Integrated Office Applications Promote the Sustainable Development of E-Commerce Enterprises: A Study Based on the TPB-TAM-IS Success Model
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Model Construction
2.1. TPB, TAM and IS Success Models
2.2. A Research Model for Evaluating User Experience Factors in IOA
2.3. Based on the Hypotheses of the Research Framework Model
3. Method
3.1. Questionnaire Design
3.2. Research Methodology
3.3. Data Collection
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
4.2. Measurement Model
4.3. Structural Model
4.3.1. Collinearity Statistics and F2 Test
4.3.2. Hypothesis Testing and Model Evaluation
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Specific Measured Variables
| Research Variable | Measurement Term | |
| System Quality | SQ1 | The IOA supports seamless interaction across different devices and platforms (e.g., desktop, mobile, web). |
| SQ2 | The IOA responds quickly and without lag during use. | |
| SQ3 | The IOA operates reliably and makes efficient use of system resources. | |
| SQ4 | The IOA has a clean, clear, and easy-to-navigate interface. | |
| Information Quality | IQ1 | The information provided by the IOA is up to date and timely. |
| IQ2 | The information in the IOA is easy to understand. | |
| IQ3 | The IOA provides comprehensive information needed for my work. | |
| IQ4 | The information in the IOA is relevant to my daily tasks. | |
| Collaboration Quality | CQ1 | Using the IOA reduces the time and effort needed for communication with colleagues. |
| CQ2 | The IOA enables smooth coordination across different departments or teams. | |
| CQ3 | The IOA helps me collaborate more closely with my coworkers. | |
| CQ4 | The IOA expands the range of ways I can cooperate with others (e.g., co-editing, task sharing, real-time updates). | |
| Perceived Ease of Use | PEU1 | The IOA is easy to operate. |
| PEU2 | Using the IOA is convenient for my daily work. | |
| PEU3 | I can use the IOA skillfully and efficiently. | |
| PEU4 | The IOA’s workflow feels intuitive and logical. | |
| Perceived Usefulness | PU1 | The IOA is dependable for completing my work tasks. |
| PU2 | The IOA helps me save time in my daily work. | |
| PU3 | The IOA reduces work-related costs and improves my efficiency. | |
| PU4 | The IOA helps streamline my work processes. | |
| Subjective Norm | SN1 | My colleagues and supervisors expect me to use the IOA regularly. |
| SN2 | Most of my coworkers use the IOA consistently and appropriately. | |
| SN3 | People in my company believe using IOA strengthens unity. | |
| SN4 | In my team, we are expected to use IOA for effective project management. | |
| Perceived Behavioral Control | PBC1 | Using the IOA helps me better assess my own performance. |
| PBC2 | The IOA makes my work responsibilities and content clearer. | |
| PBC3 | I have the resources and autonomy to use IOA when needed. | |
| PBC4 | The IOA helps me better define my professional needs. | |
| User Satisfaction | US1 | Using IOA allows me to effectively utilize my work time. |
| US2 | I find using the IOA interesting and engaging. | |
| US3 | My overall experience with the IOA has been positive. | |
| US4 | I am satisfied with how the IOA supports my current work situation. | |
| Sustainable Behavioral Intentions of Work | SBI1 | I intend to continue using the IOA consistently in the future. |
| SBI2 | Using the IOA strengthens my sense of belonging to the company. | |
| SBI3 | The IOA has become indispensable to my daily work. | |
| SBI4 | The availability of IOA would influence my decision to stay with or leave this company. | |
| Sustainable Behavioral of Work | SB1 | I have gradually increased how often and how long I use the IOA. |
| SB2 | My work habits have changed (e.g., become more organized or efficient) since using the IOA. | |
| SB3 | I have become more proactive and engaged in my work due to the IOA. | |
| SB4 | I am less likely to consider changing jobs because of the support provided by the IOA. | |
Appendix B. Basic Data Statistics
| Basic Data Statistics | Percentage | Frequency | |
| Gender | Male | 268 | 53.1% |
| Female | 237 | 46.9% | |
| Age | 18–29 | 142 | 28.1% |
| 30–39 | 161 | 31.9% | |
| 40–49 | 101 | 20.0% | |
| 50–59 | 66 | 13.1% | |
| 60 years and over | 35 | 6.9% | |
| Educational Background | High School Diploma | 11 | 2.2% |
| Bachelor degree | 242 | 47.9% | |
| Master’s degree | 162 | 32.1% | |
| Doctor’s degree | 75 | 14.9% | |
| Other | 15 | 3.0% | |
| Type of Enterprise | Small or medium size enterprise (SME) | 137 | 27.1% |
| Nationalized enterprise | 96 | 19.0% | |
| Joint Ventures | 91 | 18.0% | |
| Multinational enterprise | 116 | 23.0% | |
| Fortune 500 enterprise | 65 | 12.9% | |
| Average daily hours spent using integrated office apps | Less than 2 h | 16 | 3.2% |
| 2 h–4 h | 45 | 8.9% | |
| 5 h–7 h | 212 | 42.0% | |
| 8 h–10 h | 197 | 39.0% | |
| More than 10 h | 35 | 6.9% | |
| Average daily frequency of using integrated office apps to establish communication and connectivity | Less than 3 times | 36 | 7.1% |
| 4 times–7 times | 121 | 24.0% | |
| 8 times–11 times | 172 | 34.1% | |
| 12 times–15 times | 111 | 22.0% | |
| More than 15 times | 65 | 12.9% | |
Appendix C. ULMC Analysis Results for CMB Assessment
| Item | Substantive Factor Loading (R1) | R12 | CMB Factor Loading (R2) | R22 |
| CQ → CQ1 | 0.869 | 0.755 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| CQ → CQ2 | 0.781 | 0.610 | 0.053 | 0.003 |
| CQ → CQ3 | 0.843 | 0.711 | −0.006 | 0.000 |
| CQ → CQ4 | 0.946 | 0.895 | −0.052 | 0.003 |
| IQ → IQ1 | 0.809 | 0.654 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| IQ → IQ2 | 0.860 | 0.740 | 0.016 | 0.000 |
| IQ → IQ3 | 0.845 | 0.714 | −0.037 | 0.001 |
| IQ → IQ4 | 0.838 | 0.702 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| PBC → PBC1 | 0.844 | 0.712 | 0.035 | 0.001 |
| PBC → PBC2 | 0.871 | 0.759 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| PBC → PBC3 | 0.874 | 0.764 | −0.010 | 0.000 |
| PBC → PBC4 | 0.893 | 0.797 | −0.027 | 0.001 |
| PEU → PEU1 | 0.835 | 0.697 | −0.013 | 0.000 |
| PEU → PEU2 | 0.794 | 0.630 | 0.058 | 0.003 |
| PEU → PEU3 | 0.858 | 0.736 | −0.020 | 0.000 |
| PEU → PEU4 | 0.857 | 0.734 | −0.026 | 0.001 |
| PU → PU1 | 0.795 | 0.632 | 0.086 | 0.007 |
| PU → PU2 | 0.908 | 0.824 | −0.082 | 0.007 |
| PU → PU3 | 0.870 | 0.757 | −0.009 | 0.000 |
| PU → PU4 | 0.844 | 0.712 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| SB → SB1 | 0.888 | 0.789 | 0.036 | 0.001 |
| SB → SB2 | 0.893 | 0.797 | −0.004 | 0.000 |
| SB → SB3 | 0.902 | 0.814 | −0.043 | 0.002 |
| SB → SB4 | 0.887 | 0.787 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| SBI → SBI1 | 0.839 | 0.704 | 0.030 | 0.001 |
| SBI → SBI2 | 0.850 | 0.723 | −0.006 | 0.000 |
| SBI → SBI3 | 0.893 | 0.797 | −0.011 | 0.000 |
| SBI → SBI4 | 0.856 | 0.733 | −0.014 | 0.000 |
| SN → SN1 | 0.864 | 0.746 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| SN → SN2 | 0.807 | 0.651 | 0.041 | 0.002 |
| SN → SN3 | 0.909 | 0.826 | −0.007 | 0.000 |
| SN → SN4 | 0.863 | 0.745 | −0.040 | 0.002 |
| SQ → SQ1 | 0.878 | 0.771 | −0.020 | 0.000 |
| SQ → SQ2 | 0.752 | 0.566 | 0.092 | 0.008 |
| SQ → SQ3 | 0.873 | 0.762 | −0.002 | 0.000 |
| SQ → SQ4 | 0.916 | 0.839 | −0.067 | 0.004 |
| US → US1 | 0.887 | 0.787 | −0.048 | 0.002 |
| US → US2 | 0.811 | 0.658 | 0.072 | 0.005 |
| US → US3 | 0.865 | 0.748 | −0.028 | 0.001 |
| US → US4 | 0.851 | 0.724 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Average | 0.858 | 0.738 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
References
- Liu, W.; Batra, R.; Wang, H. Product touch and consumers’ online and offline buying: The role of mental representation. J. Retail. 2017, 93, 369–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Florez-Jimenez, M.P.; Lleo, A.; Danvila-del-Valle, I.; Sanchez-Marin, G. Corporate sustainability, organizational resilience and corporate purpose: A triple concept for achieving long-term prosperity. Manag. Decis. 2024, 62, 2189–2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, W.; Li, Y.; Chen, S. What has influenced the growth and structural transformation of China’s cultural industry?—Based on the input-output bias analysis. Appl. Econ. 2025, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delmas, M.A.; Pekovic, S. Corporate sustainable innovation and employee behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 1071–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oppong-Tawiah, D.; Webster, J.; Staples, S.; Cameron, A.F.; de Guinea, A.O.; Hung, T.Y. Developing a gamified mobile application to encourage sustainable energy use in the office. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 106, 388–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Emran, M. Beyond technology acceptance: Development and evaluation of technology-environmental, economic, and social sustainability theory. Technol. Soc. 2023, 75, 102383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.; Azmi, N.; Hanaysha, J.; Alzoubi, H.; Alshurideh, M. The effect of digital supply chain on organizational performance: An empirical study in Malaysia manufacturing industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2022, 10, 495–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aral, S.; Brynjolfsson, E.; Wu, D.J. Which came first, it or productivity? Virtuous cycle of investment and use in enterprise systems. Virtuous cycle of investment and use in enterprise systems. In Proceedings of the Twenty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 10–13 December 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Z.; Sun, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Cao, L. Employees’ collaborative use of green information systems for corporate sustainability: Motivation, effort and performance. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2017, 23, 486–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melville, N.P. Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability. MIS Q. 2010, 34, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Fraihat, D.; Joy, M.; Sinclair, J. Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 102, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, W.; Qi, C.; Ding, L. The mechanism analysis on the farmers’ motivation of using the quality traceability system based on TAM-ECM model. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tam, C.; Santos, D.; Oliveira, T. Exploring the influential factors of continuance intention to use mobile Apps: Extending the expectation confirmation model. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 22, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, T.J.; McNab, A.L.; Basoglu, K.A. Reliability generalization of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intentions. MIS Q. 2014, 38, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, J.; Yan, W.; Gong, J.; Wang, S.; Nah, K.; Cheng, W. Motivation of University Students to Use LLMs to Assist with Online Consumption of Sustainable Products: An Analysis Based on a Hybrid SEM–ANN Approach. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 8088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2003, 19, 9–30. [Google Scholar]
- Pushparaj, N.; Sivakumar, V.J.; Natarajan, M.; Bhuvaneskumar, A. Two decades of DeLone and Mclean IS success model: A scientometrics analysis. Qual. Quant. 2023, 57, 2469–2491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salam, M.; Farooq, M.S. Does sociability quality of web-based collaborative learning information system influence students’ satisfaction and system usage? Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seok, H.; Nof, S.Y. Collaborative capacity sharing among manufacturers on the same supply network horizontal layer for sustainable and balanced returns. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014, 52, 1622–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vijayasarathy, L.R. Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: The case for an augmented technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2004, 41, 747–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasperson, J.; Carter, P.E.; Zmud, R.W. A comprensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 525–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negash, S.; Ryan, T.; Igbaria, M. Quality and effectiveness in web-based customer support systems. Inf. Manag. 2003, 40, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, R.; Sharma, S.K.; Tarhini, A. A multi-analytical approach to understand and predict the mobile commerce adoption. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2016, 29, 222–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, F.; Fofanah, S.S.; Liang, D. Assessing citizen adoption of e-Government initiatives in Gambia: A validation of the technology acceptance model in information systems success. Gov. Inf. Q. 2011, 28, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boughzala, I.; De Vreede, G.J. Evaluating team collaboration quality: The development and field application of a collaboration maturity model. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2015, 32, 129–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nie, J.X.; Heidebrecht, C.; Zettler, A.; Pearce, J.; Cunha, R.; Quan, S.; Mansfield, E.; Tang, T. The Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness of a Web-Based Interprofessional Communication and Collaboration Platform in the Hospital Setting: Interview Study With Health Care Providers. JMIR Hum. Factors 2023, 10, e39051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, D.L.; McDaniel, R.R., Jr. A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 183–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shih, H.P.; Lai, K.H.; Cheng, T.E. Examining structural, perceptual, and attitudinal influences on the quality of information sharing in collaborative technology use. Inf. Syst. Front. 2015, 17, 455–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajwa, D.S.; Lewis, L.F.; Pervan, G.; Lai, V.S.; Munkvold, B.E.; Schwabe, G. Factors in the global assimilation of collaborative information technologies: An exploratory investigation in five regions. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2008, 25, 131–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trevino, L.K.; Webster, J. Flow in computer-mediated communication: Electronic mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts. Commun. Res. 1992, 19, 539–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Nah, K. Exploring Sustainable Learning Intentions of Employees Using Online Learning Modules of Office Apps Based on User Experience Factors: Using the Adapted UTAUT Model. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 4746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alzahrani, A.I.; Mahmud, I.; Ramayah, T.; Alfarraj, O.; Alalwan, N. Modelling digital library success using the DeLone and McLean information system success model. J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 2019, 51, 291–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mata-Domingo, S. Evaluation on the Effectiveness and Usability of the Developed Collaborative Interaction Management System. Res. Soc. Sci. Technol. 2018, 3, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. Information systems success revisited. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, USA, 1–10 January 2002; pp. 2966–2976. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, L.; Lu, Y. Perceived interactivity: Exploring factors affecting micro-blogging service satisfaction and continuance intention. In Proceedings of the PACIS 2010—14th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Taipei, Taiwan, 9–12 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S.C.; Liu, S.C.; Li, S.H.; Yen, D.C. Understanding the mediating effects of relationship quality on technology acceptance: An empirical study of e-appointment system. J. Med. Syst. 2013, 37, 9981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, S.; Cheng, Y.; Ju, Y. Understanding the intention and behavior of renting houses among the young generation: Evidence from Jinan, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samah, S. Acceptance of Change Behaviour among Middle Managers: The Importance of Subjective Norms and Social Influence as Environmental Predictors. Asian Soc. Sci. 2018, 14, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seddon, P.B. A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Inf. Syst. Res. 1997, 8, 240–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.G.; Lee, J.H.; Law, R. An empirical examination of the acceptance behaviour of hotel front office systems: An extended technology acceptance model. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 500–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thong, J.Y.; Yap, C.S. Information systems effectiveness: A user satisfaction approach. Inf. Process. Manag. 1996, 32, 601–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Remenyi, D.; Money, A. A user-satisfaction approach to IS effectiveness measurement. J. Inf. Technol. 1991, 6, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seddon, P.; Kiew, M.Y. A partial test and development of DeLone and McLean’s model of IS success. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 1996, 4, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, Y.; Wen, H.; Chen, M.; Yang, F. Sustainable determinants influencing habit formation among mobile short-video platform users. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing behavioral intentions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1972, 21, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rex, J.; Lobo, A.; Leckie, C. Evaluating the drivers of sustainable behavioral intentions: An application and extension of the theory of planned behavior. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2015, 27, 263–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawes, J. Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2008, 50, 61–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loiacono, E.T.; Watson, R.T.; Goodhue, D.L. WebQual: A measure of website quality. Mark. Theory Appl. 2002, 13, 432–438. [Google Scholar]
- Zeithaml, V.A.; Parasuraman, A.; Malhotra, A. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding e-Service Quality: Implications for Future Research and Managerial Practice; Marketing Science Institute: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000; Volume 115. [Google Scholar]
- Shim, M.; Jo, H.S. What quality factors matter in enhancing the perceived benefits of online health information sites? Application of the updated DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2020, 137, 104093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srinivasan, A. Alternative measures of system effectiveness: Associations and implications. MIS Q. 1985, 9, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, J.E.; Pearson, S.W. Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Manag. Sci. 1983, 29, 530–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinelle, D.; Gutwin, C.; Greenberg, S. Task analysis for groupware usability evaluation: Modeling shared-workspace tasks with the mechanics of collaboration. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 2003, 10, 281–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bangor, A.; Kortum, P.T.; Miller, J.T. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2008, 24, 574–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillenson, M.L.; Sherrell, D.L. Enticing online consumers: An extended technology acceptance perspective. Inf. Manag. 2002, 39, 705–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamilton, S.; Chervany, N.L. Evaluating information system effectiveness-Part I: Comparing evaluation approaches. MIS Q. 1981, 5, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhodes, R.E.; Courneya, K.S. Threshold assessment of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control for predicting exercise intention and behavior. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2005, 6, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Barbera, F.; Ajzen, I. Control interactions in the theory of planned behavior: Rethinking the role of subjective norm. Eur. J. Psychol. 2020, 16, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vries, H.; Dijkstra, M.; Kuhlman, P. Self-efficacy: The third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions. Health Educ. Res. 1988, 3, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melin, J.; Bonn, S.E.; Pendrill, L.; Lagerros, Y.T. A questionnaire for assessing user satisfaction with mobile health apps: Development using Rasch measurement theory. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2020, 8, e15909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoyanov, S.R.; Hides, L.; Kavanagh, D.J.; Zelenko, O.; Tjondronegoro, D.; Mani, M. Mobile app rating scale: A new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2015, 3, e3422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shmueli, G.; Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F.; Cheah, J.H.; Ting, H.; Vaithilingam, S.; Ringle, C.M. Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. Eur. J. Mark. 2019, 53, 2322–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dash, G.; Paul, J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 173, 121092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Liu, Y. Understanding post-adoption behaviors of e-service users in the context of online travel services. Inf. Manag. 2014, 51, 1043–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Göritz, A.S. Incentives in web studies: Methodological issues and a review. Int. J. Internet Sci. 2006, 1, 58–70. [Google Scholar]
- Rigdon, E.E. Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management research: A realist perspective. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 598–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Davenport, T.H.; Short, J.E. The new industrial engineering: Information technology and business process redesign. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 1990, 31, 11–27. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roemer, E.; Schuberth, F.; Henseler, J. HTMT2–an improved criterion for assessing discriminant validity in structural equation modeling. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2021, 121, 2637–2650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Ahn, S. Exploring User Behavior Based on Metaverse: A Modeling Study of User Experience Factors. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Washington, DC, USA, 29 June–4 July 2024; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 99–118. [Google Scholar]
- Shrestha, N. Detecting multicollinearity in regression analysis. Am. J. Appl. Math. Stat. 2020, 8, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuur, A.F.; Ieno, E.N.; Elphick, C.S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2010, 1, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lix, L.M.; Keselman, J.C.; Keselman, H.J. Consequences of assumption violations revisited: A quantitative review of alternatives to the one-way analysis of variance F test. Rev. Educ. Res. 1996, 66, 579–619. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Plonsky, L.; Ghanbar, H. Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological synthesis and guide to interpreting R2 values. Mod. Lang. J. 2018, 102, 713–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, S. Path coefficients and path regressions: Alternative or complementary concepts? Biometrics 1960, 16, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Streukens, S.; Leroi-Werelds, S. Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 618–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romano, J.P.; Wolf, M. Exact and approximate stepdown methods for multiple hypothesis testing. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2005, 100, 94–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kock, N. One-tailed or two-tailed P values in PLS-SEM? Int. J. e-Collab. 2015, 11, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, P.; Prashar, S.; Vijay, T.S.; Parsad, C. Examining the influence of antecedents of continuous intention to use an informational app: The role of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 2021, 36, 270–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knauer, T.; Nikiforow, N.; Wagener, S. Determinants of information system quality and data quality in management accounting. J. Manag. Control 2020, 31, 97–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weick, K.E.; Sutcliffe, K.M.; Obstfeld, D. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ. Sci. 2005, 16, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, Y.; Kiesler, S.; Fussell, S.R. Multiple group coordination in complex and dynamic task environments: Interruptions, coping mechanisms, and technology recommendations. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2008, 25, 105–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolfschoten, G.L.; De Vreede, G.J. A design approach for collaboration processes: A multimethod design science study in collaboration engineering. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2009, 26, 225–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Rahmi, A.M.; Shamsuddin, A.; Alturki, U.; Aldraiweesh, A.; Yusof, F.M.; Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Aljeraiwi, A.A. The influence of information system success and technology acceptance model on social media factors in education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amoroso, D.L.; Cheney, P.H. Testing a causal model of end-user application effectiveness. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1991, 8, 63–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashfaq, M.; Yun, J.; Yu, S.; Loureiro, S.M.C. I, Chatbot: Modeling the determinants of users’ satisfaction and continuance intention of AI-powered service agents. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 54, 101473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rausch, T.M.; Kopplin, C.S. Bridge the gap: Consumers’ purchase intention and behavior regarding sustainable clothing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Si, H.; Shi, J.G.; Tang, D.; Wu, G.; Lan, J. Understanding intention and behavior toward sustainable usage of bike sharing by extending the theory of planned behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vamvaka, V.; Stoforos, C.; Palaskas, T.; Botsaris, C. Attitude toward entrepreneurship, perceived behavioral control, and entrepreneurial intention: Dimensionality, structural relationships, and gender differences. J. Innov. Entrep. 2020, 9, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yap, S.F.; Othman, M.N.; Wee, Y.G. The fallacy of one-dimensional theory of planned behaviour structure in predicting health behaviour. Int. J. Behav. Healthc. Res. 2013, 4, 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dachner, A.M.; Ellingson, J.E.; Noe, R.A.; Saxton, B.M. The future of employee development. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2021, 31, 100732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]



| Research Variable | Operability Definition | Reference Scale | |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Quality | (SQ) | Quality of the IOA system itself | Loiacono et al. [51] Zeithaml et al. [52] |
| Information Quality | (IQ) | Quality of work information and supporting industry information primarily conveyed by IOA | Shim & Jo [53] Srinivasan [54] Bailey & Pearson [55] |
| Collaboration Quality | (CQ) | Quality of workspace collaboration and links provided by IOA | Pinelle et al. [56] Boughzala. [28] |
| Perceived Ease of Use | (PEU) | The extent to which employees believe that using IOA can be achieved with the least possible effort | Negash et al. [25] Ajzen & Fishbein [48] Davis [14] Bangor et al. [57] |
| Perceived Usefulness | (PU) | The extent to which an employee believes that the use of IOA can improve his or her performance in the organizational environment | Gillenson & Sherrell [58] Hamilton & Chervany [59] Davis [14] |
| Subjective Norm | (SN) | A specific behavior adopted by an employee in response to perceived expectations of the corporate environment | Rhodes & Courneya [60] La Barbera & Ajzen [61] De Vries et al. [62] |
| Perceived Behavioral Control | (PBC) | The extent to which employees believe they can perform the given behavior | Ajzen [63] |
| User Satisfaction | (US) | How employees feel when running IOA | Melin et al. [64] Bailey & Pearson [55] |
| Sustainable Behavioral Intentions of Work | (SBI) | Behavioral intentions of employees as a result of using IOA | Stoyanov et al. [65] |
| Sustainable Behavioral of Work | (SB) | Employee behaviors resulting from the use of IOA | Melin et al. (2020) [64] Stoyanov et al. (2015) [65] |
| Variables | N of Items | Cronbach’s Alpha | CR | AVE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| System quality | (SQ) | 4 | 0.878 | 0.916 | 0.732 |
| Information quality | (IQ) | 4 | 0.859 | 0.904 | 0.702 |
| Collaboration quality | (CQ) | 4 | 0.883 | 0.920 | 0.742 |
| Perceived behavioral control | (PBC) | 4 | 0.894 | 0.925 | 0.754 |
| Perceived ease of use | (PEU) | 4 | 0.856 | 0.903 | 0.699 |
| Perceived usefulness | (PU) | 4 | 0.876 | 0.915 | 0.729 |
| Subjective norm | (SN) | 4 | 0.883 | 0.920 | 0.742 |
| Sustainable behavioral intentions of work | (SBI) | 4 | 0.882 | 0.919 | 0.739 |
| Sustainable behavioral of work | (SB) | 4 | 0.915 | 0.940 | 0.796 |
| User satisfaction | (US) | 4 | 0.876 | 0.915 | 0.728 |
| CQ | IQ | PBC | PEU | PU | SN | SBI | SB | SQ | US | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CQ | 0.861 | |||||||||
| IQ | 0.380 | 0.838 | ||||||||
| PBC | 0.167 | 0.288 | 0.868 | |||||||
| PEU | 0.251 | 0.419 | 0.250 | 0.836 | ||||||
| PU | 0.418 | 0.430 | 0.183 | 0.385 | 0.854 | |||||
| SN | 0.281 | 0.403 | 0.150 | 0.290 | 0.278 | 0.861 | ||||
| SBI | 0.357 | 0.457 | 0.090 | 0.433 | 0.363 | 0.290 | 0.859 | |||
| SB | 0.088 | 0.076 | −0.068 | 0.129 | 0.106 | 0.079 | 0.481 | 0.892 | ||
| SQ | 0.369 | 0.421 | 0.130 | 0.463 | 0.412 | 0.251 | 0.492 | 0.185 | 0.855 | |
| US | 0.256 | 0.392 | 0.313 | 0.385 | 0.382 | 0.231 | 0.255 | 0.042 | 0.333 | 0.853 |
| CQ | IQ | PBC | PEU | PU | SN | SBI | SB | SQ | US | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CQ | - | |||||||||
| IQ | 0.436 | - | ||||||||
| PBC | 0.185 | 0.325 | - | |||||||
| PEU | 0.290 | 0.486 | 0.279 | - | ||||||
| PU | 0.475 | 0.493 | 0.202 | 0.442 | - | |||||
| SN | 0.318 | 0.462 | 0.164 | 0.333 | 0.317 | - | ||||
| SBI | 0.406 | 0.526 | 0.095 | 0.497 | 0.410 | 0.327 | - | |||
| SB | 0.099 | 0.082 | 0.087 | 0.144 | 0.116 | 0.087 | 0.529 | - | ||
| SQ | 0.420 | 0.484 | 0.149 | 0.530 | 0.466 | 0.283 | 0.559 | 0.204 | - | |
| US | 0.290 | 0.450 | 0.359 | 0.443 | 0.432 | 0.262 | 0.289 | 0.051 | 0.377 | - |
| Hypothesis | VIF | F2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1a | SQ → PEU | 1.215 | 0.138 |
| H1b | SQ → PU | 1.296 | 0.052 |
| H2a | IQ → PEU | 1.215 | 0.084 |
| H2b | IQ → PU | 1.308 | 0.066 |
| H3a | CQ → PU | 1.247 | 0.068 |
| H3b | CQ → SN | 1.000 | 0.086 |
| H4 | PEU → US | 1.174 | 0.084 |
| H5 | PU → US | 1.174 | 0.081 |
| H6 | SN → SBI | 1.064 | 0.064 |
| H7 | PBC → SBI | 1.117 | 0.000 |
| H8 | US → SBI | 1.153 | 0.040 |
| H9 | SBI → SB | 1.000 | 0.301 |
| Constructs | R2 | R2 Adjusted | Predictive Relevance Q2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-Validated Communality | Cross-Validated Redundancy | |||
| SQ | - | - | 0.540 | 0.000 |
| IQ | - | - | 0.495 | 0.000 |
| CQ | - | - | 0.558 | 0.000 |
| PBC | - | - | 0.572 | 0.000 |
| PEU | 0.275 | 0.272 | 0.488 | 0.189 |
| PU | 0.298 | 0.293 | 0.537 | 0.213 |
| SN | 0.079 | 0.077 | 0.558 | 0.058 |
| SBI | 0.122 | 0.116 | 0.551 | 0.088 |
| SB | 0.231 | 0.230 | 0.643 | 0.180 |
| US | 0.212 | 0.209 | 0.535 | 0.151 |
| Path | Original Sample (O) | Sample Mean (M) | Standard Deviation (STDEV) | T Statistics | p | 2.5% | 97.5% | Support | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1a | SQ → PEU | 0.349 | 0.350 | 0.063 | 5.542 | 0.000 | 0.217 | 0.466 | Valid |
| H1b | SQ → PU | 0.218 | 0.218 | 0.063 | 3.451 | 0.001 | 0.096 | 0.344 | Valid |
| H2a | IQ → PEU | 0.272 | 0.272 | 0.061 | 4.429 | 0.000 | 0.155 | 0.394 | Valid |
| H2b | IQ → PU | 0.246 | 0.245 | 0.064 | 3.874 | 0.000 | 0.123 | 0.374 | Valid |
| H3a | CQ → PU | 0.244 | 0.246 | 0.062 | 3.947 | 0.000 | 0.116 | 0.359 | Valid |
| H3b | CQ → SN | 0.281 | 0.282 | 0.046 | 6.105 | 0.000 | 0.184 | 0.365 | Valid |
| H4 | PEU → US | 0.279 | 0.281 | 0.061 | 4.542 | 0.000 | 0.154 | 0.393 | Valid |
| H5 | PU → US | 0.274 | 0.276 | 0.064 | 4.286 | 0.000 | 0.149 | 0.400 | Valid |
| H6 | SN → SBI | 0.245 | 0.244 | 0.049 | 5.028 | 0.000 | 0.148 | 0.337 | Valid |
| H7 | PBC → SBI | −0.009 | 0.001 | 0.056 | 0.168 | 0.867 | −0.183 | 0.074 | Invalid |
| H8 | US → SBI | 0.201 | 0.199 | 0.055 | 3.632 | 0.000 | 0.095 | 0.311 | Valid |
| H9 | SBI → SB | 0.481 | 0.482 | 0.028 | 17.221 | 0.000 | 0.422 | 0.530 | Valid |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, S.; Gong, J.; Li, X.; Peng, Y.; Du, C.; Nah, K. Integrated Office Applications Promote the Sustainable Development of E-Commerce Enterprises: A Study Based on the TPB-TAM-IS Success Model. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20, 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20040324
Wang S, Gong J, Li X, Peng Y, Du C, Nah K. Integrated Office Applications Promote the Sustainable Development of E-Commerce Enterprises: A Study Based on the TPB-TAM-IS Success Model. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2025; 20(4):324. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20040324
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Siqin, Jiaxuan Gong, Xiaoshan Li, Yuhao Peng, Changyan Du, and Ken Nah. 2025. "Integrated Office Applications Promote the Sustainable Development of E-Commerce Enterprises: A Study Based on the TPB-TAM-IS Success Model" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 20, no. 4: 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20040324
APA StyleWang, S., Gong, J., Li, X., Peng, Y., Du, C., & Nah, K. (2025). Integrated Office Applications Promote the Sustainable Development of E-Commerce Enterprises: A Study Based on the TPB-TAM-IS Success Model. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 20(4), 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20040324

