Technology acceptance model (TAM) - Article Example

?Technology Acceptance Model By Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Concise of the Theory 3 Evolution of TAM 5The Level of the Theory 8 Is it a useful theory? 10 What does TAM allow us to see? 11 Blinding Theory 13 Impact of a Theory on Practice 15 Impact on IS and other areas? 16 Theory Creation Evaluation Lens 17 Conclusion 17 References 19 Introduction Technology Acceptance Model (or simply TAM) was initially build-up to express computer handling behavior. This idea afterward spotlighted on different applications for assessing acceptance of consumer products such as information systems or cellular phones. Basically, the technology acceptance model demonstrates a significant theoretical association with reorganization of information system practice and information system appreciation behaviors. In other words, TAM is used to analyze the impact of technology implementation in any organization. In fact, the user acceptance of technology has been a significant area of study for over 2 decades. Even though a lot of models have been developed to explain as well as anticipate the use of a system, however the TAM has been the simply one that has got the attention of the information systems community. Consequently, it is essential for individuals and organizations to study user acceptance of technology to get an appropriate idea of the technology acceptance model (Rao, 2010; Malhotra & Galletta, 1999; Chuttur, 2009). This paper presents an overview of the term “technology acceptance model”. This paper will discuss the basic theory of the technology acceptance model along with various associated factors. Concise Description of the Theory Historically, the idea of the technology acceptance model emerged in mid 70’s, when many researchers started paying attention to factors and issues that give explanation or forecast the acceptance of a variety of technologies. Basically, the TAM is referred as one of the descriptive theories having most influenced the models and ideas of human behavior. In addition, the technology acceptance model was exclusively built with the key objective of recognizing the factors and aspects involved in technology acceptance generally; secondly, to look at a wide variety of technology usage behaviors; and lastly, to offer an economical hypothetical descriptive model. Additionally, its roots reach to social psychology and based on the reasoned action model of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). According to the reasoned action model (RAM), the intention to generate a behavior depends on two fundamental factors: approach toward behavior and individual characteristics. In this scenario, individual characteristics refer to the causes dues to which certain behaviors are produced or not and establish the connection between the final and a predictable outcome, while the approach toward behavior is referred as the optimistic or pessimistic value on which the behavior of individual associates is produced (Bertrand & Bouchard, 2008). As discussed above, the TAM is a modified or updated version of the Theory of Reasoned Action (or simply TRA as discussed above) to the area of IS. In addition, the technology acceptance model represents that the apparent worth and perceived ease of use determining an individual's aim to make use of a system with a goal to serve as an intermediary of actual system usage. In this scenario, the perceived worth is as well seen as being straight influenced through perceived easiness of usage. On the other hand, researchers have shortened the technology acceptance model by eliminating the attitude constructs originated in TRA from the present arrangements. In this scenario, the efforts to expand the technology acceptance model can normally take 1 of 3 forms: by initiating issues from connected models, by initiating extra or substitute belief aspects, and by investigating the background and moderators of apparent value and apparent simplicity of practice. In view of the fact that both the TAM and TRA are composed of powerful behavioral fundamentals, thus they suppose that when somebody outlines an aim to act, that they will be open to perform without restriction. In fact, restraints like that partial aptitude, environmental, time or organizational limits, and unaware habits will bind the autonomy to act (Lee et al., 2003; Bertrand & Bouchard, 2008). Figure1 demonstrates the basic idea of the technology acceptance model: Figure 1: Technology Acceptance Model Basic Model, Image Source: http://www.fsc.yorku.ca/york/istheory/wiki/index.php/Image:Tam.JPG Evolution of TAM (Bertrand & Bouchard, 2008) and (Lee et al., 2003) discuss the evolution of this well-known model. Before the emergence of information systems and their implementations into businesses, other user acceptance models for technology received reasonably widespread attention. In this scenario practitioners and researchers exhausted considerable research attempt for determining and forecasting what aspects actually influence clients’ beliefs and approaches on the information system acceptance decision, and what aspects refer to user resistance. As an effective output from those flows of research, TAM developed from the theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) to offer a clarification of the elements of computer acceptance that is wide-ranging, proficient of explaining user behavior all through a wide variety of end user computing technologies and customers’ populations, at the same time as being together theoretically and parsimonious necessary. Hence, following the evolution, researchers in this era carried out numerous TAM assessments mostly focusing on two streams. In this scenario, the initial tried to duplicate TAM with other longitudinal circumstances, technologies, and research backgrounds to confirm whether it is an economical model. On the other hand, other stream contrasted TAM and its derivation, TRA, in an attempt to determine whether both the models can be distinguished from one another, and whether TAM is much better than TRA (Lee et al., 2003; Bertrand & Bouchard, 2008). Figure 2: Chronological Progress of TAM Research Source: (Lee et al., 2003) Replication Research: A number of replicated researches came into view in this era. It is observed that TAM in 5 diverse areas and applications, graphics, word processors, e-mail, spreadsheets and v-mail, as well as initiate that, usually, TAM preserved its constancy and validity in clarifications regarding users’ technology acceptance behavior. In this scenario, a research duplicated earlier research on e-mail and a text editor with 112 knowledge workers, and discovered that TAM productively clarified the implementation of mutual technologies (with the result of R2 =0.36). In addition, another research carried out on TAM to determine the group attitudes regarding GDSS usage, showed that the relation PU/PEOU productively forecasted group approach to GDSS usage. Lastly, a number of researches performed on the duplication of the unique TAM with two mailing systems’ reception, and showed that TAM variables demonstrated outcomes reliable as compared to previous studies (Lee et al., 2003; Bertrand & Bouchard, 2008). Relation of TRA and TAM: As discussed above, it is the second perspective of researches on TAM, which tried to distinguish TRA from TAM. For instance, a research was conducted to analyze the impact of TAM and TRA like that's how they find out an MBA student’s relation facility with a word processor all through two time periods, instantly after initiating the system and 14 weeks later. The results clearly showed that TAM (the relations that were used R2 = 0.47 at time 1, R2 = 0.51 at time 2) improved clarified the receipt purpose of the users as compared to TRA (R2 = 0.32 at time 1, R 2 = 0.26 at time 2). In addition, this research contrasted both TAM and theory of planned behavior (TPB) model and discovered that TAM presents a small empirical benefit and is a great deal simpler, similar to usage, and more influential model to elucidate users’ technology reception. In the same way, another research was conducted to compare the three models TPB, TAM and decomposed TPB throughout a longitudinal research of 786 students who used a computer information resource center (CIRC). The results of this research shown that the decomposed TPB and TPB offered a complete clarification as compared to TAM. Additionally, they inquired for a precautious understanding of the outcomes in order to determine the trade-off between descriptive power and complexity. In this scenario, TAM acknowledged usage of meaning and exercise through faintly lower variances, as decomposed TPB augmented the clarification discrepancy up to only 2 percent of usage as well as to 8 percent of usage aim, paying the more cost by adding 7 additional variables (Lee et al., 2003; Bertrand & Bouchard, 2008). Thus, the majority of researches and studies conducted in this period, shown that TAM could productively forecast technology reorganization behavior under diverse technologies and diverse situations. As well, it was discovered that TAM was a great deal easier to utilize, simpler and much more powerful model for determining and forecasting users’ acceptance of computer technology as compared to other models (Lee et al., 2003; Bertrand & Bouchard, 2008). The Level of the Theory The technology acceptance model was initially developed by Davis to clarify computer usage behavior. Basically, the theoretical foundation of the model was Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (or simply TRA). In addition, the basic objective of the technology acceptance model is to offer a clarification of the features and aspects of computer technology acceptance that is wide-ranging, proficient of clarifying client behavior all through a wide variety of end-user computing technologies and client populations, whereas at the similar time being parsimonious along with theoretically acceptable (Malhotra & Galletta, 1999; Malhotra & Galletta, 2004). TRA is an extensively researched model from the perspective of social psychology that is about the determinants of deliberately planned behaviors. In TRA, an individual’s working area of a particular behavior are assessed through his or her BI (behavioral intention) to carry out the behavior, and BI is both determined through the person’s approach and individual characteristics about the behavior in subjects. Additionally, the TAM makes use of TRA as a hypothetical foundation for identifying causal association between two key groups of constructs: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU), along with users’ attitude, behavioral intentions (BI) as well as definite computer practice behavior. In this scenario, the perceived usefulness is described as the user’s subjective likelihood while making use of an exact application system will augment his or her job efficiency inside a business background (Malhotra & Galletta, 1999; Malhotra & Galletta, 2004). In addition, PEOU assess to the extent to that the user waits for the target system to be liberated of effort. In this scenario, both the perceived usefulness and perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use forecast attitude in the direction of using the system, described as the client’s appeal of his or her with the system. These aspects control the someone’s BI to make use of the system. In this scenario, the use of the system is forecasted through BI. In addition, an assessment of scholarly research on the information system reception and practice suggests that TAM has appeared as one of the most significant and powerful models in this stream of research. Additionally, the TAM embodies a significant theoretical involvement in the direction of recognizing information system practice and information systems reorganization behaviors. However, this model with its innovative importance on the design of system individualities does not account for social control in the implementation and use of modern information systems (Malhotra & Galletta, 1999; Malhotra & Galletta, 2004). From the above discussion it is clear that this model is applied at the organizational level to understand the behaviors of organizations’ workers. This model is used to see whether the employees of an organization will welcome the implementation of a new system or they will reject it. Is it a useful theory? According to (Porter & Donthu, 2006), the technology acceptance model proposes that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are beliefs about a new technology that influence an individual's approach in the direction of and usage of that technology. In addition, the TAM has been very useful in determining the online consumer performance. In fact, it has received an experiential potential through many researches. Additionally, the TAM is a most suitable alternative of models when parsimony, research expenses and the results are recognized. For instance the TAM clarifies more discrepancy in attitude toward a technology, and a similar proportion of discrepancy in implementation for the reason that of the theory of planned behavior. As well the TAM characteristics are more agreeable to experiential assessment as compared to the wide ideas of dispersal of novelty framework. In view of the fact that so many extensions to the TAM have improved our reorganization of technology reception, previous researches prohibit variables that are pertinent to explanation demographic dissimilarities in Internet usage and reproduce awareness of access obstacles about especially to cost (Porter & Donthu, 2006; Martinsons & Martinsons, 2002). What does TAM allow us to see? An improved mouse trap will not for all time have a ready marketplace despite requirement and pioneering characteristics. Thus, in an attempt to understand the users’ behavior toward technology innovations and implementations, one has to study the technology acceptance process. Basically, the technology acceptance model is composed of 2 attitudes, apparent utilities and apparent easiness of application that decides attitudes to accept or reject a new technology. In addition, the approach in the direction of adoption portrays the prospective adopter's optimistic or unenthusiastic orientation/behavior for implementing a new technology. In this scenario, the users’ attitudes are assessed through relevant inner beliefs. Additionally, the attitude regarding acceptance is influenced by areas and aspects like: (Rao, 2010; Malhotra & Galletta, 1999) Enjoyment (inherent motivation) Apprehensiveness Perceived easiness of adoption Perceived qualities of technology (extrinsic motivation) As well, individual characteristics similar to the qualification, age, and their previous experiences of accepting technology, compatibility with accessible technology, technology suppliers' loyalty, social stress and greater value are significant factors (Rao, 2010; Malhotra & Galletta, 1999). Perceived Ease of Adoption (EA): This feature is operationally described as "the level at which the potential adopter anticipates the new technology accepted to be free of exertion concerning its transfer as well as utilization". Basically, it assesses the possible complexity for recognizing a company to make use of the new technology, and that of the worker if he is required to learn to use the latest technology (Rao, 2010; Malhotra & Galletta, 1999). Apprehensiveness: It refers to the concern of making use a new medium or technology. Though, telephones in the untimely years of their acceptance awakened hesitation. However, a business takes an opportunity with an indigenously urbanized catalyst; significant expenses in implementing a technology breakdown are huge. In addition, reproduction, modeling, and expression in direct level can be used to deal with the problems of observables and trainability (Rao, 2010; Malhotra & Galletta, 1999). Perceived Utilities of Technology (PU) Perceived utility (or simply PU) is operationally described as "the potential adopter's subjective probability that relates to the latest technology from the outside sources will be helpful to his individual and/or the adopting business’s happiness". Basically, this feature of the TAM encompasses two aspects: apparent utilities for the business and apparent utilities for the individual (such as employees or customers). In addition, to the accepting business, utility typically outlines economic profits resulted from adopting a novel technology (Rao, 2010; Malhotra & Galletta, 1999). Intrinsic Motivation Intrinsic motivation encourages tasks where there is no obvious reward excluding the task itself. In addition, essentially aggravated behavior takes place from people’s need to feel power and self-determinacy in tackling their environment. Moreover, there is an internal force to learn that is evident obviously in the scenario of young recruits (Rao, 2010; Malhotra & Galletta, 1999). Adoption Experiences Adoption experiences can play a significant role in combining the technical knowledge of the adopters and the increased working associations with the technology suppliers throughout the previous experiences. In this scenario, preceding experiences with the technology suppliers is an outstanding chance of adopting corporation to gather significant information about the technology and allow the desirable personnel for comparable future engagement (Rao, 2010; Malhotra & Galletta, 1999). Blinding Theory At the present, the majority of researches on information technology are based on models and theories that make use of behavioral areas and aspects to recognize the pressure of human goals on the adoption and practice (for example post adoption) of a wide variety of innovations and technologies. In addition, there are numerous theoretical models that have been planned to revise the areas and aspects that control somebody’s aims toward the reception of information technologies. In this scenario, blinding theory also focuses on the human aspects and characteristics and it can combine other theories. With TAM, the person's attitude regarding information technology and information systems acceptance, is based on two variables perceived value and perceived easiness of usage. However, TAM was assessed in spite of it’s extended usage. In addition, the discouragement of TAM as a theory can be due to its lack of falsify-ability, doubtful heuristic value, incomplete descriptive and predictive power, unimportance, and lack of any practical value (Pacauskas, 2011; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Moon & Kim, 2001). In describing users’ acceptance of information technology researchers made use of the combination of TPB and TAM, which directed towards the development of a unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). In this scenario, both the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology are based on 8 models comprising theory of logical action, technology reception model, theory of proposed behavior, motivational model, a shared theory of planned actions/technology reception model, model of personal computer use, dispersal of modernism theory, and social cognitive theory. In addition, it is composed of four main components: effort expectancy, performance expectancy, facilitating conditions and social influence. In this scenario, additional four constructs (age, gender, voluntariness, experience) are included to arbitrate the influence of the four basic constructs on practice meaning and behavior. Moreover, all they jointly explained more than 70 percent of the discrepancy in behavioral aims (Pacauskas, 2011; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Moon & Kim, 2001). Impact of a Theory on Practice Every experiment is based on a specific theory or an experiment is essential to prove a theory. Basically, the technology acceptance model is widely used for the theoretical basis. In this scenario, one of the widespread examples of such impact of TAM is its common usage in the development of an information security investment model. In fact, the technology acceptance model has been utilized mainly to clarify the practice of information technology. Though, current research has supported it’s usage for examining IT decision-making. However, numerous advantages and contributions are expected. In this scenario, the support for the research model would corroborate that TAM is a practical framework for examining IT decision making. In previous researches we have seen a great deal of support for this kind of theories (Johnson, 2005). In addition, the TAM proposes that the approach would be a straight predictor of the sense to utilize technology that actually would forecast the real practice of the technology. Though, various researches suggest that this approach would not play a major role however rather that apparent accessibility (anticipation that a technology necessitates smallest amount of effort) and the apparent value perception that utilize a technology are able to improve performance of a job at hand) would decide the sense to utilize a technology (Bertrand & Bouchard, 2008; Sun & Zhang, 2006; Schepers & Wetzels, 2007). Moreover, according to various researches the TAM is a high-quality model however it does not help identify with and clarify the acceptance of a technology in a sense that encourages the development of a policy having an actual influence on the usability and acceptance of the technology. It demonstrates wide-ranging advantages of computers and their usage. In addition, they would appear to play a significant role in the configuration of the perceived easiness of use of a new system or technology as well as would be self-governing of the latter (Bertrand & Bouchard, 2008; Sun & Zhang, 2006; Schepers & Wetzels, 2007). Impact on IS and other areas? The approaches of the users of information technologies and systems can play a major role in the ultimate reception and usage of the technologies. While looking at the implementation of IT in corporate research, the technology acceptance model, and the extended technology acceptance model 2 (that is also known as TAM2) have turned out to be quite dependable and robust in predicting users’ acceptance. In this scenario, both the TAM and TAM2 assume that an individual's basic objective to use a system is determined through two attitudes: perceived worth and perceived simplicity of use. So in an attempt to improve reorganization of the determinants of apparent value, TAM2 includes two extra theoretical aspects, cognitive instrumental procedures and social influence procedures (Chismar & Wiley-Patton, 2002; Hu et al., 1999). In addition, there are four cognitive aspects control perceived value: output quality, job relevance, the apparent ease of use and result demonstrability. Additionally, there are three social forces control perceived value subjective standard, image, and voluntariness. In this scenario, another important factor is job significance, which is an individual's awareness of the level to which the technology is appropriate to his or her job. Moreover, the production quality is some one's perception of how successfully a system performs tasks necessary to his or her task. As well, outcomes certainty is the tangibility of the outcomes achieved through the technology. Also, the apparent simplicity of use both openly and circuitously influences the apparent value. Furthermore, the subjective standard is described as a person's awareness that people who are significant to him think he should or should not utilize the technology (Chismar & Wiley-Patton, 2002; Hu et al., 1999). Theory Creation Evaluation Lens The technology acceptance model is one of the basic needs and requirements of information technology and system development. The systems require extensive planning and managing the corporate system development and superior management of business operations and processes. There is greater need for better management of IS overall process. In this scenario we need to take care of system working and operational areas. Thus, every organization must consider this theory before the implementation of any new technology of information system. Conclusion Technology Acceptance Model (or simply TAM) was initially build-up to express computer handling behavior. This idea afterward spotlighted on different applications for assessing acceptance of consumer products such as information systems or cellular phones. Basically, the technology acceptance model demonstrates a significant theoretical association with reorganization of information system practice and information system appreciation behaviors. Historically, the idea of the technology acceptance model emerged in mid 70’s, when many researchers started paying attention to factors and issues that give explanation or forecast the acceptance of a variety of technologies. Basically, the TAM is referred as one of the descriptive theories having most influenced the models and ideas of human behavior. In addition, the technology acceptance model was exclusively built with the key objective of recognizing the factors and aspects involved in technology acceptance generally; secondly, to look at a wide variety of technology usage behaviors; and lastly, to offer an economical hypothetical descriptive model. Its roots reach to social psychology and based on the reasoned action model of Fishbein and Ajzen. According to the reasoned action model (RAM), the intention to generate a behavior depends on two fundamental factors: approach toward behavior and individual characteristics. In this scenario, individual characteristics refer to the causes dues to which certain behaviors are produced or not and establish the connection between the final and a predictable outcome, while the approach toward behavior is referred as the optimistic or pessimistic value on which the behavior of individual associates is produced. The majority of researches and studies conducted in this period, shown that TAM could productively forecast technology reorganization behavior under diverse technologies and diverse situations. As well, it was discovered that TAM was a great deal easier to utilize, simpler and much more powerful model for determining and forecasting users’ acceptance of computer technology as compared to other models. An organization must study this model before introducing a new technology or system to their staff members. References Bertrand, M. & Bouchard, S., 2008. Applying the Technology Acceptence Model To VR With People Who Are Favourable To Its Use. Journal of Cyber Therapy and Rehabilitation, 1(2), pp.200-10. Chismar, W.G. & Wiley-Patton, S., 2002. Test of the Technology Acceptance Model for the Internet in Pediatrics. In AMIA 2002 Annual Symposium Proceedings., 2002. Chuttur, M., 2009. Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins, Developments and Future Directions. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), pp.1-22. Hu, P.J., Chau, P.Y.K., Sheng, O.R.L. & Tam, K.Y., 1999. Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), pp.91-112. Johnson, A.M., 2005. The Technology Acceptance Model and the Decision to Invest in Information Security. In SAIS 2005 Proceedings. Savannah Marriott Riverfront, 2005. Southern Association of Information Systems (SAIS). Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A. & Larsen, K.R., 2003. The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2(50), pp.752-80. Malhotra, Y. & Galletta, D.F., 1999. Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Account for Social Influence: Theoretical Bases and Empirical Validation. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences., 1999. IEEE. Malhotra, Y. & Galletta, D.F., 2004. Building systems that users want to use. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), pp.88-94. Martinsons, M.G. & Martinsons, V., 2002. Rethinking the value of IT, again. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), pp.25-26. Moon, J.-W. & Kim, Y.-G., 2001. Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information and Management, 38(4), pp.217-30. Pacauskas, D., 2011. Contribution in VCE: Conceptual Model and Future Research. [Online] Available at: http://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/uploads/media/Darius_Pacauskas_-_Proposal_V2.pdf [Accessed 28 March 2012]. Porter, C.E. & Donthu, N., 2006. Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research, 59(2006), pp.999-1007. Rao, A.S., 2010. Technology Acceptence Model for Complex Technologies in a Period of Rapid Catching-Up. [Online] Available at: http://www.indianinnovatorsforum.org/technologyacceptancemodel.pdf [Accessed 28 March 2012]. Schepers, J. & Wetzels, M., 2007. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information and Management, 44(1), pp.90-103. Sun, H. & Zhang, P., 2006. The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(2), pp.53-78. 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), pp.425-78. Read More