If We Build It They Will Come? The Technology Acceptance Model

Chapter
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 28)

Abstract

Global business markets have become more competitive as consumers demand low prices, an increasing variety of goods, and improved product quality. Businesses have turned to information technology to gain performance efficiency in this changing marketplace. Yet, as firms increase their investments in new ­information technology, they may find employees are reluctant to accept and effectively use the new technologies. The technology acceptance model is the most widely used theory by researchers to explore user acceptance. This chapter explores the development, use, and current status of the technology acceptance model, as well as critiques of the technology acceptance model.

Keywords

Technology acceptance model Theory of reasoned action User acceptance Perceived ease of use Perceived usefulness 

Abbreviations

A

Attitude toward behavior

BI

Behavioral intention

CRM

Customer relationship management system

ERP

Enterprise resource planning system

MRP

Materials resource planning

PEOU

Perceived ease of use

PU

Perceived usefulness

SCM

Supply chain management system

SN

Subjective norm

TAM

Technology acceptance model

TPB

Theory of planned behavior

TRA

Theory of reasoned action

TTF

Task-technology fit model

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to action: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Bechmann (Eds.), Action control: from cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(1986), 453–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Salam, A. F. (2004). An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Information Management, 41, 731–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, E., Al-Gahtani, S., & Hubona, G. (2010). Cultural impacts of acceptance and adoption of information technology in a developing country. Journal of Global Information Management, 18(3), 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. The American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis, TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 211–218. 3.Google Scholar
  9. Borders, A., Earleywine, M., & Huey, S. (2004). Predicting problem behaviors with multiple expectancies: Expanding expectancy value theory. Adolescence, 39, 539–551.Google Scholar
  10. Bradley, J., & Lee, C. C. (2007). ERP training and user satisfaction: A case study. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems: Special Topic Issue on Use of ERP in Education, 3(4), 33–50.Google Scholar
  11. Brynojlfsson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox in information technology. Communications of the ACM, 36(12), 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dishaw, M. T., Strong, D. M., & Brandy, D. B. (2002). Extending the task-technology fit model of self-efficacy constructs. In R. Ramsower & J. Windsor (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Americas conference on information systems, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  15. Eveland, J. D. (1986). Diffusion, technology transfer, and implementation. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion Utilization, 8(2), 302–322.Google Scholar
  16. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2000). The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of e-Commerce adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1(8), 1–28.Google Scholar
  18. Geiger, M. A., & Cooper, E. A. (1996). Cross-cultural comparisons using expectancy theory to assess student motivation. Issues in Accounting Education, 11(1), 113–129.Google Scholar
  19. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hwang, Y. (2005). Investigating enterprise systems adoption: Uncertainty avoidance, intrinsic motivation and the technology acceptance model. European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. James, T., Pirim, T., Boswell, K., Reithel, B., & Barkhi, R. (2006). Determining the intention to use biometric devices: An application and extension of the technology acceptance model. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 18(3), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(50), 752–780.Google Scholar
  23. Lucas, H. C., Swanson, E. B., & Zmud, R. W. (2007). Implementation, innovation and related themes over the years in information systems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 205–210. 2.Google Scholar
  24. Mazis, M., Ahtola, O., & Kippel, R. (1975). A comparison of four multi attribute models in the prediction of consumer attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCloskey, D. W. (2006). The importance of ease of use, usefulness, and trust to online consumers: An examination of the technology acceptance model with older consumers. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 18(3), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCoy, S., Everard, A., & Jones, B. M. (2005). An examination of the technology acceptance model in Uruguay and the US: A focus on culture. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 8(2), 27–45.Google Scholar
  27. McCoy, S., Galleta, D. F., & King, W. R. (2007). Applying TAM across cultures: The need for caution. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pijpers, G. G. M., & van Montfort, K. (2006). An investigation of factors that influence senior executives to accept innovations in information technology. International Journal of Management, 23(1), 11–23.Google Scholar
  29. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Schwarz, A., & Chin, W. (2007). Looking forward: Toward an understanding of the nature and definition of IT acceptance. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 231–243. 6.Google Scholar
  33. Sichel, D. E. (1997). The computer revolution: An economic perspective. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  34. Silva, L. (2007). Post-positivist review of technology acceptance model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 255–266. 8.Google Scholar
  35. Straub, D. W., & Burton-Jones, A. (2007). Veni, vedi, vici: Breaking the TAM logjam. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 223–229. 5.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants pf perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.Google Scholar
  38. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 273–315.Google Scholar
  40. 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(4), 267–286. 9.Google Scholar
  41. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, M. D., Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., & Schwarz, A. (2009). Contemporary trends and issues in IT adoption and diffusion research. Journal of Information Technology, 24, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102.Google Scholar
  44. Wu, J., & Lederer, A. (2009). A meta-analysis of the role of environment-based voluntariness in information technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 419–432.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business and ManagementDeVry UniversityPomonaUSA

Personalised recommendations