Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
Recent information systems (IS) literature has highlighted the need to redefine IS output in terms of service. Concepts such as software-as-a-service (Chesbrough & Spohrer, 2006; Perano et al., 2018) have shown that what traditionally was considered a product or an IS artifact can now be refashioned as a service. Many products developed today contain a service component, and the products themselves are just a means for delivering a service (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008). Such developments have led to a need to better understand how individuals evaluate IS services and what are the salient factors that influence such evaluations. Literature, particularly from marketing and operations management, has advocated the development of better “service” theories (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008). As a discipline, IS needs to recognize this “servitization” trend and contribute to the debate in conceptualizing IS services and understanding the role of IS in the service constellation.
One of the important services rendered by IS departments is the development of software (Chesbrough & Spohrer, 2006; Yang et al., 2011). Business organizations spend a large portion of their IT budgets on software acquisition activities, and the testing of developed or acquired software is an important service rendered by testing professionals to software developers, business users, and other stakeholders (Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Onita & Dhaliwal, 2011; Yang et al., 2011). This research focuses on better understanding the service of software testing, by implementing an experiment that uses the result of a testing activity – a testing defect report – to investigate how the recipients of the testing service evaluate the testing report received.
An important task in better theorizing a service is to understand how the service is evaluated. Literature on measuring service performance comes mainly from marketing where Parasuraman et al. (1988) developed the SERVQUAL measurement tool for quantifying the perceived service quality. IS literature adapted the SERVQUAL measure to the IS context (Jiang et al., 2002; Kettinger & Lee, 2005; Loiacono et al., 2007; Pai et al., 2014) along with other measures such as satisfaction (Jiang et al., 2002) and perceived usefulness (Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003). In the process of evaluation, two evaluative components play an important role – a rational component and an emotional component (Carraher-Wolverton & Cenfetelli, 2019; Lazarus, 1991; Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003). Organizations are “emotional arenas” where emotion plays an important role in the decision making process (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010). Emotions play a central role in explanation of social judgment (Forgas, 1995), employee performance appraisal (Forgas & Tehani, 2005), risk perception (Loewenstein et al., 2001), and everyday thoughts and decision making (Clore & Huntsinger, 2007). Researchers now further maintain that “the impact of cognitive evaluations on behavior is mediated, at least in part, by affective responses” (Loewenstein et al., 2001, p. 271). The appraisal theory of emotions suggests that the evaluation/appraisal of an event or a stimuli is composed of a rational evaluation of the event/stimuli which in turn leads to an emotional response and a corresponding state of arousal (Lazarus, 1991; Schachter & Singer, 1962). An IS event or service encounter leads to a rational appraisal of the encounter by the service recipient which in turn influences their emotional response. This service appraisal process further influences the behavioral intentions exhibited by the service recipient.