Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

User Acceptance of E-Collaboration Technology: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model

Abstract

This study investigates the applicability of Davis' Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in the user acceptance of electronic collaboration technology. A courseware management tool is used to test the various findings of TAM. Perceived usefulness of the technology emerges as a positive impact on perceived usefulness, and usefulness, in turn, has a negative relationship with system usage. Additionally, certain aspects of system usage influenced student performance in the course. Prior use of the system also affected system use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adams, D. A. (1992). “Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication,” MIS Quarterly 16, 227-247.

  2. Benbasat, I. (1989). “Laboratory Experiments in Information Systems Students with a Focus on Individuals: A Critical Appraisal,” Harvard Business School Research Colloquium.

  3. Briggs, R. O., M. Adkins et al. (1998). “A Technology Transition Model Derived from Field Investigation of GSS use Aboard the U.S.S. CORODADO,” Journal of Management Information Systems 15(3), 151-195.

  4. Davis, F. D. (1989). “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319-339.

  5. Davison, R. M., and R. O. Briggs. (2000). “GSS for Presentation Support,” Communications of the ACM 43(9), 91-97.

  6. Geffen, D., and D. W. Straub. (2000). “The Relative Improtance of Perceived Ease of Use in IS Adoption: A Study of E-commerce Adoption,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 1(8).

  7. Karahanna, E., and D. W. Straub. (1999). “The Psychological Origins of Perceived Usefulness and Ease-of-Use,” Information and Management 35, 237-250.

  8. Kinney, S. T., and R. R. Panko. (1996). “Project Teams: Profiles and Member Perceptions Implications for Group Support System Research and Products,” Proceedings of the 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2-5.

  9. Lucas, H. C., and V. K. Spitler. (1999). “Technology Use and Performance: A Field Study of Broker Workstations,” Decision Sciences 30(2), 291-311.

  10. Narayanan, S., and A. R. Rana. (1997). Object Oriented Role Modeling and Group Support Systems. Association for Information Systems.

  11. Nunamaker, J. F., and A. R. Dennis et al. (1991). “Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work,” Communications of the ACM 34(7), 40-61.

  12. Pinsonneault, A., and K. L. Kraemer. (1989). “The Impact of Technological Support on Groups: An Assessment of the Empirical Research,” Decision Support Systems 5, 197-216.

  13. Pinsonneault, A., and K. L. Kraemer. (1990). “The Effects of Electronic Meetings on Group Processes and Outcomes: An Assessment of the Empirical Research,” European Journal of Operational Research 46, 143-161.

  14. Szajna, B. (1994). “Software Evaluation and Choice: Predictive Evaluation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument,” MIS Quarterly 18, 319-324.

  15. Talbott, S. L. (1995). “The Future Does Not Compute: Transcending the Machines in Our Midst,” O'Reilly & Associates.

  16. Taylor, S., and P. Todd. (1995). “Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience,” MIS Quarterly (December), 561-570.

  17. Venkatesh, V., and F. Davis. (1996). “A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test,” Decision Sciences 27(3), 451-481.

  18. Webster, J., and J. J. Martocchio. (1992). “Microcomputer Playfulness: Development of a Measure with Workplace Implications,” MIS Quarterly, 201-226.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dasgupta, S., Granger, M. & McGarry, N. User Acceptance of E-Collaboration Technology: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Group Decision and Negotiation 11, 87–100 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015221710638

Download citation

Keywords

  • Positive Impact
  • Negative Relationship
  • Management Tool
  • Student Performance
  • System Usage