Advertisement

Acceptability Beyond Usability: A Manufacturing Case Study

  • S. Gilotta
  • S. Spada
  • L. Ghibaudo
  • M. Isoardi
  • C. O. Mosso
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

This study is a part of an innovation project carried on in ErgoLab, the ergonomics laboratory of FCA in Turin, with the aim of evaluating the use of a passive exoskeleton for upper limbs in automotive manufacturing tasks. The introduction of new technologies into a production environment is not always effective, because workers often don’t use them. It is therefore important that future users accept this innovation.

With the aim of evaluating Usability and Acceptability, the testing protocol included various data collection techniques: observation during simulated work tasks, interviews, a TAM2 questionnaire in order to analyse acceptability and, finally a focus group. Overall results showed that workers judge the exoskeleton positively because of evidence that activities can be performed with reduced physical effort. The device is perceived as useful especially in tasks requiring precision. The evaluation showed a good human-device interaction, but the workers involved in the tests consider the work-device interaction a critical point. On closer inspection, workers reported perceived ease of use, voluntariness and results demonstrability but little intention of using it and perceived usefulness. The results of the focus group are consistent with individual results: workers state that the exoskeleton is useful for performing certain activities, but its use should be voluntary.

Keywords

Usability Acceptability Technology acceptance model 2 Exoskeleton 

References

  1. 1.
    Acocella I (2008) Il focus group: teoria e tecnica. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Gahtani SS, e King M (1999) Attitudes, satisfaction and usage: factors contributing to each in the acceptance of information technology. Behav Inf Technol 18(4):277–297Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis 50(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Autry CW, Grawe SJ, Daugherty PJ, e Richey RG (2010) The effects of technological turbulence and breadth on supply chain technology acceptance and adoption. J Oper Manage 28:522–536Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benyon D (2012) Progettare l’interazione. Metodi e tecniche per il design di media interattivi. Pearson Italia, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bevan NC (2015) ISO 9241-11 revised: what we have learnt about usability since 1998? In: Human computer interaction, pp 143–151Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bevan NM (1994) Usability measurement in context. Behav Inf Technol 13(1–2):132–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boscarol M (2003) Ecologia dei siti web. Come e perché usabilità, accessibilità e fogli di stile stanno cambiando il modo di realizzare i siti internet. Tecniche Nuove, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown R (2005) Psicologia sociale delle organizzazioni. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caputo F, Greco A, Laudante E, Spada S, e Tonon T (2016) Strumenti e tecniche per la verifica in virtuale di fattibilità di prodotto. AIAS, 759:1–10Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cardano M (2011) La ricerca qualitativa. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cataldi S (2012) Come si analizzano i focus group. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Corbetta P (1999) Metodologie e tecniche per la ricerca sociale. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davis F (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived easy of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis F, Bagozzi R, Warshaw P (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35(8):982–1003Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis F, Bagozzi R, Warshaw P (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computer in workplace. J Apply Soc Psychol 22:1111–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davis F, Venkatesh V (1996) A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. Int J Hum Comput Stud 45:19–45Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Di Nocera F (2011) Ergonomia cognitiva. Carocci, RomaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fubini E (2009) Ergonomia antropologica. La variabilità umana nelle interazioni uomo-sistemi tecnologici. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Han SH, Yun MH, Kwahk J, Hong SW (2001) Usability of consumer electronic products. Int J Ind Ergon 28:143–151Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holzinger A, Searle G, Wernbacher M (2011) The effect of previous exposure to technology on acceptance and its importance in usability and accessibility engineering. Univ Access Inf Soc 10:245–260Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hu PJ, Chau P, Liu Sheng O, Tam Y: Examining the technologyGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Im I, Kim Y, Han H-Y (2008) The effects of perceived risk and technology type on users’ acceptance of technologies. Inf Manage 45:1–9Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    King WR, He J (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manage 43:740–755Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maguire M (2001) Methods to support human-centered design. Int J Hum Comput Stud 55:587–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mick DG, Fournier S (1998) Paradoxes of technology: consumer cognizance, emotions and coping strategies. J Consum Res 25(2):123–143Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nielsen J (1992) The usability engineering life cycle. IEEE Comput 25(3):12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nielsen J (2000) The use and misuse of focus groups. http://www.useit.com/papers
  31. 31.
    Nielsen J, Mack RL (eds) (1994) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Norman D (1987) Cognitive engineering - cognitive science. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Norman D La (1990) Caffettiera del masochista. Giunti, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Norman D (2000) Il computer invisibile. La tecnologia migliore è quella che non si vede. Apogeo, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Perini M (2015) L’organizzazione nascosta. dinamiche inconsce e zone d’ombra nelle moderne organizzazioni. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Polillo R (2010) Facile da usare. Una moderna introduzione alla ingegneria dell’usabilità. Apogeo, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Re A (1995) Ergonomia per psicologi. Cortina, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Renaud K, van Biljon J (2008) Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly: a qualitative study. In: Proceedings of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT research in developing countries: riding the wave of technology. ACM, WildernessGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Venkatesh V (1999) Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Q 23(2):239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Venkatesh V (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Res 11(4):342–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 46(2):186–204Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Venkatesh V, Morris MG (2000) Age differences in technology adoption decisions: implications for a changing work force. Pers Psychol 53:375–403Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis F (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Venkatesh V, Zhang X (2014) Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: U.S. vs. China. J Global Inf Technol Manage 13(1):5–27Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zammuner V (2003) I focus group. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fiat Chrysler Automobiles – Manufacturing Planning and Control – ErgonomicsTurinItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di PsicologiaUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations