1 / 35

Development, Extension, and Application: A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model

Development, Extension, and Application: A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Jason Sharp Computer Information Systems Tarleton State University Stephenville, Texas, USA jsharp@tarleton.edu. Introduction. Question: Why do people accept or reject technology?

mcelwaind
Download Presentation

Development, Extension, and Application: A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Development, Extension, and Application: A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model Jason Sharp Computer Information Systems Tarleton State University Stephenville, Texas, USA jsharp@tarleton.edu ISECON 2006

  2. Introduction • Question: Why do people accept or reject technology? • Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) • Geared specifically toward information technology • Strong reliability and validity of instruments • Extensive research: 147 articles between 1990 and 2003 • Good example of how a model is extended and applied • Purpose: • To examine the development, extension, and application of TAM in order to identify potential areas of research for future study • To provide IS educators with a foundation for guiding students in regard to the TAM literature • To provide a starting point for evaluating educational technologies • To serve as a general reference for those interested in technology acceptance ISECON 2006

  3. Methodology • Keyword search of ABI Inform, Academic Search Premier, and IEEE Express • Criteria: • Extension of Legris, Ingham, and Collerette (2003) • Prior analysis of articles from 1980 to 2001 • Current analysis of articles from 2001 to 2005 • Compared articles utilizing a quantitative research method • PLS, LISREL, path or regression analysis • Broader range of journals than Legris et al. (2003) • Prior analysis included only six IT related journals • Articles grouped on logical categories chosen by the author (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) ISECON 2006

  4. A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model Development ISECON 2006

  5. Development: TAM (Original) Perceived Usefulness Attitude Intention to Use Usage Behavior Perceived Ease of Use Perceived ease of use – “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort” (Davis, 1989, p. 320) Perceived usefulness – “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” (p. 320) Davis (1989) ISECON 2006

  6. Development: TAM (Original) • Study 1 • Technology: PROFS electronic mail and XEDIT editor • Sample Size: 120 users employed by IBM • Study 2 • Technology: Chart-Master and Pendraw • Sample Size: 40 MBA students • Overall Findings: • Perceived Usefulness significant determinant of Usage • Perceived Ease of Use significant determinant of Usage • Effect of Perceived Usefulness significantly greater than Perceived Ease of Use • Attitude does not fully mediate effect of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use on Behavior • Perceived Ease of Use as an antecedent of Perceived Usefulness ISECON 2006

  7. Development: TAM (Parsimonious) • Study (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw, 1989) • Technology: WriteOne, word processor • Sample Size: 107 MBA students • Overall Findings • Perceived Usefulness strong significant determinant of Usage • Perceived Ease of Use significant determinant of Usage, but significantly weaker than Perceived Usefulness • Attitude only partially mediated effects of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use on Usage ISECON 2006

  8. Development: TAM (Parsimonious) Perceived Usefulness Intention to Use Usage Behavior Perceived Ease of Use Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1989) ISECON 2006

  9. Development: TAM2 Experience Voluntariness Subjective Norm Image Perceived Usefulness Job Relevance Intention to Use Usage Behavior Perceived Ease of Use Output Quality Venkatesh and Davis (2000) Result Demonstrability ISECON 2006

  10. Development: TAM2 • Subjective Norm – influence of others on user’s decision to use or not use • Image – maintaining a favorable standing • Job Relevance – degree to which the target system is applicable • Output Quality – how well the system performs tasks • Result Demonstrability – tangible results • Experience – with the system • Voluntariness – perception of voluntary/mandatory use ISECON 2006

  11. Development: TAM2 • Study 1 (voluntary): • Technology: Proprietary system • Sample Size: 38 floor supervisors • Study 2 (voluntary): • Technology: Migration to Windows-based environment • Sample Size: 39 personal financial services employees • Study 3 (mandatory): • Technology: Windows-based account management system • Sample Size: 43 accounting firm services employees • Study 4 (mandatory): • Technology: Stock portfolio analysis system • Sample Size: 36 investment banking employees ISECON 2006

  12. Development: TAM2 Experience Voluntariness Subjective Norm Image Perceived Usefulness Job Relevance Intention to Use Usage Behavior Perceived Ease of Use Output Quality Venkatesh and Davis (2000) Result Demonstrability ISECON 2006

  13. Development: Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use Perceived Usefulness Computer Self-Efficacy Intention to Use Usage Behavior Objective Usability Perceived Ease of Use Computer Self-efficacy – how does the user feel about their ability to use technology Objective Usability – objective system measures, e.g., keystroke model, expert to novice performance comparison Direct Experience Venkatesh and Davis (1996) ISECON 2006

  14. Development: Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use • Study 1: • Technology: Chartmaster and Pendraw • Sample Size: 40 MBA students • Study 2: • Technology: WordPerfect and Lotus • Sample Size: 36 undergraduate students • Study 3: • Pine (electronic mail) and Gopher (information access) • Sample Size: 32 part-time MBA students • Overall Findings • Before hands-on experience, Computer Self-efficacy was a significant determinant of Perceive Ease of Use, Objective Usability was not • After direct experience, both Computer self-efficacy and Objective Usability were significant determinants of Perceived Ease of Use ISECON 2006

  15. Development: Antecedents Revised Perception of External Control - availability of support staff Computer Anxiety – apprehension or fear Computer Playfulness – desire to explore and play Perceived Enjoyment – enjoyable apart from performance consequences Computer Self-Efficacy Perception of External Control Perceived Usefulness Computer Anxiety Intention to Use Usage Behavior Computer Playfulness Perceived Ease of Use Perceived Enjoyment Venkatesh (2000) Objective Usability ISECON 2006

  16. Development: Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use Three studies measured three times over three months • Study 1: • Technology: Interactive online help desk system • Sample Size: 58 retail electronic store employees • Study 2: • Technology: Multimedia system for property management • Sample Size: 145 real estate agency employees • Study 3: • Technology: Migration to PC-based environment • Sample Size: 43 financial services employees • Pooled Results • T1: Perceived Enjoyment and Objective Usability not significant • T2: All antecedents significant • T3: Computer Playfulness not significant ISECON 2006

  17. A review of the Technology Acceptance Model Extension ISECON 2006

  18. Extension: Determinants of Intention to Use ISECON 2006

  19. Extension: Determinants of Attitude ISECON 2006

  20. Extension: External Variables of Usefulness ISECON 2006

  21. Extension: External Variables of Ease of Use ISECON 2006

  22. A review of the Technology Acceptance Model Application ISECON 2006

  23. Application: Original TAM (Supporting) Perceived Usefulness a stronger determinant than Perceived Ease of Use ISECON 2006

  24. Application: Original TAM (Opposing) Perceived Ease of Use a stronger determinant than Perceived Usefulness ISECON 2006

  25. Application: Influence of Attitude on Intention ISECON 2006

  26. Application: Parsimonious TAM (Supporting) Perceived Usefulness a stronger determinant than Perceived Ease of Use ISECON 2006

  27. Application: Parsimonious TAM (Opposing) Perceived Ease of Use a stronger determinant than Perceived Usefulness ISECON 2006

  28. Application: TAM2 (Mixed results) • Subjective Norm and Image significant determinant of Perceived Usefulness • Results Demonstrability not a significant determinant of Perceived Usefulness • Perceived Ease of Use significant determinant of Perceived Usefulness, but not of Intention to Use • Perceived Usefulness significant determinant of Intention to Use ISECON 2006

  29. Application: Environment ISECON 2006

  30. Research Potential • Mixed results of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use as the stronger determinant • Ten studies supported Perceived Usefulness • Six studies supported Perceived Ease of Use • How does the type of technology of affect the results? • Volitional versus mandatory use environments • Fifteen studies conducted in volitional environments • Two studies conducted in mandatory environments • How does the environment affect the results? • The role of Attitude • Seven studies indicated Attitude as a direct determinant • Two studies indicated Attitude is not a direct determinant • Does attitude play a greater role than previously thought? ISECON 2006

  31. Importance to Information Systems Educators • Provides a foundation for assisting faculty to guide students about the history of TAM • Provides a quick summary of statistical significance of various determinants and external variables • Provides a starting point for evaluating educational technologies • Provides a ready reference of current technologies evaluated with TAM ISECON 2006

  32. Conclusion • Examined the development, extension, and application of TAM • Identified three specific areas for future research • Constructed a ready reference for IS educators • Developed a general overview of TAM for those interested in technology acceptance ISECON 2006

  33. Development, Extension, and Application: A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model Jason Sharp Computer Information Systems Tarleton State University Stephenville, Texas, USA jsharp@tarleton.edu ISECON 2006

  34. References Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Salam, A. F. (2004). An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Information & Management, 41(6), 731-745. Chan, S., & Lu, M. (2004). Understanding internet banking adoption and use behavior: A Hong Kong perspective. Journal of Global Information Management, 12(3), 21-43. Chau, P. Y. K. (2001). Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on IT usage behavior. Journal of End User Computing, 13(1), 26-33. Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. (2002). Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: An empirical test of competing theories. Information & Management, 39(4), 297-311. Brown, S. A., Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Burkman, J. R. (2002). Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(4), 283-295. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems successes: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95. Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The Delone and McLean model of information systems Success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Gong, M., Xu, Y., Yu, Y. (2004). An enhanced technology acceptance model for web-based Learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 365-374. Hong, W., Thong, J. Y. L., Wong, W., & Tam, K. (2001-2002). Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: An empirical examination of individual differences and system characteristics. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 97-124. ISECON 2006

  35. References Horton, R. P., Buck, T., Waterson, P. E., & Clegg, C. W. (2001). Explaining intranet use with the technology acceptance model. Journal of Information Technology, 16(4), 237-249. Hu, P. J., Lin, C., & Chen, H. (2005). User acceptance of intelligence and security informatics technology: A study of COPLINK. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(3), 235-244. Huang, E. (2005). The acceptance of women-centric websites. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(4), 75-83. Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2003). An investigation of user attitudes toward search engines as an information retrieval tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 751-765. Lin, F., & Wu, J. (2004). An empirical study of end-user computing acceptance factors in small and medium enterprises in Taiwan: Analyzed by structural equation modeling. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44(3), 98-108. Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chinn, W. C. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of perceived user resources. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 32(3), 86-112. Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management, 38(4) 217-230. Shih, H. (2004). Extended technology acceptance model of internet utilization behavior. Information & Management, 41(6), 719-729. Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695-704. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-481. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85-102. Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2004). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 431-449. ISECON 2006

More Related