Characteristics of tasks and technology as a driver of task-technology fit and the use of the hotel reservation information system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine the effect of task and technology characteristics on the compatibility of technology and tasks, as well as examine the reciprocal effect between the task-technology fit and the use of information systems. Design/methodology/approach The study took place in 36 star hotels from one-star to four-star hotels in some cities and districts in South Kalimantan Province. There were 24 hotels in Banjarmasin, 7 hotels in Banjarbaru and 1 hotel in each area of Banjar, Tanah Bumbu, Tabalong, Hulu Sungai Utara and Barito Kuala. The hotels chosen were those implemented the information and communication technology as supporting administrative activities to serve hotel customers. The population was the front office staff in the existing hotels as the users of the information technology. The sampling technique used in this research was the questionnaire distribution in accordance with the number of population. Data were collected from the filled questionnaires. From the 239distributed questionnaires, 164 (68.62 per cent) were returned and used as the research data. Findings Task characteristics and technology characteristics have a significant and positive effect on task-technology fit, in which the higher the task characteristics and technology characteristics, the higher the task-technology fit. The task-technology fit and the use of information systems are positive and reciprocal. This means that the higher the task-technology fit, the higher the use of information systems. Originality/value The originality of this study is reciprocal relationship between the variables of use with the task-technology fit. Some researchers have found the compatibility of technological tasks affecting the use of information systems, namely, Lin and Huang (2008), Norzaidi and Salwani (2009), Larsen et al. (2009), McGill and Klobas (2009), D’Ambra and Wilson (2013), Im (2014) and Chang et al. (2015). On the other hand, in task-technology fit theory, Goodhue and Thompson (1995) state that use affects the task-technology fit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".