• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
MCIS2011: Towards Microblogging Success Factors: An empirical survey on Twitter usage of Austrian universities

MCIS2011: Towards Microblogging Success Factors: An empirical survey on Twitter usage of Austrian universities



Towards Microblogging Success Factors: An empirical survey on Twitter usage of Austrian universities

Towards Microblogging Success Factors: An empirical survey on Twitter usage of Austrian universities



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 1

http://twitter.com 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    MCIS2011: Towards Microblogging Success Factors: An empirical survey on Twitter usage of Austrian universities MCIS2011: Towards Microblogging Success Factors: An empirical survey on Twitter usage of Austrian universities Presentation Transcript

    • Towards Microblogging Success Factors: An empiricalsurvey on Twitter usage of Austrian universitiesThomas Sammer, Andrea Back6th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Cyprus, August 3-5, 2011 thomas.sammer@unisg.ch 1
    • Agenda Introduction Theoretical Framework Research Method Results Discussion 2
    • Agenda Introduction Theoretical Framework Research Method Results Discussion 3
    • Social Media Landscape Social Media Logos: http://www.onlinelupe.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Social-Media.jpg 4
    • Social Media Landscape Microblogging or Social Media Logos: http://www.onlinelupe.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Social-Media.jpg 5
    • Functionality of Twitter is changing over time, but the core functionality remains the same:Functionality of Twitter Sending short text messages, so called Tweets Subscribe to text messages of other users In 2010, more than 50 million Tweets per day and 28 million unique visitors. Weil, K. 2010. Twitter Blog: Measuring Tweets. URL: http://blog.twitter.com/2010/02/measuring- tweets.html 6
    • Research on Twitter  Java et al. 2007 categorized Twitter usage  Identified four intentions for people to use Twitter:  Daily chatter who are writing about their daily routine or what they are currently doing.  Users who are having conversations using the @-character orResearch on Twitter  sharing information and URLs or  reporting latest news respectively commenting current events.  Twitter is open, few restrictions  It can be utilized in many different ways:  Using URLs, websites, pictures, videos, blogposts aso. can be shared  Categorizing tweets by topics using the # hash-tag and search function  Conversations between users using the @-character  Intermediate between instant messaging and weblogging  Broadcast messages to a wide range of users  Write text message very fast (and mobile / on the go)  E.g. news reporting on happenings (Airbus Hudson river crash-landing, wildfires, …) Java, A. Song, X. Finin, T. and Tseng, B. 2007. Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis. ACM. p. 56–65. 7
    • Can the new technology be used to improve tasks? Technology Task Cases like news-coverage show advantages Can it be applied on organizational tasks too? E.g. room scheduling or information sharing Mobile Twitter: http://tuxfreaks.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/twitterfon_screenshot.png 8
    • Research questions Research Question: Can Twitter be used to improve organizational tasks? 1 Which Austrian universities are using Twitter respectively run a Twitter account?Research Questions 2 What kind of messages do they publish? 3 Which users are following those messages published by university accounts? 4 Which other accounts do the followers of university accounts follow too? 5 Which Twitter users are most influential on the users following an university account? 9
    • Agenda Introduction Theoretical Framework Research Method Results Discussion 10
    • Theoretical Fundament Literature Review Sources: EBSCO Computer Source and Business Source Premiere, ACM Portal, Gartner Advisory Intraweb, Science Direct, Google Scholar SFX and Mendeley Literature Search Search query: (Twitter OR Social Media OR Microblogging OR Weblog) AND Success  Research focuses on various topics in this field  but not in particular on the implications for universitiesRelevant Literature  Twitter usage  Huberman et al. 2009; Krishnamurthy et al. 2008; Kwak et al. 2010  No focus on academic usage or usage in organizations comparable to universities  Studies concerning the flow of information and language  Boyd et al. 2010; Honeycutt and Herring 2009; Lerman and Ghosh 2010; Zhao and Rosson 2009  Advantages of microblogging usage in collaboration, mobilization of people and communication  Contribute to some extent 11
    • Theoretical Fundament  Social media strategy  Best-practice cases; systematic ways of understanding and conceptualizing social media usage for companies (Hanna et al. 2011)  Facebook usage of nonprofit organizations (Waters et al. 2009)Relevant Literature  Frameworks to describe social media services to derive social media strategies (Kietzmann et al. 2011)  Developed or extended traditional processes for media spending to guide spending decisions for social media  Attributes of so-called social media influencers (Fischer and Reuber 2010)  Operational success factors for Twitter are not targeted  Microblogging a kind of information system  well established IS models that predict the success of new technologies  IS success model (Delone and McLean 1992; Delone and McLean 2003)  TAM – technology acceptance model (Davis 1985)  TTFM - task technology fit model (Goodhue and Thompson 1995; Goodhue 1998; Goodhue 2000)  IS model for weblog success (DU and WAGNER 2006) 12
    • Theoretical Fundament  IS model for weblog success (DU and WAGNER 2006)  Techno-social and value-driven explanation  Better fits social computing technologies like weblogs and microblogging  Three success dimensionsRelevant Literature  Success (in terms of popularity) of a weblog  content, technology and social value  Success-Factors can be adopted for microblogging DU, H. and WAGNER, C. 2006. Weblog success: Exploring the role of technology. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64 (9). pp. 789-798. 13
    • Theoretical Fundament  Microblogging shares many similarities with weblogging  Main-functionality of both services is to read / write text containing messages and weblinks  We assume that the proposed model is applicable to explain success on Twitter Relevant Literature Adoption of the weblog success model by (DU and WAGNER 2006) for Microblogging  Explain our observations on the Twitter usage of Austrian universities DU, H. and WAGNER, C. 2006. Weblog success: Exploring the role of technology. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64 (9). pp. 789-798. 14
    • Theoretical Fundament  Microblogging as social network  Knots = users  Edges = connections between users (following, @-replies, #-topics, lists)  For this research we used following / followed by as edgesRelevant Literature  Sum of connections  Indegree = sum of incoming connections  Outdegree = sum of outgoing connections  In a certain network graph C Knot Indegree Outdegree B 1;3 A 3 2 2;1 D 2;2 B 2 1 A C 1 3 3;2 D 2 2 Indegree; Outdegree 15
    • Agenda Introduction Theoretical Framework Research Method Results Discussion 16
    • Sampling RQ1 List of names Twitter name search Manual check 17
    • Sampling RQ2-RQ5 Biography Location NetworkMessages / Tweets 18
    • Research Method: Sampling / Analysis  Developed a Java-Application  Only public data  RQ1: 7 University accounts  RQ2: 542 messages Manuel, 1.881 automated  RQ3: 1.256 users  RQ4 & RQ5: 25.887 users / knots, 46.073 edges  Separated users with indegree > 500Facts  Analysis:  Textmining (textstat): RQ2 / RQ3 / RQ4  Descriptive statistics: RQ2 / RQ3 / RQ4  Social network analysis (network workbench): RQ4 / RQ5  HITS-Algorithm : Authority values,weights the incoming connections by the authority value of the sending node November 2009 19
    • Agenda Introduction Theoretical Framework Research Method Results Discussion 20
    • RQ1: Number of Twitter accounts  7 University Accounts, 1.256 unique following users Frequency Online since [tweets/day] Universities Usernames Tweets Followers Following [days] University of uni_wien [x] 9 246 0.037 523 171 Vienna ubwien 56 173 0.324 172 0 sowi_wien 38 395 0.096 111 15Results University of Graz UniGraz 62 185 0.335 193 21 University of UniInnsbruck 232 255 0.910 665 504 Innsbruck Graz University of Sociallearnig [x] 122 466 0.262 546 10 Technology tugraz_news 1,182 197 6 176 0 University of dieTEWI 57 236 0.242 60 1 Klagenfurt Innsbruck Medical imed_tweets 123 238 0.517 122 2 University November 2009 21
    • RQ2: Type of messages  (1) University news in general; (2) Announcements of university happening; (3) Organizational announcements concerning e.g. the class and room schedule; (4) News about the research activities of the universities; (5) Offerings for second-hand goods; (6) Miscellaneous messages which are not in context with the university and its members  Few messages about organizational changes Twitter username (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)Results ubwien 37 % 13 % 43 % 0% 0% 7% sowi_wien 10 % 24 % 61 % 0% 0% 5% UniGraz 39 % 35 % 2% 23 % 0% 1% UniInnsbruck 36 % 29 % 0% 33 % 0% 2% tugraz_news 14 % 34 % 0% 14 % 36 % 2% dieTEWI 50 % 21 % 7% 16 % 0% 6% Imed_tweets 44 % 9% 0% 45 % 0% 2% November 2009 22
    • RQ3: Followers  Biography of Followers  Mostly students, new portals and company accounts Rank Topic Frequency 1 Austria and locations in Austria 143Results 2 Student 74 3 News, Information, Tips, Trends, Journalist 68 4 University 53 5 Marketing, Management, Business 37 6 Life and Lifestyle 36 November 2009 23
    • RQ3: Followers 24
    • RQ3: Followers 1256TeWi Uni Klagenfurt 60 SoWi Wien 111Med. Uni Innsbruck 122 UB Wien 170 TU Graz 175 Uni Graz 190 Uni Innsbruck 663 0 200 400 600 800 Followers 25
    • RQ3: Followers 7% UK 11Austria (50%Styria) Graz 68Germany 25% Innsbruck 79Others Germany 101 68% Vienna 130 Austria 281 26
    • RQ3: Followers 27
    • RQ3: Followers 28
    • RQ3: Followers 29
    • RQ3: Followers (Subgraph 5 out of 7) 30
    • 31
    • 32
    • RQ3: Followers Correlation Kendall 0,73 Spearman 0,89 33
    • RQ4 and RQ5: Authority  (Austrian) Journalsists, news pages, companies  Private accounts of journalists rank higher than the accounts of their companies  Journalists use @-replies and #-tags, company accounts mostly not. Ranking by Indegree Ranking by authority value HITSResults Armin Wolf 222 Armin Wolf Barack Obama 101 Martin Blumenau Martin Blumenau 73 Robert Misik Gov. Schwarzenegger 68 Ingrid Thurnher Unibrennt 68 Barack Obama Ingrid Thurnher 67 Corinna Milborn 34
    • Agenda Introduction Theoretical Framework Research Method Results Discussion 35
    • Conclusion  Austrian universities sparsely take advantage of Twitter`s special potential  Instantly reaching a great number of receivers, short delay concerning topical events  Another channel to mirror their regular news output.  In comparison to the number of students, number of followers on Twitter is minor.  University accounts on only provide the same information as on the official university websitesConclusion  Weakness in order of the success dimension content  Don’t use hash tags or @-characters resulting in a weak technology value  Twitter accounts of newspapers and TV-stations  mostly only mirroring their ordinary news output to Twitter  Ranked behind accounts of Austrian journalists  who are mostly working for those newspapers and TV-stations and writing tweets in a more dialogue based style  Usage of the @ and # characters  Use the full technological capabilities of Twitter  Assumption not fully proven  Future research will target the proposed success factors (Discussion point  Research Design / Method 36
    • Thank You!SupplementFurther information about the project is available onhttp://www.mobileuniapp.net/infoTwitter @MobileUniAppContactMag. Thomas SammerUniversity of St. GallenMüller-Friedberg-Str. 8CH-9000 St. Gallenthomas.sammer@unisg.ch 37
    • References (1/2)Barnes, S. J. and Böhringer, M. 2009. Continuance Usage Intention in Microblogging Services: The Case of Twitter. In Proceedings of the 17th EuropeanConference on Information Systems (ECIS). Verona, Italy.Boyd, D. Golder, S. and Lotan, G. 2010. Tweet Tweet Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 43rd HawaiiInternational Conference on Social Systems (HICSS). Kauai, HI: IEEE Press.compete.com 2010. Site Profile for twitter.com. URL: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/twitter.com/.Davis, F. D. 1985. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. thesis. MassachusettsInstitute of Technology.Delone, W. H. and McLean, E. R. 1992. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. In Information systems research 3 (1). pp. 60-95.DeLone, W. H. and McLean, E. R. 2004. Measuring e-Commerce Success: Applying the DeLone & McLean Information Systems Success Model. InInternational Journal of Electronic Commerce 9 (1). pp. 31 - 47.Delone, W. H. and McLean, E. R. 2003. The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. In Journal of ManagementInformation Systems 19 (4). pp. 9-30.DU, H. and WAGNER, C. 2006. Weblog success: Exploring the role of technology. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64 (9). pp. 789-798.Feinerer, I. 2008. A Text Mining Framework in R and Its Applications. thesis. Wien: Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.Fischer, E. and Reuber, A. R. 2010. Social interaction via new social media: (How) can interactions on Twitter affect effectual thinking and behavior? InJournal of Business Venturing 26 (1). pp. 1-18.Freberg, K. Graham, K. McGaughey, K. and Freberg, L. A. 2011. Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. In PublicRelations Review 37 (1). pp. 90-92.Goodhue, D. L. and Thompson, R. L. 1995. Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. In MIS Quarterly 19 (2). p. 213.Goodhue, D. L. 1998. Development and Measurement Validity of a Task-Technology Fit Instrument for User Evaluations of Information System. In DecisionSciences 29 (1). pp. 105-138.Goodhue, D. 2000. User evaluations of IS as surrogates for objective performance. In Information & Management 38 (2). pp. 87-101.Hanna, R. Rohm, A. and Crittenden, V. L. 2011. We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. In Business Horizons 54 (3). pp. 265-273.Hermida, A. 2010. From TV to Twitter: How Ambient News Became Ambient Journalism. In Media Culture Journal 13 (2).Honeycutt, C. and Herring, S. C. 2009. Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. In Proceedings of the Forty-Second HawaiiInternational Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.Huberman, B. A. Romero, D. M. and Wu, F. 2009. Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope: Research Results. In First Monday 2009 (14).pp. 1-5. 38
    • References (2/2)Hughes, A. L. and Palen, L. 2009. Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events. In International Journal of Emergency Management6 (3/4). p. 248.Java, A. Song, X. Finin, T. and Tseng, B. 2007. Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis. ACM. p. 56–65.Kietzmann, J. H. Hermkens, K. McCarthy, I. P. and Silvestre, B. S. 2011. Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of socialmedia. In Business Horizons 54 (3). pp. 241-251.Kleinberg M., J. 1999. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. In Journal of the ACM 46 (5).Krishnamurthy, B. Gill, P. and Arlitt, M. 2008. A few chirps about twitter. In Proceedings of the first workshop on Online social networks - WOSP ’08. NewYork, New York, USA: ACM Press. p. 19.Kwak, H. Lee, C. Park, H. and Moon, S. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th international conference onWorld wide web - WWW ’10. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. p. 591.Lenhart Fox, S., A. 2009. Twitter and status updating. Washington, D.C. Pew Internet & American Life Project. URL:http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Twitter-and-status-updating.aspx.Lerman, K. and Ghosh, R. 2010. Information contagion: an empirical study of the spread of news on digg and twitter social networks. In In Proceedings of 4thInternational Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM).NWB Team 2006. Network Workbench Tool: Hyperlink-Induced Topic Search (HITS). URL: https://nwb.slis.indiana.edu/community/?n=AnalyzeData.HITS.Passant Hastrup, T., Bojars, U., Breslin, J., A. 2008. Microblogging: A Semantic Web and Distributed Approach. In Worshop on Scripting for the SemanticWeb 2008. Tenerife, Spain.Patalong, F. 2009. Airbus-Unglück auf Twitter. URL: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/augenzeugen-berichten-da-ist-ein-flugzeug-im-hudson-verrueckt-1.476012.Riemer, K. and Richter, A. 2010. Tweet Inside: Microblogging in a Corporate Context. In BLED 2010 Proceedings. Bled, Slovenia.Sutton, J. Palen, L. and Shlovski, I. 2008. Back-Channels on the Front Lines: Emerging Use of Social Media in the 2007 Southern California Wildfires. InProceedings of the 2008 ISCRAM Conference. Washington, D.C.Waters, R. D. Burnett, E. Lamm, A. and Lucas, J. 2009. Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. InPublic Relations Review 35 (2). pp. 102-106.Weil, K. 2010. Twitter Blog: Measuring Tweets. URL: http://blog.twitter.com/2010/02/measuring-tweets.html.Zhao, D. and Rosson, M. B. 2009. How and why people Twitter. In Proceedinfs of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work - GROUP’09. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. p. 243. 39
    • Thomas Sammer Mag. Thomas Sammer Institute of Information Management University of St Gallen Müller Friedberg Strasse 8 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland Phone: +41 (0)71 224 3870 Fax: +41 (0)71 224 2716 Mail: thomas.sammer@unisg.ch Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/thfs About.me: http://about.me/thomassammer Twitter: @thfsI am a Ph.D. student and research associate at the Institute of Information Management 3 (Chair of Prof. Dr. AndreaBack) at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. In 2010 I’ve earned a master’s degree in management andinternational business at the University of Graz, Austria. Since August 2010 I am enrolled in the doctoral program inbusiness innovation at the University of St. Gallen where I focus my research on applying mobile technologies onbusiness processes. I am active in the fields of consulting (e.g. for Bayer Business Services GmbH, Pattern ScienceAG, aso.), teaching and research. I am also project leader of the AAA/SWITCH project Mobile Uni-App. For a oneslide summary of my CV visit slideshare.net/thfs. 40
    • Top 14 by indegree 41
    • Top 20 by HITS authority value 42