p.p1 exist to aid individuals and organizations in

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; font: 10.0px Georgia}

In order to understand the shift from hedonic to utilitarian use of technology, we first review the literature on task-technology fit and technology appropriation. 
Computer systems, in their most basic form, exist to aid individuals and organizations in the completion of tasks (Ackoff 1967). One common tenant in research on information systems is that performance is greatest when there is alignment between the capabilities of a system and the needs of a specific task. Hailed as “Task-Technology Fit,” (hereafter “TTF”) research on this topic centered on the notion that such fit is made possible when requirements and capabilities are in full alignment (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). When faced with a task, individuals create a task profile, comprised of its intricacies and detailed requirements. For performance to be maximized, the technology, or tool, selected for the task should correspond with the profile of the task (Zigurs and Buckland 1998). TTF has been demonstrated to impact performance in group tasks, e-commerce settings (Klopping and McKinney 2004), and everyday workplace situations (Dishaw and Strong 1999). 
Accordingly, prior IS researchers have primarily studied utilitarian systems such as word processers, spreadsheet systems, and communication systems such as emails (for utilitarian purposes). One example is the IS Success Model (Delone 2003; DeLone and McLean 1992), which was focused largely on utilitarian objectives of the systems. The individual impact and organizational impact of a computer system center on the system’s ability to complete utilitarian tasks. Technologies were viewed as static entities which varied in their adherence to the needs of given tasks. 
Achieving the greatest amount of fit between task and technology is more complicated than simply selecting the appropriate technology, as technologies do not have a static set of capabilities and features. Computer systems can be adjusted according to the needs of the specific situation (Majchrzak et al. 2000). One mechanism for enhancing the fit between task and technology is to customize the technology to most closely align with the requirements of the task. When individuals use technologies, they bring their own experiences and intentions into the situation. As such, it is important to recognize the characteristics and motivations of the individual when conceptualizing technology use (Lamb and Kling 2003). It follows that technologies should not be viewed as static entities, but rather as malleable objects, subject to the user employing the technology. 
Evolution in TTF research emerged when researchers and practitioners realized that technologies can be customized to enhance the fit of the technology with a task. Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) was presented as a means of describing the notion of individuals adapting technologies to better suit their needs. With this theory comes the inherent assumption that the actual use of technologies differs from the original intentions (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). In order to maximize the fit between a task and a technology, individuals will alter the technology (or, more often, the use of the technology) to better align with the requirements of their task (Dennis et al. 2001). The altering of a technology is often referred to as an “appropriation,” as the individual is taking action to incorporate the outside technology into his or her work task (Majchrzak et al. 2000). Appropriations not only include bringing a technology into a work task, but inventing new uses for the technology to account for the needs of the task (Dourish 2003). Such appropriations occur in different time periods, but have been shown to occur most often toward the earlier stages of use, when the technology is first introduced to the individual; and throughout the task, in response to certain disruptive events (Tyre and Orlikowski 1994). 
Technology appropriations are divided into two main categories: structure and spirit. Alterations made to the structures of a technology represent changes to the features or the capabilities of the system (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). Structural appropriations enable the individual to maximize the efficiency and performance of the system in a certain task environment (Gupta and Bostrom 2009). Spiritual appropriations, meanwhile, refer to changes made to the goals for which the structural features and capabilities aim to achieve (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). The spirit of the technology represents its desired intention, the intangible reason for its existence (Rüel 2002). Separating these two forms of appropriation is the distinction between the nature of the alterations. While structural appropriations alter what the system does, spiritual appropriations alter why the system does what it does.
The vast majority of extant research on technology appropriations focuses on structural adaptations, with some researchers recommending that this be the only form of permissible adaptation (Dennis et al. 2001; DeSanctis and Poole 1994). However, the recent identification of utilitarian benefits for hedonic technologies has prompted the need to investigate the process of adapting the spirit of technologies. 
By its customary definition, the act of appropriation involves the alteration of an object to best fit a specific context. When considering spiritual appropriations, the alteration is not in the mechanics of a system’s use, but in the purpose of its use. Changing how a system behaves would represent a structural appropriation, whereas a spiritual appropriation maintains the system behavior while altering the intention of the behavior. When an individual uses a hedonic system for a utilitarian purpose, the system actions remain consistent while the contextual purpose of use is changed. The primary alteration lies not in the technology, but in the mind of the user. No usage alterations need to be made to be considered a spiritual alteration, only the motivation behind its use.  To better understand how individuals alter the motivation behind a system’s use, we must investigate how individuals form attitudes toward technology use. 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; font: 10.0px Georgia}

In order to understand the shift from hedonic to utilitarian use of technology, we first review the literature on task-technology fit and technology appropriation. 
Computer systems, in their most basic form, exist to aid individuals and organizations in the completion of tasks (Ackoff 1967). One common tenant in research on information systems is that performance is greatest when there is alignment between the capabilities of a system and the needs of a specific task. Hailed as “Task-Technology Fit,” (hereafter “TTF”) research on this topic centered on the notion that such fit is made possible when requirements and capabilities are in full alignment (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). When faced with a task, individuals create a task profile, comprised of its intricacies and detailed requirements. For performance to be maximized, the technology, or tool, selected for the task should correspond with the profile of the task (Zigurs and Buckland 1998). TTF has been demonstrated to impact performance in group tasks, e-commerce settings (Klopping and McKinney 2004), and everyday workplace situations (Dishaw and Strong 1999). 
Accordingly, prior IS researchers have primarily studied utilitarian systems such as word processers, spreadsheet systems, and communication systems such as emails (for utilitarian purposes). One example is the IS Success Model (Delone 2003; DeLone and McLean 1992), which was focused largely on utilitarian objectives of the systems. The individual impact and organizational impact of a computer system center on the system’s ability to complete utilitarian tasks. Technologies were viewed as static entities which varied in their adherence to the needs of given tasks. 
Achieving the greatest amount of fit between task and technology is more complicated than simply selecting the appropriate technology, as technologies do not have a static set of capabilities and features. Computer systems can be adjusted according to the needs of the specific situation (Majchrzak et al. 2000). One mechanism for enhancing the fit between task and technology is to customize the technology to most closely align with the requirements of the task. When individuals use technologies, they bring their own experiences and intentions into the situation. As such, it is important to recognize the characteristics and motivations of the individual when conceptualizing technology use (Lamb and Kling 2003). It follows that technologies should not be viewed as static entities, but rather as malleable objects, subject to the user employing the technology. 
Evolution in TTF research emerged when researchers and practitioners realized that technologies can be customized to enhance the fit of the technology with a task. Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) was presented as a means of describing the notion of individuals adapting technologies to better suit their needs. With this theory comes the inherent assumption that the actual use of technologies differs from the original intentions (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). In order to maximize the fit between a task and a technology, individuals will alter the technology (or, more often, the use of the technology) to better align with the requirements of their task (Dennis et al. 2001). The altering of a technology is often referred to as an “appropriation,” as the individual is taking action to incorporate the outside technology into his or her work task (Majchrzak et al. 2000). Appropriations not only include bringing a technology into a work task, but inventing new uses for the technology to account for the needs of the task (Dourish 2003). Such appropriations occur in different time periods, but have been shown to occur most often toward the earlier stages of use, when the technology is first introduced to the individual; and throughout the task, in response to certain disruptive events (Tyre and Orlikowski 1994). 
Technology appropriations are divided into two main categories: structure and spirit. Alterations made to the structures of a technology represent changes to the features or the capabilities of the system (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). Structural appropriations enable the individual to maximize the efficiency and performance of the system in a certain task environment (Gupta and Bostrom 2009). Spiritual appropriations, meanwhile, refer to changes made to the goals for which the structural features and capabilities aim to achieve (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). The spirit of the technology represents its desired intention, the intangible reason for its existence (Rüel 2002). Separating these two forms of appropriation is the distinction between the nature of the alterations. While structural appropriations alter what the system does, spiritual appropriations alter why the system does what it does.
The vast majority of extant research on technology appropriations focuses on structural adaptations, with some researchers recommending that this be the only form of permissible adaptation (Dennis et al. 2001; DeSanctis and Poole 1994). However, the recent identification of utilitarian benefits for hedonic technologies has prompted the need to investigate the process of adapting the spirit of technologies. 
By its customary definition, the act of appropriation involves the alteration of an object to best fit a specific context. When considering spiritual appropriations, the alteration is not in the mechanics of a system’s use, but in the purpose of its use. Changing how a system behaves would represent a structural appropriation, whereas a spiritual appropriation maintains the system behavior while altering the intention of the behavior. When an individual uses a hedonic system for a utilitarian purpose, the system actions remain consistent while the contextual purpose of use is changed. The primary alteration lies not in the technology, but in the mind of the user. No usage alterations need to be made to be considered a spiritual alteration, only the motivation behind its use.  To better understand how individuals alter the motivation behind a system’s use, we must investigate how individuals form attitudes toward technology use. 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now
x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out