Digitalisation is reaching German craft enterprises which must increasingly deal with complex software. The usability of the software is crucial for the effective use in everyday work and insufficient usability is associated with increased stress and strain. It thus seems necessary to identify possible usability-related stressors in craft-enterprise software.
OBJECTIVE:
Here we examine how users evaluate the usability of craft-enterprise software and whether usability is associated with perceived work-related stress.
METHODS:
To assess the perceived usability of German craft-enterprise software, an online survey was conducted with 161 participants from craft enterprises using a validated usability questionnaire based on ISO 9241-110. In addition, 26 guideline-based interviews were conducted to identify the experience of managers and employees with craft-enterprise software, possible usability-related stress and strain.
RESULTS:
Both studies show that craft enterprises use software but only to a limited extend. While back-office administrative processes are routinely supported by software, mobile software support to manage customer service is used less frequently. Increasing complexity of craft-enterprise software is posing growing demands on the users. Software usability was rated to be crucial in the online survey, but the available software is only rated to be acceptable. This was also reflected in the interviews. Participants described usability problems and their relevance as stressors during software use. In consequence, the users experience strain such as feeling overwhelmed and frustrated.
CONCLUSION:
It can be concluded that improving the usability of craft-enterprise software should reduce work-related stress and support craft enterprises to master the digitalisation process.
DemaryV, EngelsB, RöhlK-H, RuscheC. Digitalisierung und Mittelstand: Eine Metastudie. In: IW-Analysen, No. 109. German Economic Institute (IW), Cologne; 2016. Ger-man.
2.
ProegerT, ThoniparaA, BizerK. Homepage-Nutzung im Handwerk: Eine sektorale und regionale Analyse. In: Göttinger Beiträge zur Handwerksforschung, No. 27. Göttingen: Volkswirtschaftliches Institut fýr Mittelstand und Handwerk an der UniversitätGöottingen (ifh); 2019. doi:10.3249/2364-3897-gbh-27. German.
3.
BrockhausCP, BischoffTS, HaverkampK, ProegerT, ThoniparaA. Digitalisierung von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen in Deutschland - Ein Forschungsüberblick. In: Göottinger Beiträge zur Handwerksforschung, No. 46. Göottingen: Volkswirtschaftliches Institut füur Mittelstand und Handwerk an der UniversitätGöottingen (ifh); 2020. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3249/2364-3897-gbh-46. German.
4.
RunstP, ProegerT. Digitalisierungsmuster im Handwerk -Eine regionale und sektorale Analyse des Digitalisierungs-Checks des Kompetenzzentrums Digitales Handwerk. In: Göottinger Beiträge zur Handwerksforschung, No. 39. Göottingen: Volkswirtschaftliches Institut füur Mittelstand und Handwerk an der UniversitätGöottingen (ifh); 2020. doi: 10.3249/2364-3897-gbh-39. German.
5.
ProegerT, ThoniparaA, BizerK. Mechanismen, Erfolgs faktoren und Hemmnisse der Digitalisierung im Handwerk. 1055 In: Göttinger Beiträge zur Handwerksforschung, No. 35. Göttingen: Volkswirtschaftliches Institut fufür Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh); 2020. doi:10.3249/2364-3897-gbh-35. German.
6.
DIN EN ISO 10075-1:2017; Ergonomic principles related to mental workload - Part 1: General issues and concepts, terms and definitions (ISO 10075-1:2017); German version EN ISO 10075-1:2017.
7.
Ragu-NathanT, TarafdarM, Ragu-NathanBS, TuQ. The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation, Inf Syst Res. 2008;19(4);417–33. doi: 10.1287/isre.1070.0165.
8.
WeilMM, RosenLD. Technostress: Coping with technoogy @work @home @play: J. WileyNew York; 1997.
9.
La TorreG, EspositoA, SciarraI, ChiappettaM. Definition, symptoms and risk of techno-stress: A systematic review, Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019; 92(1):13–35
doi: 10.1007/s00420-018-1352-1.
10.
NisafaniAS, KielyG, MahonyC. Workers’ technostress: A review of its causes, strains, inhibitors, and impacts, J Decis Syst . 2020;1–16.doi:10.1080/12460125.2020.1796286.
11.
RiedlR. On the biology of technostress: Literature review and research agenda, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems. 2013; 44(1):18–55
doi:10.1145/2436239.2436242.
12.
RiedlR, KindermannH, AuingerA, JavorA. Technostress from a neurobiological perspective - System breakdown increases the stress hormone cortisol in computer users, BISE. 2012; 2.61–9. doi:10.1007/s12599-012-0207-7.
13.
LarsmanP, ThornS, SogaardK, SandsjoL, SjogaardG, KadeforsR. Work related perceived stress and muscle activity during standardized computer work among female computer users, Work. 2009; 32(2): 189–99
doi:10.3233/WOR-2009-0805.
14.
DraganoN, LunauT. Technostress at work and mental health: Conceptsand research results, Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2020; 33(4): 407–13.
doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000613.
15.
TarafdarM, CooperCL, StichJF. The technostress trifecta-techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research, Info Systems J. 2019; 29(1);6–42
doi:10.1111/isj.12169.
16.
StadinM, NordinM, BroströmA, Magnusson HansonLL, WesterlundH, FranssonEI. Repeated exposure to high ICT demands at work, and development of suboptimal self-rated health: Findings from a 4-year follow-up of the SLOSH study, Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019; 92(5):717–28
doi: 10.1007/s00420-019-01407-6.
17.
AyyagariR, GroverV, PurvisR. Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications, MIS Quarterly. 2011; 35(4):831–58
doi: 10.2307/41409963.
18.
KarasekR, TheorellT. Healthy work. Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books; 1990.
19.
Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administratve Science Quaterly. 1979;24(2), 285–308.
20.
DIN EN ISO 9241-11:2018-11, Ergonomics of humansystem interaction - Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts (ISO 9241-11:2018); German version EN ISO 9241-11:2018. doi: 10.31030/2757945.
21.
DIN EN ISO 9241-110:2008-09, Ergonomics of human system interaction - Part 110: Dialogue principles (ISO 9241-110:2006); German version EN ISO 9241-110:2006. doi:10.31030/1464024.
22.
DIN EN ISO 9241-112:2017-08, Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 112: Principles for the presentation of information (ISO 9241-112:2017); German version EN ISO 9241-112:2017. doi:10.31030/2580439.
23.
ShneidermanB, PlaisantC, CohenM, JacobsS, ElmqvistN, DiakopoulosN. Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction - Global Edition: Pearson; 2018.
24.
HurtienneJ, PrümperJ. Stress in the office: The influence of software-ergonomic quality. In: Harris D, DuffyV, Smith M, Stephanidis C, editors. Human-centred computing: Cogni-tive, social, ergonomic aspects. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003. pp. 63–67.
25.
KörnerU, Müller-ThurK, LunauT, DraganoN, AngererP, BuchnerA. Perceived stress in human–machine interaction in modern manufacturing environments—Results of a qualitative interview study, Stress and Health2019; 35;187–99
doi:10.1002/smi.2853.
26.
KjeldskovJ, SkovMB, StageJ. A longitudinal study of usability inhealth care: Does time heal?Int J Med Inform, 2010; 79(6):e135–143.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.008.
27.
HurtienneJ, PrümperJ. Prümper J. Produktivitätsfaktor Usability Man-agement. In: Abele P, Hurtienne J, Prümper J, editors. Usability Management bei SAP-Projekten. Wiesbaden: Vieweg; 2007. pp. 23–50. German.
28.
HåkanssonE, BjarnasonE. Including human factors and ergonomics in requirements engineering for digital work environments. 2020 IEEE First International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Well-Being, Aging, and Health (REWBAH); 2020: IEEE.
29.
TarafdarM, TuQ, Ragu-NathanT. Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance, J Manag Inf Syst. 2010; 27(3):303–34. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222270311.
30.
TaibMF, BahnS, YunMH. The effect of psychosocial stress on muscle activity during computer work: Comparative study between desktop computer and mobile computing products, Work. 2016; 54(3): 543–55
doi:10.3233/WOR-162334.
31.
FreireL, SoaresM, PadovaniS. A children, teachers and designers as evaluators of usability of educational software, Work. 1032; 41:1032–7
doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-0280-1032.
32.
InalY, WakeJD, GuribyeF, NordgreenT.Usability evaluations of mobile mental health technologies: Systematic review, J Med Internet Res. 1533;22(1):e15337
doi:10.2196/15337.
33.
ViitanenJ, HyppönenH, LääveriT, VänskäJ, ReponenJ, WinbladI. National questionnaire study on clinical ICT systems proofs: Physicians suffer from poor usability, Int J Med Inform. 2011; 80(10):708–25
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.06.010.
34.
LiL, SuF, ZhangW, MaoJ-Y. Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective, Info Systems J. 2018; 28(6):1129–57
doi: 10.1111/isj.12153.
WoywodeM, MädcheA, WallachD, PlachM. Abschluss-bericht des Forschungsprojekts Gebrauchstauglichkeit von Anwendungssoftware alsWettbewerbsfaktor für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen (KMU). 2011 [cited 02.09.2019]. Available from: https://www.usability-in-germany.de/uigstudie. German.
37.
JansenA, MüllerC, PrümperJ, SteinB. Software-Einführung in KMU –(kein) Platz für Benutzerbeteiligung? –Eine qualitative Bestandaufnahme. In: Hassenzahl M, Peissner M, editors. Usability Professionals 2005. Stuttgart: Usability Professionals Association e. V.; 2005. pp. 108–110. German.
38.
ÖzF Digitalisierung in Kleinbetrieben: Ergebnisse aus Baugewerbe, Logistik und ambulanter Pflege. In: Forschung Aktuell, No. 02/2019. Gelsenkirchen, Forschung Aktuell: Institute for Work and Technology (IAT), Westfälische Hochschule, University of Applied Sciences; 2019. German.
39.
PrescherT, HellriegelJ, SchönM, BaumannA, HeilM, SchulzF. Digitalisierung im Handwerk als Lernprozess fördern. 14th e-Learning Conference of the German Computer Society (DeLFI 2016); 2016; Potsdam, Germany. German.
ChristouV, EvertzL, SüßS. Digitale Transformation imHandwerk: Eine qualitative Analyse der individuellenVeränderungsbereitschaft, Zeitschrift für KMU undEntrepreneurshi12020; 69(3-4):149–68
doi:10.3790/zfke.68.3-4.149. German.
42.
Zentralverband des Deutschen Handwerks. Digitalisierung der Handwerksbetriebe - Ergebnisse einer Umfrage unter Handwerksbetrieben im ersten Quartal 2018. Berlin: Zentralverband des Deutschen Handwerks; 2018. German.
PatakiK, SachseK, PrümperJ, ThüringM. ISONORM 9241/10-S: Kurzfragebogen zur Software-Evaluation. Berichteüber den 45 Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie; 2006; Nürnberg. German.
45.
PrümperJSoftware-evaluation based upon ISO 9241 Part 10. In: Grechenig T, Tscheligi M, editors. Human Computer Interaction VCHCI 1993 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 733. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1993. pp. 255–265. doi: doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57312-7_74.
46.
MayringP. Einfü in die qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. 5 ed. Weinheim: Beltz; 2002. German.
47.
GuestG, BunceA, JohnsonL. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability, Field methods. 2006;18(1):59–82doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903.
48.
TarafdarM, TuQ, Ragu-NathanB, Ragu-NathanT. The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity, J Manag Inf Syst. 2007; 24(1):301–28. doi: 10.2753/mis0742-1222240109.
49.
FußS, KarbachU. Grundlagen derTranskription: Eine praktische Einführung. 2 ed. Stuttgart Opladen; Toronto utb Verlag Barbara Budrich; 2019. German.
HolmS. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, Scand J Statist1979; 6(2), 65–70.
52.
FaulF, ErdfelderE, LangA-G, BuchnerA. G*Power A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences, Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39(2):175–91doi: 10.3758/BF03193146.
53.
CohenJStatistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-ences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
SteinB, FloegelS. Go Live & Optimierung. In: Abele P, Hurtienne J, Prümper J, editors. Usability Management bei SAP-Projekten. Wiesbaden: Vieweg; 2007. pp. 259–274. 1262 German.
56.
DaamsN-C, JansenbergerA. Open-Datapool — Der Artikelstamm für das Handwerk. 2018 [cited 01.05.2021]. Available from: https://www.open-datapool.de/ German.
FuglsethAM, SørebøØ. The effects of technostress withinthe context of employee use of ICT, Comput Human Behav. 2014;40:161–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.040.
59.
WerderK, HaakeP, MaedcheA. Usability readiness of German software SMEs - Three segments and their characteristics. Mensch&Computer; 2014;München: Old-enbourg Wissenschaftsverlag. German.
60.
HolzingerA. Usability engineering methods for software developers. Communications of theACM. 2005;48(1):71–4. doi:10.1145/1039539.1039541.
BrandenburgS, SachseK, JägerA, ReckinR, BeckerM. Usability füur kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen im Bereich mobiler und internetbasierter Anwendungen: Abschlussbericht von UseTree, dem Berliner Kompe-tenzzentrum für Usability-Maßnahmen. UseTree-Berliner Kompetenzzentrum füur Usability-Maßnahmen; 2015. German.
63.
TuQ, TarafdarM, Ragu-NathanT, Ragu-NathanBS. Improving end-user satisfaction through techno-stressprevention: Some empirical evidences. AMCIS 2008 Pro-ceedings; 2008.
64.
ChiappettaM. The Technostress: Definition, symptoms and riskprevention, Senses Sci. 2017; 4(1):358–61
doi: 10.14616/sands-2017-1-358361.
65.
Sagar-OuriaghliI, GodfreyE, BridgeL, MeadeL, BrownJS. Improving mental health service utilization among men: A systematic review and synthesis of behavior change techniques within interventions targeting help-seeking, Am J Mens Health2019;13(3):1–18doi: 10.1177/1557988319857009.
66.
GaldasPM, CheaterF, MarshallP. Men and health help-seeking behaviour: Literature review, J Adv Nurs2005; 49(6): 616–23.
