Task-Technology Fit

The Task-Technology Fit model postulates that the match between task
requirements and technology characteristics predicts the utilisation of the
technology and individuals’ performance.

By Davit Marikyan (Business School, University of Bristol, UK) & Savvas

Papagiannidis (Business School, Newcastle University, UK)
How to cite: Marikyan, D. & Papagiannidis, S. (2023) Task-Technology Fit: A review. In S.
Papagiannidis (Ed), TheoryHub Book. Available at https://open.ncl.ac.uk / ISBN:
9781739604400

Theory Factsheet
Proposed By: Goodhue & Thompson, 1995
Parent Theory: Theory of work adjustment, DeLone and Mclean IS Success Model, Theory of Reasoned Action
Related Theories: Technology Acceptance Model, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
Discipline: Information systems management
Unit of Analysis: Individual
Level: Micro-level
Type: Theory for Explaining and Predicting
Operationalised: Quantitatively

Introduction

The Task-Technology Fit Model was developed by (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) to explain the
utilisation of technology by examining the fit of technology to users' tasks/requirements. The
purpose of the theory was to add to the body of knowledge on technology utilisation in the private
and public contexts, which had limited explanation as to how the acceptance of technology
contributes to individuals’ performance. TTF was the first theory that aimed to explore the post-
adoption aspect of technology utilisation, unlike other prior research, which had mainly focused on
the antecedents of use and intention (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). Specifically, by 1995, the
literature on the IS management domain was characterised by two streams of research, namely
focusing on technology utilisation and task-technology fit. The research on technology utilisation
mostly examined the relationships between attitudes, beliefs, their associated factors and the use of
information communication technologies (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995;Cheney, Mann & Amoroso,
1986;Doll & Torkzadeh, 1991; Lucas, 1975; Lucas, 1981; Robey, 1979; Thompson, Higgins & Howell,
1994;Swanson, 1987). This stream was represented by theories such as the Theory of Reason Action
(TRA), the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975;Davis, 1989; Bagozzi, 1982). For instance, TRA and TPB measure the likelihood of
technology acceptance by investigating the effects of attitude toward behaviour, subjective norm
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

and perceived behavioural control (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 2011). TAM explains and predicts
the use of technology and behavioural intention by examining the core constructs, which are
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The research in that
domain was complemented by research findings on the factors that relate to attitudes and beliefs,
such as technology characteristics (e.g. quality) (Lucas, 1975; Olson & Ives, 1982) or situational
factors (e.g. social influence) (Davis, 1989; Baroudi, Olson & Ives, 1986; Hartwick & Barki, 1994;
Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). The acceptance of technology was mostly considered to be the
manifestation of intention or use behaviour. The key factors of those studies are summarised in
Figure 1.

Figure 1: Utilisation Focus Model

Although, in line with those theories, the individual's performance was not explicitly measured, the
assumption of the research was that technology acceptance correlates with increased performance.
However, there are two reasons that jeopardise the accuracy of the conclusions of the research
about the impact on performance using those theories (i.e. TRA, TAM, TPB). First, the antecedents of
technology acceptance are perceptual, which means that they reflect individuals’ awareness of the
event, which they can report. The major limitation of self-reported measures is that there is a risk of
discrepancy between the individuals’ perception and objective observation (de Guinea, Titah &
Léger, 2014). Secondly, the acceptance of technology does not necessarily mean that users improve
their performance (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). Some evidence suggested that the adoption and
the extensive use of technology (PCs) had a weak, non-significant or even negative effect on
personal productivity and efficiency (Weill, 1992). In addition, the utilisation of technology had been
largely examined in work settings, which are characterised by mandatory use. Therefore, the
improvement of performance indicators may correlate not simply with extensive use, but rather
with the ability of technology to address the needs and requirements of the user (i.e. task-
technology fit) (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995).

The second stream of research reflected the focus on technology performance and task-technology
fit. Figure 2 depicts the main variables and relationships explored in that research line. The literature
was represented by experimental research studies confirming the difference in performance
outcome depending on task requirements (Baroudi, Olson & Ives, 1986; Dickson, DeSanctis &
McBride, 1986). Several other studies confirmed the correlation between the technology-fit factor
and technology adoption, both in organisational and private settings (Cooper & Zmud, 1990;
Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). Also, the research provided evidence that the mismatch between
technology characteristics and tasks hinders the decision-making process (Vessey, 1991). However,
the reliability of the findings of prior studies was questionable, as they did not measure performance
per se. For example, some studies used the utilisation construct as a proxy (Lucas, 1975; Lucas,
1981), although it was confirmed that utilisation does not have a strong power to predict
performance (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). Given the lack of common ground between the two
streams of research, TTF theory was developed to bring together evidence from the two research
lines. The objective of the theory was to test and confirm the assumption that the utilisation of
information systems results in increased performance only on condition that technology
functionality corresponds to users' task requirements (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995).
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

Figure 2: Fit Focus Model

Theory

TTF has a conceptual version, named the Technology-to-Performance Chain (TPC) model. TPC ,which
resulted from the merger of the two research streams, explains the relationships between the three
main component of the chain, namely task-technology fit, utilisation and performance impact
(Figure 3). Task-technology fit is the interdependence between an individual (a technology user),
technology (data, hardware, software tools and the services they provide) and task (activity carried
out by individuals to produce the required output) characteristics. The degree to which technology is
capable of performing a user's tasks is contingent on the degree to which individual abilities, task
requirement and technology functionalities match (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). The utilisation
component reflects the act of using the system evaluated by the frequency or diversity of use (Davis,
1989; Thompson, Higgins & Howell, 1994). The utilisation is determined by a number of attitudinal
and belief factors, contributing to the use of technology both in mandatory and voluntary settings.
These factors include, but are not limited to, social norms, attitude to behaviour and expected
consequences (Bagozzi, 1982; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The performance impact relates to what can
be achieved by performing the portfolio of tasks. TPC is a complex conceptual model, which makes it
challenging for empirical testing. Therefore, core components and assumptions were used to
develop a simplified and a measurable TTF model (Figure 4).

Figure 3: Technology to Performance Chain

TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

Figure 4: Task Technology Fit

TTF includes five constructs that represent the model, namely, task characteristics, technology
characteristics, task-technology fit, technology utilisation and performance impact. While task
characteristics and technology characteristics reflect the specific dimensions of the technology and
its utilisation, the general task-technology fit factor captures individuals' perceptions of task-
technology fit (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995; Goodhue, 1992). The TTF model also has three
propositions. The first proposition states that the user's evaluation of task-technology fit is
determined by both task characteristics and characteristics of the technology. The degree to which a
system assists an individual in performing his or her portfolio of tasks is measured by users' rating of
eight dimensions: quality, locatability, authorisation, compatibility, production timeliness, systems
reliability, ease of use/training and relationship with users. Task characteristics are measured by task
non-routineness, interdependence and job title. Those are the factors that might make a user rely
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

more heavily on certain aspects of the information technology. Technology characteristics refer to
technology-specific attributes or functions. The second proposition of the theory states that the
utilisation of information systems by individuals is dependent on the perceived fit. The third
proposition of the theory postulates that a positive evaluation of task-technology fit not only
predicts utilisation, but positively influences perceived performance (the accomplishment of a
portfolio of tasks by an individual) (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995).

The development of the conceptual model of technology-to-performance chain and the measurable
TTF model contributed to the literature in a number of ways. First, TPC goes beyond the DeLone and
McLean model by not only illustrating the effect of utilisation and user attitude on individuals'
performance, but also by explaining how technology contributes to improved performance (DeLone
& McLean, 1992). This became possible by incorporating the task-technology fit factor and explicitly
examining the relationship between technology and task, utilisation and performance. Second, the
TTF model offered a theoretical framework for considering a number of issues related to technology
performance. The issues included, but were not limited to, measurements of the management of
information systems success, exploring and understanding the importance of individuals'
engagement with technology and its impact on performance, and the use of TTF will reveal the
issues related to IS use (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). Third, the TTF model sheds light on the role of
technology fit and utilisation in performance, by demonstrating that 14 per cent of the variance in
perceived performance is due to the role of TTF and only 4 per cent is due to the effect of utilisation
(Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). Although the overall predictive strength of the model is not high, the
TTF model attracted the attention of future research to the fit factor (Dishaw & Strong, 1998;Palvia
& Chervany, 1995;Strong, 1997; Strong, Lee & Wang, 1997; Wu & Chen, 2017). Finally, by testing the
dimensions of TTF, it is possible to gain insights as to what can be done to improve the user
experience in terms of ease of use, concerns about the reliability of the system, etc(Goodhue &
Thompson, 1995).

Theory Extensions

Task Technology Fit and Technology Acceptance Model

TTF was extended by Dishaw and Strong by integrating it with TAM (Dishaw & Strong, 1999) as
illustrated in Figure 5. TAM postulates that the use of technology raises cognitive evaluation in the
form of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, which, in turn, motivate behavioural
intention and subsequent use behaviour (Davis, 1993; Davis, 1989). Perceived ease of use refers to
the degree to which technology use is free from effort (Davis, 1989), while perceived performance
refers to the degree to which the user thinks that technology improves performance (Bandura,
1982). The rationale for the extension development was the combination of the two dominant
theories on technology acceptance with the purpose of increasing TTF's predictive power (Dishaw &
Strong, 1999). Although TTF had received wide application in research (Zigurs & Buckland,
1998;Maruping & Agarwal, 2004; Fjerrnestad & Hiltz, 1997), TTF alone was not very robust in
predicting utilisation. The explanatory power of the model underperformed compared to other
theories, such as TAM. TTF explained only 2 per cent of the variance in the utilisation and 14 per
cent of the variance in performance, compared to 40 per cent of the variance in use explained by
TAM (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995; Davis, 1989). On the one hand, both theories adopt the user
perceptive on the use and evaluation of technology and explore outcomes, such as adoption,
acceptance and performance. On the other hand, TTF and TAM provide complementary insights into
the utilisation of technology. TAM focuses on the intention of use, while TTF focuses on the outcome
of use. TAM is a competing theory providing a contrasting vantage point on technology utilisation.
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

In the extension, the relationships between variables within TAM and the TTF model were left
unchanged. As in the original model, TAM represents the interaction between perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use, having an effect on attitude, intention and use behaviour (Davis, 1993;
Davis, 1989). TTF represents the model examining actual tool use, affected by TTF and tool
experience, the former, in turn, being affected by tool functionality and task requirements. To
simplify measurement, the fit factor is employed as a unidimensional construct. Seven additional
links were introduced to integrate TAM and TTF variables, supported by prior studies. Specifically,
the model suggests that TTF influences individuals' perceptions (Dishaw & Strong, 1999). The
support for the relationships is rooted in the definitions of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use and TTF (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995;Goodhue, 1995). If an individual thinks that the given
technology has a good fit with the task, the perception of usefulness and ease of use will rise. Also,
the model introduces the correlation between tool experience, functionality and perceived ease of
use. This means that elevated functionality of the technology is related to the idea that the
technology is sophisticated and complex to use. Thus, there will be a negative effect of tool
functionality on perceived ease of use. On the other hand, individuals with experience are more
likely to perceive the technology as being easy to use. Lastly, the model has a theorised path
between task characteristics and acceptance. The relationship is based on the assumption that the
more complex the task is, the lower the individual's interest in a given technology (Dishaw & Strong,
1999).

TTF-TAM adds to the literature by providing a theory which explains technology acceptance based
on attitude/behaviour mechanisms and by putting forward rational determinants of acceptance (e.g.
factors such as fit and job performance) (Dishaw & Strong, 1999). Such a combination addresses the
gap raised in research, arguing that individuals might not have a good attitude towards the
technology, but accept it as it increases their performance (Letchumanan & Tarmizi, 2011; Goodhue
& Thompson, 1995). The extension of the theory also addresses the limitation of TTF related to its
low predictive power. The comparative empirical validation of TAM, TTF and combined TTF/TAM
theories confirmed that the integrated model explains 51 per cent of the variance in the utilisation
construct, compared to 36-41 per cent if two models are examined separately (Dishaw & Strong,
1999).

Figure 5: TTF-TAM

Task technology fit and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

The second update of the TTF model was by extending it with a Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology (Zhou, Lu & Wang, 2010) (Figure 6). UTAUT is the comprehensive framework on
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

technology adoption, which postulates that the likelihood of adopting technology is dependent on
the direct effect of four key constructs, namely performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social
influence, and facilitating conditions, as well as four moderators (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Performance expectancy and effort expectancy share a great deal of similarity with perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use from TAM, since they pertain to users' evaluation of
technology use and outcome, based on expectations prior to actual use (Davis, 1989;Venkatesh et
al., 2003). Social influence refers to the belief that other people think that the technology needs to
be adopted, whereas facilitating conditions imply the beliefs about the availability of technical
infrastructure that may support the use of the technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

The development of TTF-UTAUT was aimed at addressing several gaps in prior research. Firstly,
mobile banking adoption was an under-researched topic, since it was primarily dominated by the
focus on utilisation (Aldás‐Manzano, Ruiz‐Mafé & Sanz‐Blas, 2009; Ha, Yoon & Choi, 2007; Chen, Yen
& Chen, 2009; Hsu, Lu & Hsu, 2007). That means that the research mostly investigated the user
perception of usefulness, compatibility and the relative advantage of technology, and overlooked
the role of technology fit in adoption (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995;Goodhue, 1995). Also, the
integration of TTF with UTAUT was motivated by the lack understanding of the conditions and user-
perceived factors explaining the utilisation of technology. Although TTF-TAM (Dishaw & Strong,
1999) shed light on the role of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, the role of facilitating
conditions and social influence was not examined. Facilitating conditions and social influence were
found to be crucial in predicting adoption behaviour, as suggested by UTAUT (Venkatesh et al.,
2003). UTAUT outperforms other technology acceptance theories (e.g. TAM) in terms of explaining
technology adoption and includes a wide range of factors that effect individuals' intention to use and
use behaviour (Venkatesh et al., 2003;Zhou, Lu & Wang, 2010).

The TTF-UTAUT model postulates that technology adoption is predicted by the perceived fit between
tasks and technology. In line with the TTF model, the fit between technology and tasks is predicted
by technology and task characteristics (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). The positive relation between
task technology fit and user adoption is drawn from the original theory. It states that irrespective of
the attitude that individuals hold about technology, they are not likely to adopt it, if there is a
mismatch between the technology's functionality and task requirements (Goodhue & Thompson,
1995; Goodhue, 1995). Secondly, in line with the UTAUT model, the user adoption of technology is
predicted by the effort expectancy, performance expectancy, facilitating conditions and social
influence (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Third, performance expectancy is influenced by perceived fit
(Zhou, Lu & Wang, 2010). The correlation between TTF and performance expectancy is supported by
prior studies confirming that TTF affects perceived usefulness (Dishaw & Strong, 1999). Perceived
usefulness is similar to performance expectancy in that both variables measure the expected impact
of technology use on performance (Venkatesh et al., 2003;Davis, 1989). The relationship implies that
when technology functionality has the capability of completing the required tasks, individuals'
performance expectation increases accordingly (Zhou, Lu & Wang, 2010). Fourth, effort expectancy
is affected by technology characteristics. The link between task characteristics and effort expectancy
suggests that technologies with higher functionality require less effort to use them (Zhou, Lu &
Wang, 2010).

The examination of the model demonstrated high predictive strength, with UTAUT (45.7%) and TTF
(43.3%) explaining less variance in technology adoption compared to a newly proposed extension
(57.5%) (Zhou, Lu & Wang, 2010). Also, the predictive power is stronger compared to TTF-TAM by 6
per cent (Zhou, Lu & Wang, 2010; Dishaw & Strong, 1999). Follow-up studies demonstrated the
validity of the model by confirming that its explained variance was higher than 50 per cent (Abbas et
al., 2018). The extended version of the theory contributes to the literature by providing a
behavioural model which can robustly predict adoption. In addition to the increased predictive
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

strength, the model provides evidence about additional factors explaining adoption behaviour
(Zhou, Lu & Wang, 2010).

Figure 6: TTF-UTAUT Model

Applications

Due to the complexity and multidimensionality of TTF, the validation of the hypothesised
relationship and the role of construct dimensions did not bring consistent results across the studies.
It was found that the factors representing task-technology fit exhibited different strength and
significance when testing the utilisation of different technologies. When examining enterprise
architecture management systems, only four fit dimensions were supported: locatability, systems
reliability, production timelines and ease-of-use (Eybers et al., 2019). The examination of the use of
knowledge management technology found that only output quality and compatibility determine the
utilisation of the technology (Teo & Men, 2008). When investigating the adoption of enterprise
system management tools, only four dimensions (locatability, systems reliability, production
timelines and ease-of-use) were significant (Eybers et al., 2019). However, the study on the adoption
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

of an electronic health-record system supported the role of each TTF dimension (Dwivedi,
WadeScott & Schneberger, 2012). Given the inconsistent results of the empirical validation of the
model, it became common practice to avoid complexities with operationalising the model, by
adopting a fit-as-match approach. Such an approach implies that TTF has become a first-order
construct and users are simply asked whether the technology suits their tasks (Furneaux, 2012).

A multi-item first-order TTF construct has become widely adopted across studies, which contributed
to the wide application of the theory in examining technology utilisation and adoption ( Lin, 2012;
Wu & Chen, 2017; Lin & Huang, 2008). For example, the adoption of a knowledge management
system was examined by employing the TTF scale with eight items (Lin & Huang, 2008). A one-
dimensional TTF scale was used to explore the direct and indirect effect of the construct on
continuous intention to use (Lin, 2012;Wu & Chen, 2017). The use of the model in the e-learning
context indicated that TTF is a vital component in exploring the improvement of students' grades
following the adoption of the system (McGill & Klobas, 2009). The effect of variables in the model
was also confirmed when exploring the use of e-books by teachers and technology effect on their
performance. Although the variance in the use behaviour was minimal (7%), the model accounted
for 50 per cent of the variance in performance, meaning that technology fit improves the quality of
teaching, the quality of research, improves productivity and job performance (D'Ambra, Wilson &
Akter, 2013). A strong predictive power of TTF-TAM was confirmed in studies focusing on the use of
e-commerce tools and online courses, explaining 76 per cent of the variance in the intention to
adopt e-commerce (Shih & Chen, 2013) and 95.7 per cent of the variance in continuance intention to
use online courses (Wu & Chen, 2017). In addition, the effect of UTAUT and TTF factors were
significant for the prediction of mobile banking usage (Abbas et al., 2018), whereas for internet
banking adoption the effort expectancy was not important (Tarhini et al., 2016). Given the wide
application of TTF and its extensions with one-dimensional constructs for a range of technologies,
the findings on the predictive strength and the role of factors were mainly consistent, which
demonstrates good external validity of the theory.

Although, the theory was originally developed for adoption by individuals, it was adapted in order to
be applied to the group-level context by making group performance an outcome variable (Zigurs &
Buckland, 1998). Group performance is defined as a multifaceted variable, which can be manifested
as efficiency, process quality, output quality, consensus or satisfaction (Fjerrnestad & Hiltz, 1997;
Delgado Piña, María Romero Martínez & Gómez Martínez, 2008). For example, the examination of
group support systems (GSS) confirmed that the fit factor is a crucial construct in predicting the use
of the system by a group of people (Zigurs & Buckland, 1998). TTF explained the use and
effectiveness of information communication technologies in virtual teams. By understanding the
degree to which technology satisfies the needs for different interpersonal interactions, the adoption
of TTF made it possible to select the best technologies that will support group tasks (e.g. conflict
management, motivation/confidence building and affect management) and increase group
performance (Maruping & Agarwal, 2004).

TTF, TTF-TAM and TTF-UTAUT were tested in different geographical locations and cultural settings,
providing partial confirmation of the model's validity. TTF theory was tested in the Chinese
consulting industry and confirmed only partial validity of the model in determining utilisation and
performance. Only the output quality and compatibility dimensions were significant for predicting
utilisation (Teo & Men, 2008). The application of TTF-TAM to study the continuous intention to use
mobile banking in China resulted in the theory explaining 53 per cent of the variance in the outcome
variable. Specifically, the continuous intention to use was positively affected by perceived usefulness
and task-technology fit. Although the effect of perceived ease of use on CIU was not significant, it
had a positive effect on perceived usefulness (Yuan et al., 2016). Similarly, the validation of TTF-TAM
was successful when studying the adoption of visual analytics in Jordanian enterprises. It was found
that task, technology, and user characteristics are the main antecedents of TTF. TTF positively
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

contributes to perceived usefulness and ease of system use, which, in turn, predict intention to use
visual analytics systems. The model explained around 60 per cent of the variance in behavioural
intention (Daradkeh, 2019). However, the validation of the TTF model and its extensions in
comparative studies demonstrated that the effects of the variables are different due to the diversity
in cultures, values, beliefs and work attitudes. For example, the examination of the fit of technology
to managerial tasks in Greece and the US showed that the two samples distinguish between
different TTF dimensions. The findings enabled researchers to conclude that managers perform
activities and interact with technology differently in the countries being investigated (Ferratt &
Vlahos, 1998). The utilisation of the TTF-UTAUT model to examine mobile payment use intention in
Korea and China showed that the model is more applicable to predicting consumer behaviour in
China. TTF explained almost 81 per cent of the variance in the behavioural intention of Chinese
consumers and confirmed that the effect of all but effort expectancy was significant. The only two
predictors of the usage intention of Korean consumers were social influence and TTF, which
cumulatively accounted for around 60 per cent of the variance in the outcome variable (Lin et al.,
2019). The study examining the moderating effect of Hofstede's cross-cultural dimensions on TTF
model sheds light on the reason for inconsistent findings across cultures. It was found that
individualism and uncertainty avoidance moderate the effect of TTF constructs. The findings
suggested that uncertainty avoidance decreases the effect of TTF on individual performance and the
tendency to individualism decreases the effect of TTF on use behaviour (Tam & Oliveira, 2019). That
means that the criteria that people use to evaluate technology fit to their requirements may depend
on norms and should be considered when adapting the technology for various cultural contexts.

While most of the research undertaken used variance-based approaches to explore the relationship
between the constructs (Eybers et al., 2019; Teo & Men, 2008; Shih & Chen, 2013), a few research
papers employed fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) and crisp set Qualitative
Comparative Analysis (csQCA) approaches (Mikalef & Torvatn, 2019; Weber et al., 2016). These are
the methods based on Boolean algebra, which make it possible to determine the relationship
between the configurations of conditions and outcomes. FsQCA and csQCA helped researchers to
uncover unique combinations of task-technology fit factors leading to better individual and
organisational performance and productivity (Mikalef & Torvatn, 2019).

The applications of the TTF model and its extensions are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Theory Applications

TTF- TTF-
Reference Application TTF
TAM UTAUT

Architecture management
(Eybers et al., 2019) X
systems

(Teo & Men, 2008) Knowledge management

X
(Lin & Huang, 2008) technology

(Dwivedi, WadeScott & Schneberger, electronic health-record

X
2012) system
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

(Lin, 2012)
(Wu & Chen, 2017) Web learning system X
(McGill & Klobas, 2009)

(D'Ambra, Wilson & Akter, 2013) E-books X

(Shih & Chen, 2013) E-commerce X

(Abbas et al., 2018)

Mobile and internet banking X
(Tarhini et al., 2016)

(Marikyan, Papagiannidis &

Smart technology X
Alamanos, 2021)

Reference Geography TTF TTF-TAM TTF-UTAUT

(Teo & Men, 2008) China X

(Lin et al., 2019) China X

(Daradkeh, 2019)
China X
(Yuan et al., 2016)

(Ferratt & Vlahos, 1998) Greece X

(Ferratt & Vlahos, 1998) USA X

(Lin et al., 2019) Korea X

Reference Methodology TTF TTF-TAM TTF-UTAUT

TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

(Eybers et al., 2019)

Variance-based approach X
Teo & Men, 2008

(Shih & Chen, 2013) Variance-based approach X

(Lin et al., 2019)

Variance-based approach X
(Abbas et al., 2018)

(Mikalef & Torvatn, 2019) fsQCA X

(Weber et al., 2016) csQCA X

Limitations

The TTF theory and its extensions have a number of limitations, among which are the complexity of
the models, which makes it difficult to test empirically, weak predictive power, and the lack of focus
on situational and personal factors. The most important shortcoming of the original TTF model is
that due to multi-dimensional constructs, the applicability of the theory in different situations and
scenarios is limited. Therefore, there are very few studies which tested all dimensions of task-tech
technology fit (Eybers et al., 2019;Teo & Men, 2008; Dummy7). To make the model more universal,
scholars predominantly use one-dimensional scales, which downgrades the comprehensiveness of
the model in terms of explaining specific factors within the task-technology fit domain, facilitating or
inhibiting the utilisation and users’ performance.

TTF models have been criticised for a lack of focus on individuals’ psychological and situational
factors, such as the role of top management, trust (between team members and team leaders) and
the responsibilities of team members (Agarwal, Sambamurthy & Stair, 2000). Individual differences
can have an underlying impact on the final outcome of technology utilisation (Staples, Hulland &
Higgins, 1999). For example, following the argument that TTF-TAM needed to measure self-efficacy,
Strong et al. (2006) tested the effect of the construct by integrating it with the model. Although the
significance of computer self-efficacy was confirmed, the updated model did not find wide
implications. Also, TTF-UTAUT was criticised for a lack of focus on factors which may shape the
adoption behaviour of end-users. That limitation motivated the update of the model by integrating it
with trust (Oliveira et al., 2014). Still, future research is required to explore other psychological
variables or situational conditions that would improve the explanatory role of the theory.

The generalisability of the research findings using TTF was questioned when scholars found
contingency in the situational and contextual factors (Table 2). The applications of the model in
different geographical locations characterised by different cultures, social norms and values
demonstrated that the factors of TTF, TTF-TAM and TTF-UTAUT perform differently (Yuan et al.,
2016; Daradkeh, 2019; Lin et al., 2019). Individuals’ personal beliefs, values and cultural differences
in organisations can have an impact on the outcome, which have been ignored in those models. Only
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

few studies (Tam & Oliveira, 2019; Ferratt & Vlahos, 1998) have examined the effect of cultural
dimensions (individualism and uncertainty avoidance) on TTF. That signals the need for future
research to incorporate the values and cultural differences of individuals when employing TTF. In
addition, there is a need to explore whether factors such as organisational culture, social norms and
environmental factors have an effect on TTF and subsequently on technology adoption and
acceptance (Lee, Cheng & Cheng, 2007).

Table 2: Contingency factors

Theory Situation factors

Source

(Yuan et al., 2016) TTF Culture

(Daradkeh, 2019) TTF-TAM Individual characteristics (innovativeness)

TTF-
(Lin et al., 2019) Culture
UTAUT

(Tam & Oliveira, 2019) TTF Culture

(Ferratt & Vlahos,

TTF Culture and socio-technical system
1998)

(Lee, Cheng & Cheng, Individual characteristics (cognitive factors, socio-demographic

TTF
2007) factors, experience)

Concepts

Task Characteristics (Task Equivocality, Task Interdependence) (Independent): The factors

that might move a user to rely more heavily on certain aspects of the information
technology. (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)

Task-Technology Fit (Independent/Dependent): The degree to which a technology assists an

individual in performing his or her portfolio of tasks, more specifically. (Goodhue &
Thompson, 1995)

Utilisation (Independent/Dependent): The behaviour of employing the technology in

completing tasks. (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)

Performance Impact (Dependent): The accomplishment of a portfolio of tasks by an

individual. (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995)
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

References

Abbas, S.K., Hassan, H.A., Iftikhar, S. & Waris, A. (2018). Assimilation of TTF and UTAUT for
Mobile Banking Usage. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and
Science, 4 (4), 305-308.

Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V. & Stair, R.M. (2000). Research Report: The Evolving
Relationship Between General and Specific Computer Self-Efficacy—An Empirical
Assessment. Information Systems Research, 11 (4), 418-430.

Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology &
Health, 26 (9), 1113-1127.

Aldás‐Manzano, J., Ruiz‐Mafé, C. & Sanz‐Blas, S. (2009). Exploring individual personality

factors as drivers of M‐shopping acceptance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109
(6), 739-757.

Bagozzi, R.P. (1982). A Field Investigation of Causal Relations among Cognitions, Affect,
Intentions, and Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (4), 562-584.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37

(2), 122-147.

Baroudi, J.J., Olson, M.H. & Ives, B. (1986). An empirical study of the impact of user
involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 29
(3), 232-238.

Chen, J.V., Yen, D.C. & Chen, K. (2009). The acceptance and diffusion of the innovative smart
phone use: A case study of a delivery service company in logistics. Information &
Management, 46 (4), 241-248.

Cheney, P.H., Mann, R.I. & Amoroso, D.L. (1986). Organizational Factors Affecting the
Success of End-User Computing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3 (1), 65-80.

Cooper, R.B. & Zmud, R.W. (1990). Information Technology Implementation Research: A
Technological Diffusion Approach. Management Science, 36 (2), 123-139.

D'Ambra, J., Wilson, C.S. & Akter, S. (2013). Application of the task-technology fit model to
structure and evaluate the adoption of E-books by Academics. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (1), 48-64.

Daradkeh, M. (2019). Visual Analytics Adoption in Business Enterprises. International Journal

of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 11 (1), 68-89.

Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319.
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

Davis, F.D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user
perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38 (3),
475-487.

DeLone, W.H. & McLean, E.R. (1992). Information Systems Success: The Quest for the
Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research, 3 (1), 60-95.

Delgado Piña, M.I., María Romero Martínez, A. & Gómez Martínez, L. (2008). Teams in
organizations: a review on team effectiveness. Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, 14 (1/2), 7-21.

Dickson, G.W., DeSanctis, G. & McBride, D.J. (1986). Understanding the effectiveness of
computer graphics for decision support: a cumulative experimental approach.
Communications of the ACM, 29 (1), 40-47.

Dishaw, M. & Strong, D. (1998). Assessing software maintenance tool utilization using task–
technology fit and fitness-for-use models. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and
Practice, 10 (3), 151-179.

Dishaw, M.T. & Strong, D.M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task–
technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36 (1), 9-21.

Doll, W.J. & Torkzadeh, G. (1991). The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction:
Theoretical and Methodological Issues. MIS Quarterly, 15 (1), 5.

Dwivedi, Y., WadeScott, M. & Schneberger, L. (2012). Information Systems Theory.

Eybers, S., Gerber, A., Bork, D. & Karagiannis, D. (2019). Matching Technology with
Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Architecture Management Tasks Using Task
Technology Fit. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, 245-260.

Ferratt, T.W. & Vlahos, G.E. (1998). An investigation of task-technology fit for managers in
Greece and the US. European Journal of Information Systems, 7 (2), 123-136.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Addison-Wesley
Pub. Co.

Fjerrnestad, J. & Hiltz, S. (1997). Experimental studies of group decision support systems: an
assessment of variables studied and methodology.

Furneaux, B. (2012). Task-Technology Fit Theory: A Survey and Synopsis of the Literature.
Information Systems Theory, 87-106.

Goodhue, D. (1992). User evaluations of MIS success: what are we really measuring?.

Goodhue, D.L. & Thompson, R.L. (1995). Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance.
MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), 213.

Goodhue, D.L. (1995). Understanding User Evaluations of Information Systems.

Management Science, 41 (12), 1827-1844.
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

Ha, I., Yoon, Y. & Choi, M. (2007). Determinants of adoption of mobile games under mobile
broadband wireless access environment. Information & Management, 44 (3), 276-286.

Hartwick, J. & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information
System Use. Management Science, 40 (4), 440-465.

Hsu, C., Lu, H. & Hsu, H. (2007). Adoption of the mobile Internet: An empirical study of
multimedia message service (MMS). Omega, 35 (6), 715-726.

Lee, C., Cheng, H.K. & Cheng, H. (2007). An empirical study of mobile commerce in insurance
industry: Task–technology fit and individual differences. Decision Support Systems, 43 (1),
95-110.

Letchumanan, M. & Tarmizi, R. (2011). Assessing the intention to use e‐book among
engineering undergraduates in Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia. Library Hi Tech, 29 (3),
512-528.

Lin, T. & Huang, C. (2008). Understanding knowledge management system usage

antecedents: An integration of social cognitive theory and task technology fit. Information &
Management, 45 (6), 410-417.

Lin, W. (2012). Perceived fit and satisfaction on web learning performance: IS continuance
intention and task-technology fit perspectives. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 70 (7), 498-507.

Lin, Wu, Lim, Han, & Chen (2019). Understanding the Sustainable Usage Intention of Mobile
Payment Technology in Korea: Cross-Countries Comparison of Chinese and Korean Users.
Sustainability, 11 (19), 5532.

Lucas, H.C. (1975). Performance and the Use of an Information System. Management
Science, 21 (8), 908-919.

Lucas, H.C. (1981). The analysis, design, and implementation of information systems.
McGraw-Hill.

Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S. & Alamanos, E. (2021). “Smart Home Sweet Smart Home”.
International Journal of E-Business Research, 17 (2), 1-23.

Maruping, L.M. & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through
technology: A task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (6), 975-
990.

McGill, T.J. & Klobas, J.E. (2009). A task–technology fit view of learning management system
impact. Computers & Education, 52 (2), 496-508.

Mikalef, P. & Torvatn, H.Y. (2019). A Configurational Approach to Task-Technology Fit in the
Healthcare Sector. Business Information Systems Workshops, 169-180.
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M.A. & Popovič, A. (2014). Extending the understanding of
mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM. International Journal of
Information Management, 34 (5), 689-703.

Olson, M.H. & Ives, B. (1982). Chargeback Systems and User Involvement in Information
Systems - An Empirical Investigation. MIS Quarterly, 6 (2), 47.

Palvia, S.C. & Chervany, N.L. (1995). An experimental investigation of factors influencing
predicted success in DSS implementation. Information & Management, 29 (1), 43-53.

Robey, D. (1979). User Attitudes and Management Information System Use. Academy of
Management Journal, 22 (3), 527-538.

Shih, Y. & Chen, C. (2013). The study of behavioral intention for mobile commerce: via
integrated model of TAM and TTF. Quality & Quantity, 47 (2), 1009-1020.

Staples, D.S., Hulland, J.S. & Higgins, C.A. (1999). A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the
Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations. Organization Science, 10 (6), 758-
776.

Strong, D.M. (1997). IT process designs for improving information quality and reducing
exception handling: A simulation experiment. Information & Management, 31 (5), 251-263.

Strong, D.M., Dishaw, M.T. & Bandy, D.B. (2006). Extending task technology fit with
computer self-efficacy. ACM SIGMIS Database, 37 (2-3), 96.

Strong, D.M., Lee, Y.W. & Wang, R.Y. (1997). Data quality in context. Communications of the
ACM, 40 (5), 103-110.

Swanson, E.B. (1987). INFORMATION CHANNEL DISPOSITION AND USE. Decision Sciences, 18
(1), 131-145.

Tam, C. & Oliveira, T. (2019). Does culture influence m-banking use and individual
performance?. Information & Management, 56 (3), 356-363.

Tarhini, A., El-Masri, M., Ali, M. & Serrano, A. (2016). Extending the UTAUT model to
understand the customers’ acceptance and use of internet banking in Lebanon. Information
Technology & People, 29 (4), 830-849.

Teo, T.S.H. & Men, B. (2008). Knowledge portals in Chinese consulting firms: a task–
technology fit perspective. European Journal of Information Systems, 17 (6), 557-574.

Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A. & Howell, J.M. (1994). Influence of Experience on Personal
Computer Utilization: Testing a Conceptual Model. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 11 (1), 167-187.

Tornatzky, L.G. & Klein, K.J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-
implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, EM-29 (1), 28-45.
TheoryHub Book: Task-Technology Fit

Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology:
Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425.

Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F.D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46 (2), 186-204.

Vessey, I. (1991). Cognitive Fit: A Theory-Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables
Literature. Decision Sciences, 22 (2), 219-240.

Weber, M., Weeger, A., Gewald, C. & Haase, U. (2016). The Effect of 'Device' in Task-
Technology Fit: A Study of German Hospitals.

Weill, P. (1992). The Relationship Between Investment in Information Technology and Firm
Performance: A Study of the Valve Manufacturing Sector. Information Systems Research, 3
(4), 307-333.

Wu, B. & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology
acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human
Behavior, 67, 221-232.

Yuan, S., Liu, Y., Yao, R. & Liu, J. (2016). An investigation of users’ continuance intention
towards mobile banking in China. Information Development, 32 (1), 20-34.

Zhou, T., Lu, Y. & Wang, B. (2010). Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking
user adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (4), 760-767.

Zigurs, I. & Buckland, B.K. (1998). A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support
Systems Effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 22 (3), 313.

de Guinea, A.O., Titah, R. & Léger, P. (2014). Explicit and Implicit Antecedents of Users'
Behavioral Beliefs in Information Systems: A Neuropsychological Investigation. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 30 (4), 179-210.

How to cite: Marikyan, D. & Papagiannidis, S. (2023) Task-Technology Fit: A review. In S.

Papagiannidis (Ed), TheoryHub Book. Available at https://open.ncl.ac.uk / ISBN:
9781739604400

Last updated: 2023-09-23 18:47:42 - Exported: 2024-02-22 13:11:46

ISBN: 978-1-7396044-0-0

Legal: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. The TheoryHub
is an open access resource which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are
allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose,
without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. For more information please visit: https://open.ncl.ac.uk.