isecon.2006.sharp (1)
TRANSCRIPT
ISECON 2006
Development, Extension, and Application: A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model
Jason SharpComputer Information SystemsTarleton State UniversityStephenville, Texas, [email protected]
ISECON 2006
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
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
A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model
Development
ISECON 2006
Development: TAM (Original)
PerceivedUsefulness
PerceivedEase of Use
Attitude Intention toUse
UsageBehavior
Davis (1989)
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)
ISECON 2006
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
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
Development: TAM (Parsimonious)
PerceivedUsefulness
PerceivedEase of Use
Intention toUse
UsageBehavior
Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1989)
ISECON 2006
Development: TAM2
PerceivedUsefulness
PerceivedEase of Use
Intention toUse
UsageBehavior
ResultDemonstrability
OutputQuality
JobRelevance
Image
SubjectiveNorm
Experience Voluntariness
Venkatesh and Davis (2000)
ISECON 2006
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
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
Development: TAM2
PerceivedUsefulness
PerceivedEase of Use
Intention toUse
UsageBehavior
ResultDemonstrability
OutputQuality
JobRelevance
Image
SubjectiveNorm
Experience Voluntariness
Venkatesh and Davis (2000)
ISECON 2006
Development: Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use
PerceivedUsefulness
PerceivedEase of Use
Intention toUse
UsageBehavior
ComputerSelf-Efficacy
ObjectiveUsability
DirectExperience
Venkatesh and Davis (1996)
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
ISECON 2006
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
Development: Antecedents Revised
PerceivedUsefulness
PerceivedEase of Use
Intention toUse
UsageBehavior
ObjectiveUsability
PerceivedEnjoyment
ComputerPlayfulness
ComputerAnxiety
Perception ofExternal Control
ComputerSelf-Efficacy
Venkatesh (2000)
Perception of External Control - availability of support staffComputer Anxiety – apprehension or fearComputer Playfulness – desire to explore and playPerceived Enjoyment – enjoyable apart from performance consequences
ISECON 2006
Development: Antecedents of Perceived Ease of UseThree 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
A review of the Technology Acceptance Model
Extension
ISECON 2006
Extension: Determinants of Intention to Use Author Determinant Finding
Hu et al. (2005) Availability Not significant
Huang (2005); Moon & Kim (2001)
Perceived Playfulness Not significant
Significant
Gong et al. (2004) Computer Self-efficacy Significant
Mathieson et al. (2004)
Perceived Resources Significant
Chau & Hu (2002) Perceived Behavioral Control
Significant
Yi & Hwang (2003) Application Specific Self-efficacy
Significant
Van der Heijden (2004)
Perceived Enjoyment Significant
ISECON 2006
Extension: Determinants of Attitude
Author Determinant Finding
Huang (2005);
Moon & Kim (2001)
Perceived Playfulness Significant
Shih (2004) Relevance Significant
ISECON 2006
Extension: External Variables of Usefulness
Author External Variable Finding
Hu et al. (2005) Efficiency Gain Significant
Chan & Lu (2004) Perceived Risk Significant
Amoako-Gyampah et al. (2004)
Shared Beliefs Significant
Chau (2001) Computer Attitude Significant
Hong et al. (2001-2002); Shih (2004)
Relevance Significant
Liaw & Huang (2003); Yi & Hwang (2003)
Perceived Enjoyment Significant
ISECON 2006
Extension: External Variables of Ease of Use
Author External Variable Finding
Amoako-Gyampah et al. (2004)
Shared Beliefs, Training Significant
Chau (2001) Computer Attitude Not significant
Mathieson et al. (2001) Perceived Resources Not significant
Hong et al. (2001-2002)
Knowledge of Search Domain
Significant
Hong et al. (2001-2002); Shih (2004)
Relevance Significant
Liaw & Huang (2003) Individual Computer Experience
Significant
ISECON 2006
A review of the Technology Acceptance Model
Application
ISECON 2006
Application: Original TAM (Supporting)
Author Technology Sample Size
Hu et al. (2005) COPLINK 283 police officers
Huang (2005) Women-centric Web site
390 subjects
Amoako-Gyampah & Salam (2004)
ERP system 409 end-users
Mathieson et al. (2001)
Bulletin board system
401 members of IMA
Chau & Hu (2002) Telemedicine 408 physicians
Perceived Usefulness a stronger determinant than Perceived Ease of Use
ISECON 2006
Application: Original TAM (Opposing)
Author Technology Sample Size
Gong et al. (2004) Web-based learning system
152 teachers
Moon & Kim (2001) World Wide Web 152 graduate students
Shih (2004) Internet utilization behavior
203 office workers
Brown et al. (2002) Computer banking system
107 bank employees
Perceived Ease of Use a stronger determinant than Perceived Usefulness
ISECON 2006
Application: Influence of Attitude on Intention
Author Finding
Hu et al. (2005) Not significant
Huang (2005) Significant
Amoako-Gyampah & Salam (2004) Significant
Mathieson et al. (2001) Significant
Chau & Hu (2002) Significant
Gong et al. (2004) Significant
Moon & Kim (2001) Significant
Shih (2004) Significant
Brown et al. (2002) Not significant
ISECON 2006
Application: Parsimonious TAM (Supporting)
Author Technology Sample
Hong et al. (2001-2002)
Digital library 585 students
Chau (2001) General IT usage 360 undergraduate business students
Liaw & Huang (2003) Search engines 114 medical students
Lin & Wu (2004) End-user computing 195 workers
Yi & Hwang (2004) Web-based information system
109 introductory IS students
Perceived Usefulness a stronger determinant than Perceived Ease of Use
ISECON 2006
Application: Parsimonious TAM (Opposing)
Author Technology Sample
Van der Heijden (2004)
Hedonic information system
1114 users of a Dutch movie Web site
Perceived Ease of Use a stronger determinant than Perceived Usefulness
ISECON 2006
Application: TAM2 (Mixed results)
Author Technology Sample
Chan & Lu (2004) Internet banking 499 undergraduate and graduate students
• 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
Application: Environment
Volitional Mandatory
Hu et al. (2005) Davis & Venkatesh (2000)
Huang (2005) Brown et al. (2002)
Amoako-Gyampah & Salam (2004)
Mathieson et al. (2001)
Chau & Hu (2002)
Gong et al. (2004)
Moon & Kim (2001)
Shih (2004)
Hong et al. (2001-2002)
Chau (2001)
Liaw & Huang (2003)
Lin & Wu (2004)
Yi & Hwang (2004)
Van der Heijden (2004)
Chan & Lu (2004)
ISECON 2006
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
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
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
Development, Extension, and Application: A Review of the Technology Acceptance Model
Jason SharpComputer Information SystemsTarleton State UniversityStephenville, Texas, [email protected]
ISECON 2006
ReferencesAmoako-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
ReferencesHorton, 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.