Delphi Panel Discussion of F-TAM: Industry Experts and Academic Perspectives

  • Joshua Kofi Doe
  • Rogier Van de Wetering
  • Ben Honyenuga
  • Johan Versendaal
  • Richard Boateng
Conference paper
Part of the EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series (EAISICC)


Contextual issues that surround the adoption of mobile digital innovations have become a topical issue for both academics and industry experts. In an attempt to bridge this knowledge gap, Doe et al. (Toward a firm technology adoption model (F-TAM) in a developing country context MCIS 2017 proceedings, 2017, p. 23. developed the firm technology adoption model (F-TAM) through a systematic literature review. The authors suggested an exploratory study among industry experts to further validate the model.

This paper employs the Delphi technique among academics and industry experts to further refine the F-TAM model. The study sought to examine the degree to which the F-TAM reflects the adoption pattern among SMEs in Ghana, whether there are other factors of variables that are not accounted for in the F-TAM, and whether a change in the model makes the model more valid?

The findings of this paper suggested a very high degree of facial validity of the variables from the initial F-TAM model. Twelve new variables, one new construct, and seven changes are suggested to the initial F-TAM model.

Recommendations are made in for future studies on the bases of the findings.


Mobile digital innovations adoption Diffusion Developing countries contexts SMEs 


  1. 1.
    F.Y. Attopley, Emerging trends in the financial industry of Ghana. Int. J. Manage. Sci. Res. 1(2), 4–9 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bank of Ghana., guidelines to regulate mobile financial services (2016). Retrieved from Accessed 25 Mar 2017
  3. 3.
    N.A. Tagoe, Who regulates the mobile money operations by Telco’s? The need for an effective and robust legislative and regulatory framework in Ghana. J. Bus. Fin. Aff. 5(208), 2167–0234 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Communications Authority, in Industry Information – Telecom Subscribers for March 2016 (2016). Retrieved from
  5. 5.
    P. Datta, A preliminary study of ecommerce adoption in developing countries. Inf. Syst. J. 21, 3–32 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.K. Doe, R. Van de Wetering, B. Honyenuga, J. Versendaal, Toward a firm technology adoption model (F-TAM) in a developing country context, in MCIS 2017 Proceedings, (2017), p. 23
  7. 7.
    G. Bannock, R.E. Baxter, E. Davis, The Penguin Dictionary of Economics, 5th edn. (Penguin Books, London, 1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Boateng, R. Hinson, R. Heeks, A. Molla, E-commerce in least developing countries: summary evidence and implications. J. Afr. Bus. 9(2), 257–285 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Hinson, O. Sorensen, E-business and small Ghanaian exporters: preliminary micro firm explorations in the light of a digital divide. Online Inf. Rev. 30(2), 116–138 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Falch, Tele-centres in Ghana. Telematics Inform. 21(1), 103–114 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    UNCTAD, Use of the Internet for Efficient International Trade: Guide for SME Managers (United Nations Publication, New York, 2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P.G. Zachary, in Ghana’s digital dilemma, 2002. Available from Page/features/artikel.php?ID=25024
  13. 13.
    S. Mensa, in A review of SME financing schemes in Ghana. Paper presented at UNIDO Regional conference on SME financing small and medium scale enterprises, Accra, Ghana. 15–16th March, 2004 (SEM International Associates Limited, Ghana, 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Bannock, The economics and Management of Small Business: An International Perspective (Routledge, New York, 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.M. Kennedy, S. Hobohm, in Supporting Private Industry: Capacity Building for Private Sector Development in Africa. Working Paper 3. United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna, 1999Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.E. Payne, in E-Commerce Readiness for SMEs in Developing Countries: A Guide for Development Professionals, Academy for Educational Development/LearnLink, 2002Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S.S. Karanasios, in An E-commerce framework for small tourism enterprises in developing countries, Faculty of Business and Law Victoria University, Australia (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H.A. Linstone, M. Turoff, in The Delphi method: techniques and applications (2002). Retrieved from
  19. 19.
    J.R. Avella, Delphi panels: research design, procedures, advantages, and challenges. Int. J. Doct. Stud. 11, 305–321 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Saunders, P. Lewis, A. Thornhill, Research methods, in Business Students, 4th edn., (Pearson Education, England, 2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    K.M. Eisenhardt, Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 532–550 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R.K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn. (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    H. Maimbo, G. Pervan, in Designing a case study protocol for application in IS research. PACIS 2005 Proceedings (2005), p. 106Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R.K. Yin, Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation 19(3), 321–332 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Berelson, Content Analysis in Communication Research (Free Press, New York, 1952)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. Ezzy, Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation (Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, 2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Webster, R.T. Watson, Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26, xiii–xxiii (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    W. Vernon, The Delphi technique: a review. Int. J. Ther. Rehabil. 16(2), 69–76 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    J.A. Maxwell, Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 2nd edn. (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J.W. Schofield, Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research, in The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion, ed. by M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2002), pp. 171–203Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. Finfgeld-Connett, Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis research findings. J. Adv. Nurs. 66, 246–254 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    V. Venkatesh, H. Bala, Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Gurtner, R. Reinhardt, K. Soyez, Designing mobile business applications for different age groups. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 88, 177–188 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    C.C. Chang, C.F. Yan, J.S. Tseng, Perceived convenience in an extended technology acceptance model: mobile technology and English learning for college students. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 28(5), 809–826 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    L. Schiffman, L. Kanuk, Consumer Behaviour, 10th edn. (Prentice Hall, 2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Yun, R. Takeuchi, W. Liu, Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance behaviors: investigating the moderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment. J. Appl. Psychol. 92(3), 745 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Vize, J. Coughlan, A. Kennedy, F. Ellis-Chadwick, Technology readiness in a B2B online retail context: an examination of antecedents and outcomes. Ind. Mark. Manag. 42(6), 909–918 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    E.E. Grandon, J.M. Pearson, Electronic commerce adoption: an empirical study of small and medium US businesses. Inf. Manag. 42(1), 197–216 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    S.B. Choi, B.I. Park, P. Hong, Does ownership structure matter for firm technological innovation performance? The case of Korean firms. Corporate Governance Int. Rev. 20(3), 267–288 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    M. Škerlavaj, J.H. Song, Y. Lee, Organizational learning culture, innovative culture and innovations in South Korean firms. Expert Syst. Appl. 37(9), 6390–6403 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    P. DiMaggio, W.W. Powell, The iron cage revisited: collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48(2), 147–160 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    A. Soares-Aguiar, A. Palma-dos-Reis, Why do firms adopt e-procurement systems? Using logistic regression to empirically test a conceptual model. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 55(1), 120–133 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    J. Hauser, G.J. Tellis, A. Griffin, Research on innovation: a review and agenda for marketing science. Mark. Sci. 25(6), 687–717 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    L.G. Tornatzky, M. Fleischer, A.K. Chakrabarti, Processes of Technological Innovation (Lexington Books, Lexington, 1990)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    J.A. Mathews, Green growth strategies—Korean initiatives. Futures 44(8), 761–769 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    C.L. Iacovou, I. Benbasat, A.S. Dexter, Electronic data interchange and small organizations: adoption and impact of technology. MIS Q. 19, 465–485 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua Kofi Doe
    • 1
  • Rogier Van de Wetering
    • 2
  • Ben Honyenuga
    • 3
  • Johan Versendaal
    • 2
  • Richard Boateng
    • 4
  1. 1.Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Management, Science & TechnologyOpen University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Ho Technical UniversityHoGhana
  4. 4.Department of MISUniversity of Ghana Business SchoolAccraGhana

Personalised recommendations