Abstract
We argue that the use-plan analysis of artefact use and design can be combined with the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), a well-tested model for predicting the adoption of information systems in organizational contexts. After presenting the outlines of the use-plan analysis and UTAUT, we show how the basic concepts of the accounts can be mapped onto each other. This indicates that it is possible to develop an empirically informed, evaluative model of ‘Rational Acceptance of Technology’. We then demonstrate the mutual benefits of the combination. Specifically, we show how the use-plan analysis can improve and extend UTAUT with conditions for the rational adoption of technology, recommendations for ‘adoption-sensitive’ design, and conditions for the transfer of control over and responsibility for the technology from designer to user.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Throughout this paper, ‘artefact’ refers to any technological or socio-technical system.
- 2.
A more detailed presentation can be found in Chapter 2 of Houkes and Vermaas (2010).
- 3.
Cf. Herbert Simon’s (1981) characterization of design: “Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones” (p. 129).
- 4.
Its large and continued scientific impact is indicated by the citations of Ajzen (1991) in Scopus: 5,177 in September 2010, 6,647 in November 2011 and 10,050 in October 2013.
- 5.
More precisely, the model was constructed by combining the best predictors of eight existing models for eight cases (e.g., online meeting manager; portfolio analyzer), and the result was tested for two independent cases, which confirmed that UTAUT outperforms its predecessors.
- 6.
More precisely, this construct is non-significant in models (like UTAUT) that also contain an effort-expectancy construct: beliefs concerning organizational support are apparently and not surprisingly indistinguishable from beliefs about ease of use.
- 7.
Venkatesh et al. (2003) is cited 3,605 times in Scopus (consulted October 2013).
- 8.
In other words: that the artefact has a function relative to the use plan.
- 9.
Manuals provide at most procedural knowledge, i.e., knowledge of a use plan.
- 10.
Most analyses of control in engineering focus on either the ‘micro’-level of controlling the output of technological systems or the ‘macro’-level of steering (developments within) technological regimes.
- 11.
This definition of control resembles that of self-efficacy, given in Sect. 23.3. Fischer and Ravizza (1998) contrast this ‘guidance control’ with ‘regulative control’, the ability to freely perform one action rather than another, which resembles controllability. This again stresses the close link between (perceived) behavioral control and (perceived) responsibility.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665–683.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Audi, R. (1989). Practical reasoning. London: Routledge.
Baronas, A. M. K., & Louis, M. R. (1988). Restoring a sense of control during implementation. MIS Quarterly, 12, 111–124.
Bratman, M. (1987). Intention, plans and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cooper, R. P., & Shallice, T. (2006). Hierarchical schemas and goals in the control of sequential behavior. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 202–221.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and end user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 318–339.
Fischer, J., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hooker, C., & Streumer, B. (2004). Procedural and substantive practical rationality. In A. R. Mele & P. Rawling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of rationality (pp. 57–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Houkes, W. (2006). Knowledge of artefact functions. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 102–113.
Houkes, W. (2008). Designing is the construction of use plans. In P. E. Vermaas, P. A. Kroes, A. Light, & S. A. Moore (Eds.), Philosophy and design (pp. 37–49). Dordrecht: Springer.
Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2006). Use plans and artefact functions. In A. Costall & O. Dreier (Eds.), Doing things with things (pp. 29–48). London: Ashgate.
Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2010). Technical functions. Dordrecht: Springer.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Pols, A. J. K. (2010). Transferring responsibility through use plans. In I. Van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda (pp. 189–203). Dordrecht: Springer.
Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F. D., & Morris, M. G. (2007). Dead or alive? The development, trajectory and future of technology adoption research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 267–286.
Acknowledgments
Research by Wybo Houkes was made possible by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Houkes, W., Pols, A.J.K. (2013). Plans for Modeling Rational Acceptance of Technology. In: Michelfelder, D., McCarthy, N., Goldberg, D. (eds) Philosophy and Engineering: Reflections on Practice, Principles and Process. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7762-0_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7762-0_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7761-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7762-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)