health Care Service Quality”, Health Care Management Review, (25:2), pp.
7-23.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. 2001. Research commentary: desperately seeking the “IT” in IT
researches—a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, (2: 12), pp. 121–134.
Ostrom, A. L., Bitner M.J., Brown S.W., Burkhard K.A., Goul M., Daniels V. S, Demirkan H., and
Rabinovich E. 2010. “Moving forward and making a difference: Research priorities for the science of
service,” Journal of Service Research, (13:1), pp. 4-36.
Oh, W. & Pinsonneault, A. 2007. “On the assessment of the strategic value of Information technologies:
conceptual and analytical approaches”, MIS Quarterly, (31:2), pp. 239-265.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Z., & Berry L.L. 1985. “A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, 49(Fall), 41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L., .1988. “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring
Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality”. Journal of Retailing, (64:1), pp. 5-6.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L., 1991. “Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL
Scale,” Journal of Retailing, 64, pp. 12–40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Malhotra, A., 2005. “E-S-QUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing
Electronic Service Quality”. Journal of Service Research, (7:3), pp. 213-233.
Patterson P. G, and Spreng R. A. 1997. “Modelling the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction,
and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: an empirical examination”.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, (8:5), pp. 414 – 34.
Petter. S., Straub, D. & Rai, A .2007. “Specifying formative constructs in Information Systems Research”,
MIS Quarterly, 31(4), pp. 623-56
Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., & Kavan, C. B. 1995. Service quality: a measure of information systems
effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), pp. 173–187.
Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., & Kavan, C. B. 1997. “Measuring information systems service quality: concerns
for a complete canvas”. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), pp. 209–221.
Porter, M.E. & Teisberg, E. O. 2004. “Redefining Competition in Healthcare”, Harvard Business Review,
(June), pp. 1-14.
RACE .1994. UMTS System Structure Document, Issue 1.0. RACE2066 Mobile Networks (MONET), CEC
Deliverable No:R2066/LMF/GA1/DS/P/052/b1
Rai, A., Lang, S. S. and Welker, R. B. 2002. “Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical
Test and Theoretical Analysis” , Information System Research, (13:1), pp. 50-69.
Roest, Henk and Rik Pieters. 1997. “The Nomological Net of Perceived Service Quality,” The International
Journal of Service Industry Management, (8 :4), pp.336–351.
Saga, V. L., & Zmud, R. W. 1994. The nature and determinants of IT acceptance, routinization, and
infusion. In L. Levine (Ed.), Diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology (pp.
67–86). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Seddon, P.B. 1997. “A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success”.
Information Systems Research , pp. 240-253.
Shannon, C.E.. and Weaver, W. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Shaw, C., & Ivens, J. 2002. “Building great customer experiences”. New York: Macmillan.
Sheth, J., Bruce, N., Newman, I., & Barbara, L. G. 1991. “Consumption values and market choices: theory
and applications”. Cincinnati: South-Western.
Sousa, R & Voss, C., 2006. “Service quality in multichannel services employing virtual channels”, Journal
of Service Research, 8(4), pp. 356-371.
Spohrer J, Maglio PP, Bailey J, Gruhl D. 2007. Towards a science of service systems. Computer 40(1):71–
77. doi:10.1109/MC.2007.33
Spreng, R. A., MacKenzie, S. B., & Olshavsky, R. W. 1996. “A reexamination of the determinants of
customer satisfaction”. Journal of Marketing, (60:3), pp. 15–32.
Taylor S. A, and Baker T. L., 1994. An assessment of the relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers’ purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, (70
:2), pp. 163 –78.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E. Chatelin, Y-M., and Lauro, C. 2005. “PLS Path Modeling,” Computational
Statistics and Data Analysis (48:1), pp. 159-205.

Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 17

Service Science

Van Dyke, T.P., Kappelman, L. and Prybutok, V.R. 1997. “Measuring information systems service quality:
concerns on the use of the SERVQUAL questionnaire”, MIS Quarterly, (21:2), pp. 195–208.
Van Dyke, T.P., Kappelman, L. and Prybutok, V.R. 1999. Cautions on the use of the SERVQUAL measure
to assess the quality of information systems services, Decision Sciences, (30:3), pp. 877–891.
Varshney, U.2005. Pervasive healthcare: applications, challenges and wireless solutions. Communications
of the Association for Information Systems, (16:3), pp. 57–72.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. 2008. “Service–dominant logic: continuing the evolution”. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, (36:1), pp.1–10.
Wakefield, Kirk L. and James H. Barnes. 1996. “Retailing Hedonic Consumption: A Model of Sales
Promotion of a Leisure Service,” Journal of Retailing, (72 :4), pp.409–427.
Watson, R. T., Pitt, L. F., & Kavan, C. B. 1998. Measuring information systems service quality: lessons
from two longitudinal case studies. MIS Quarterly, (22:1), pp. 61–79.
Woodside A. G., Frey L. L, Daly R. T., 1989. Linking service quality, customer satisfaction, and
behavioural intention. Journal of Health Care Marketing , (9:4), pp. 5 –17.
Wold, Herman O.A. 1982. “Soft Modeling: The Basic Design and Some Extensions,” in Systems Under
Indirect Observations: Causality, Structure, Prediction, part 2, Karl G. Jöreskog and Herman O.A.
Wold, eds., Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 1–54.
Wold, H. 1985. “Partial Least Squares,” in Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences (Volume 6), S. Kotz and N.
L. Johnson (eds.), New York: Wiley, pp. 581-591.
Zeithaml, V.A. Leonard Berry, and A. Parasuraman. 1996. “The Behavioral Consequences of Service
Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (April), pp. 31–46.
Zineldin, M. 2006, “The quality of healthcare and patient satisfaction”, International Journal of
Healthcare Quality Assurance, (19 :1), pp. 60-92
Zviran, M. & Erlich, Z. 2003, “Measuring IS user satisfaction: Review & Implications”, Communications
of the AIS, 12, pp. 81-103

18 Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011