Skip to main content
Log in

Developing and validating a physical product e-tailing systems success model

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study attempts to develop and validate a physical product e-tailing systems success model based on the existing information systems/e-commerce systems success models and consumer behavior literature. The proposed e-tailing success model describes the interrelationships among nine dimensions: Information Quality, System Quality, Service Quality, Product Quality, Perceived Price, Perceived Value, User Satisfaction, Intention to Reuse, and Electronic Word-of-Mouth. Data collected from 258 valid respondents are tested against the research model using the partial least squares approach. The results indicate that Information Quality, System Quality, Service Quality, Product Quality, and Perceived Price (i.e. e-tailers’ quality and price attributes) have a significant influence on both Perceived Value and User Satisfaction, and that Perceived Value significantly affects both Intention to Reuse and eWOM (i.e. customers’ loyalty) directly or indirectly through the mediation of User Satisfaction. The results of this study provide several important theoretical and practical implications for e-tailing systems success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson RE (1973) Consumer dissatisfaction: the effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. J Mark Res 10(1):38–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bagozzi RP (1992) The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Soc Psychol Q 55(2):178–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bohmstedt GW (1970) Reliability and validity assessment in attitude measurement. In: Summers GF (ed) Attitude measurement. Rand-McNally, Chicago, pp 80–99

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chen JV, Rungruengsamrit D, Rajkumar TM, Yen DC (2013) Success of electronic commerce success web sites: a comparative study in two countries. Inf Manag 50(6):344–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen SC, Yen DC, Hwang MI (2012) Factors influencing the continuance intention to the usage of Web 2.0: an empirical study. Comput Hum Behav 28(3):933–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen Z, Dubinsky AJ (2003) A conceptual model of perceived customer value in e-commerce: a preliminary investigation. Psychol Mark 20(4):323–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheung CMK, Lee MKO (2012) What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. Decis Support Syst 53(1):218–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chin WW (2010) How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Vinzi VE et al (eds) Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications. Spinger, Berlin, pp 655–690

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Cronin JJ Jr, Brady MK, Hult GTM (2000) Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J Retail 76(2):193–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):318–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Davis LD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35(8):982–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. DeLone WH, McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res 3(1):60–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DeLone WH, McLean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst 19(4):9–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. DeLone WH, McLean ER (2004) Measuring e-commerce success: applying the DeLone and McLean information systems success model. Int J Electron Commer 9(1):31–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. de Matos CA, Rossi CAV (2008) Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: a meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. J Acad Mark Sci 36(4):578–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dodds WB, Monroe KB, Grewal D (1991) Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J Mark Res 28(3):307–319

    Google Scholar 

  17. Doll WJ, Torkzadeh G (1988) The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Q 12(2):259–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fang YH, Chiu CM, Wang ETG (2011) Understanding customers’ satisfaction and repurchase intentions: an integration of IS success model, trust, and justice. Internet Res 21(4):479–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Beliefs, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Garvin DA (1984) What does “product quality” really mean? Sloan Manag Rev 26(1):25–43

    Google Scholar 

  22. Grewal D, Monroe KB, Krishnan R (1998) The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value and behavioral intentions. J Mark 62(2):46–59

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gruen TW, Osmonbekov T, Czaplewski AJ (2006) eWOM: the impact of customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty. J Bus Res 59(4):449–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gupta S, Kim HW (2010) Value-driven internet shopping: the mental accounting theory perspective. Psychol Mark 27(1):13–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ha HY, Janda S, Muthaly SK (2010) A new understanding of satisfaction model in e-re-purchase situation. Eur J Mark 44(7/8):997–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hair JT, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1992) Multivariate data analysis with readings. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. JMTP 19(2):139–152

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hair JF Jr, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2016) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Los Angels

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hellier PK, Geursen GM, Carr RA, Rickard JA (2003) Customer repurchase intention: a general structural equation model. Eur J Mark 37(11/12):1762–1800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jiménez FR, Mendoza NA (2013) Too popular to ignore: the influence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products. J Interact Mark 27(3):226–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kassim NM, Ismail S (2009) Investigating the complex drivers of loyalty in e-commerce settings. MBE 13(1):56–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim C, Galliers RD, Shin N, Ryoo JH, Kim J (2012) Factors influencing internet shopping value and customer repurchase intention. Electron Commer Res Appl 11(4):374–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kuo WF, Wu CM, Deng WJ (2009) The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Comput Hum Behav 25(4):887–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lee J, Park DH, Han I (2011) The different effects of online customer reviews on customers’ purchase intentions depending on trust in online shopping malls: an advertising perspective. Internet Res 21(2):187–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lin CC, Wu HY, Chang YF (2011) The critical factors impact on online customer satisfaction. Procedia Comput Sci 3:276–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lin SJ (2009) Interaction archetypes of online shopping. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, 240

  37. McKinney V, Yoon K, Zahedi FM (2002) The measurement of Web-customer satisfaction: an expectation and disconfirmation approach. Inf Syst Res 13(3):296–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Oliver RL (1977) Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on postexposure product evaluations: an alternative interpretation. J Appl Psychol 62(4):480–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Oliver RL (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J Mark Res 17(3):460–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Parasuraman A, Grewal D (2000) The impact of technology on the quality-value-loyalty chain: a research agenda. J Acad Mark Sci 28(1):168–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Petter S, McLean ER (2009) A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean IS success model: an examination of IS success at the individual level. Inf Manag 46(3):159–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Petter S, DeLone W, McLean ER (2012) The past, present, and future of “IS success”. J Assoc Inf Syst 13(5):341–362

    Google Scholar 

  43. Petter S, DeLone W, McLean ER (2013) Information systems success: the quest for the independent variables. J Manag Inf Syst 29(4):7–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pitt LF, Watson RT, Kavan CB (1995) Service quality: a measure of information systems effectiveness. MIS Q 19(2):173–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  46. Quan S (2010) The relationships among e-service quality, system quality, information quality and customer loyalty: an empirical study of internet banking in China. GJMBR 10(7):27–34

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rai A, Lang SS, Welker RB (2002) Assessing the validity of IS success models: an empirical test and theoretical analysis. Inf Syst Res 13(1):50–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rao AR, Monroe KB (1988) The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. J Consum Res 15(2):253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rose S, Clark M, Samouel P, Hair N (2012) On-line customer experience in e-retailing: an empirical model of antecedents and outcomes. J Retail 88(2):308–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Seddon PB (1997) A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Inf Syst Res 8(3):240–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sun H (2010) Transferring attributes of e-commerce systems into business benefits: a relationship quality perspective. J Electron Commer Res 11(2):92–109

    Google Scholar 

  52. Tsiotsou R (2006) The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on purchase intentions. Int J Consum Stud 30(2):207–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Valvi AC, Fragkos KC (2012) Critical review of the e-loyalty literature: a purchase-centred framework. Electron Commer Res 12(3):331–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Venkatesh V, Agarwal R (2006) Turning visitors into customers: a usability-centric perspective on purchase behavior in e-channels. Manag Sci 52(3):367–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wang YS (2008) Assessing e-commerce systems success: a respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Inf Syst J 18(5):529–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wang YS, Tang TI (2003) Assessing customer perceptions of Web sites service quality in digital marketing environments. JEUC 15(3):14–31

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wang YS, Tang TI, Tang JTE (2001) An instrument for measuring customer satisfaction toward websites that market digital products and services. J Electron Commer Res 2(3):89–102

    Google Scholar 

  58. Wang YS, Wu SC, Lin HH, Wang YY (2011) The relationship of service failure severity, service recovery justice and perceived switching costs with customer loyalty in the context of e-tailing. Int J Inf Manag 31(4):350–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wang YS, Yeh CH, Liao YW (2013) What drives purchase intention in the context of online content services? The moderating role of ethical self-efficacy for online piracy. Int J Inf Manag 33(1):199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Zeithaml VA (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark 52(3):2–22

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was substantially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) of Taiwan under grant number MOST 103-2410-H-018-014.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi-Shun Wang.

Appendix: Measuring items used in this study

Appendix: Measuring items used in this study

1.1 Information quality

  • IQ1 The e-tailing system provides the precise information I need.

  • IQ2 The information content provided by the e-tailing system meets my needs.

  • IQ3 I feel the output of the e-tailing system is reliable.

  • IQ4 The e-tailing system provides up-to-date information.

1.2 System quality

  • SQ1 The e-tailing system is user-friendly.

  • SQ2 The e-tailing system is easy to use.

  • SQ3 The response time of the e-tailing system is acceptable.

1.3 Service quality

  • SV1 The e-tailer is always willing to help me.

  • SV2 I feel safe in my transactions with the e-tailer in terms of security and privacy protection.

  • SV3 The e-tailer has the knowledge to answer my questions.

  • SV4 The e-tailer understands my specific needs.

1.4 Product quality

  • PQ1 The products provided by the e-tailer appear to be reliable.

  • PQ2 The product quality of the e-tailer appears to be good.

  • PQ3 The products provided by the e-tailer appear to be durable.

  • PQ4 The products provided by the e-tailer appear to be of good quality.

1.5 Perceived price

  • PP1 It may not be possible to get a better discount from another e-tailer.

  • PP2 It may not be cheaper to buy products at another e-tailer.

  • PP3 I may not need to pay more money when buying products from this e-tailer as compared to another e-tailer.

1.6 Perceived value

  • PV1 The e-tailer products are a good value for money.

  • PV2 The e-tailer product prices are acceptable.

  • PV3 The e-tailer products are considered to be a good buy.

1.7 User satisfaction

  • US1 I am satisfied with this e-tailer.

  • US2 The e-tailer is of high quality.

  • US3 The e-tailer has met my expectation.

1.8 eWOM

  • WM1 I will recommend the e-tailer to others.

  • WM2 I will recommend the products of the e-tailer to other potential users.

  • WM 3 I intend to share my good experience about the e-tailer with others more frequently in the future.

1.9 Intention to reuse

  • IR1 Assuming that I have access to the e-tailing system, I intend to reuse it.

  • IR2 I will reuse the e-tailing system in the future.

  • IR3 I will frequently use the e-tailing system in the future.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, YS., Lin, Sj., Li, CR. et al. Developing and validating a physical product e-tailing systems success model. Inf Technol Manag 19, 245–257 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-017-0286-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-017-0286-8

Keywords

Navigation