Attendance Information System Success in Mandatory Use Contexts: An Integrated TAM–DeLone and McLean–TPB Framework in Higher Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63158/journalisi.v8i5.1754Keywords:
higher education, information system success, mandatory use, perceived usefulness, PLS-SEMAbstract
Mandatory information systems present a fundamental challenge to IS success theory: institutional enforcement guarantees usage but not acceptance, rendering conventional adoption metrics inadequate in non-voluntary contexts. This study examines the determinants of success of a mandatory mobile attendance application at a single higher education institution, investigating how technical quality dimensions and behavioral factors jointly produce user satisfaction and perceived organizational benefit. An integrated TAM–DeLone and McLean–TPB framework was tested using PLS-SEM on data collected from 140 university lecturers through an online survey. All eight hypotheses were empirically tested; seven were supported. Service quality was the strongest predictor of perceived usefulness (β = 0.399), followed by system quality (β = 0.317) and information quality (β = 0.149). Perceived usefulness (β = 0.592) and social influence (β = 0.368) significantly shaped attitude, while perceived behavioral control exerted no significant effect (β = −0.073, p = 0.299). Attitude strongly predicted user satisfaction (β = 0.825), which in turn predicted perceived net benefits (β = 0.731). This study contributes an empirically tested integrated TAM–DeLone and McLean–TPB model within a mandatory-use IS context. The findings suggest that IS success is mediated principally through psychological mechanisms rather than technical attributes alone, and that user attitude is the ultimate gateway to perceived organizational benefit. Future research may extend this framework to multi-institutional and longitudinal settings, incorporating privacy concern and perceived surveillance as additional constructs.
Downloads
References
[1] S. A. Brown, A. P. Massey, M. M. Montoya-Weiss, and J. R. Burkman, “Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology,” *Eur. J. Inf. Syst.*, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 283–295, 2002, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000438.
[2] J. Hartwick and H. Barki, “Explaining the role of user participation in information system use,” *Manage. Sci.*, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 440–465, 1994, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.40.4.440.
[3] R. P. Bagozzi, “The legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a proposal for a paradigm shift,” *J. Assoc. Inf. Syst.*, vol. 8, no. 4, Art. no. 3, 2007, doi: 10.17705/1jais.00122.
[4] A. Ollier-Malaterre and M. Redston, “Enterprise social networks and the work context: A case study of mandated use,” *Inf. Technol. People*, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1969–1990, 2025, doi: 10.1108/ITP-05-2023-0411.
[5] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” *MIS Q.*, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 1989, doi: 10.2307/249008.
[6] W. H. DeLone and E. R. McLean, “The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update,” *J. Manage. Inf. Syst.*, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 9–30, 2003, doi: 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.
[7] V. Venkatesh, J. Y. L. Thong, and X. Xu, “Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology,” *MIS Q.*, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 157–178, 2012, doi: 10.2307/41410412.
[8] S. Petter, W. DeLone, and E. R. McLean, “Information systems success: The quest for the independent variables,” *J. Manage. Inf. Syst.*, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 7–62, 2013, doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222290401.
[9] T. Lehmann, P. Blumschein, and N. M. Seel, “Accept it or forget it: Mandatory digital learning and technology acceptance in higher education,” *J. Comput. Educ.*, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 797–817, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s40692-022-00244-w.
[10] D. E. E. Saputra *et al.*, “Do system quality and information quality affect job performance? The mediation role of users’ perceptions,” *PLoS One*, vol. 18, no. 6, Art. no. e0285293, 2023, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285293.
[11] P. Panyahuti *et al.*, “The role of information system quality and perceived usefulness on user satisfaction and sustainable e-learning,” *Int. J. Data Netw. Sci.*, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1531–1540, 2024, doi: 10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.3.013.
[12] I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior,” *Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.*, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179–211, 1991, doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
[13] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” *MIS Q.*, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003, doi: 10.2307/30036540.
[14] M. I. Alkhawaja, M. S. A. Halim, M. S. Abumandil, and A. S. Al-Adwan, “System quality and student’s acceptance of the e-learning system: The serial mediation of perceived usefulness and intention to use,” *Contemp. Educ. Technol.*, vol. 14, no. 2, 2022, doi: 10.30935/cedtech/11525.
[15] A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, “SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality,” *J. Retail.*, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 12–40, 1988, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(88)90002-6.
[16] I. Ajzen, “Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior,” *J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.*, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 665–683, 2002, doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x.
[17] T. Widyaningrum, Q. Sholihah, and B. S. Haryono, “The DeLone and McLean information system success model: Investigating user satisfaction in learning management system,” *J. Educ. Technol.*, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 86–94, 2024, doi: 10.23887/jet.v8i1.71080.
[18] R. Rahmatullah *et al.*, “A study of user satisfaction and net benefits in Indonesia through the DeLone and McLean model for e-government success,” *Discov. Sustain.*, vol. 6, no. 1, Art. no. 710, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s43621-025-01645-4.
[19] J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, *A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)*, 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA, USA: SAGE, 2022.
[20] C. M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, R. Mitchell, and S. P. Gudergan, “Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research,” *Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage.*, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1617–1643, 2020, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1416655.
[21] J. Cohen, *Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences*. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2013, doi: 10.4324/9780203771587.
[22] P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff, “Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies,” *J. Appl. Psychol.*, vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 879–903, 2003, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
[23] N. Kock, “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach,” *Int. J. E-Collab.*, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1–10, 2015, doi: 10.4018/ijec.2015100101.
[24] G. Shmueli *et al.*, “Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict,” *Eur. J. Mark.*, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 2322–2347, 2019, doi: 10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189.
[25] C. Tam and T. Oliveira, “Understanding the impact of m-banking on individual performance: DeLone & McLean and TTF perspective,” *Comput. Hum. Behav.*, vol. 61, pp. 233–244, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.016.
[26] Y. K. Dwivedi, N. P. Rana, A. Jeyaraj, M. Clement, and M. D. Williams, “Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model,” *Inf. Syst. Front.*, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 719–734, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y.
[27] Rulinawaty *et al.*, “Investigating the influence of the updated DeLone and McLean information system success model on the effectiveness of learning management system implementation,” *Cogent Educ.*, vol. 11, no. 1, Art. no. 2365611, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2365611.
[28] J. Jiao and X. Cao, “Research on designers’ behavioral intention toward artificial intelligence-aided design: Integrating the theory of planned behavior and the Technology Acceptance Model,” *Front. Psychol.*, vol. 15, Art. no. 1450717, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1450717.
[29] A. Bayaga and A. du Plessis, “Ramifications of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology among developing countries’ higher education staff,” *Educ. Inf. Technol.*, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 9689–9714, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12194-6.
[30] L. Xue, A. M. Rashid, and S. Ouyang, “The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology in higher education: A systematic review,” *SAGE Open*, vol. 14, no. 1, Art. no. 21582440241229570, 2024, doi: 10.1177/21582440241229570.
[31] S.-Y. Tzeng, K.-Y. Lin, and C.-Y. Lee, “Predicting college students’ adoption of technology for self-directed learning: A model based on the theory of planned behavior with self-evaluation as an intermediate variable,” *Front. Psychol.*, vol. 13, Art. no. 865803, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.865803.
[32] S. G. Fussell and D. Truong, “Using virtual reality for dynamic learning: An extended Technology Acceptance Model,” *Virtual Real.*, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 249–267, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10055-021-00554-x.
[33] G. Banafo Akrong, S. Yunfei, and E. Owusu, “Development and validation of an improved DeLone–McLean IS success model: Application to the evaluation of a tax administration ERP,” *Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst.*, vol. 47, Art. no. 100579, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100579.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Information Systems and Informatics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author's Declaration
- The Authors certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (JournalISI) submission guidelines, policies, and submission declaration. The submission has been prepared using the provided template.
- The Authors certify that all authors have approved the publication of this manuscript and that there is no conflict of interest.
- The Authors confirm that the manuscript is their original work, has not received prior publication, is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and has not been previously published.
- The Authors confirm that all authors listed on the title page have contributed significantly to the work, have read the manuscript, attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation, and agree to its submission.
- The Authors confirm that the manuscript is not copied from or plagiarized from any other published work.
- The Authors declare that the manuscript will not be submitted for publication in any other journal or magazine until a decision is made by the journal editors.
- If the manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Authors confirm that they will either proceed with publication immediately or withdraw the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s withdrawal policies.
- The Authors agree that, upon publication of the manuscript in this journal, they transfer copyright or assign exclusive rights to the publisher, including commercial rights
