Marketing Science

Introduced to:Prof. Dr. Hesham

DinanaPrepared by:

Hossam FekryAmr MetwalyAli El KhoulySameh El Ezaby

Technology Acceptance Model

(TAM)

ObjectivesThe first objective of this Project is to conduct a quantitative review of the TAM literature as a basis for providing guidelines for implementation management and the conduct of future research.

Linked to this is our second objective: to study the relations between different variables which affect the acceptance of Technology through organization .

To achieve these objectives the paper is divided into two parts.

• Part 1 identifies the major contributions and developments to the TAM model and discusses potential moderators.

• Part 2 delineates the analytic approach and discusses the findings and their implications for the research.

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)The technology acceptance model (TAM) originally formulated by Davis (1986) is one of the most widely tested models of technology acceptance. The TAM adapted Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action (TRA) to explain the causal relationship between users’ internal beliefs (usefulness and ease of use), attitude, intentions, andcomputer usage behavior (Davis et al., 1989)

From this stream of research, the TAM (Davis et al., 1989), an adaptation of the TRA, has emerged as a powerful and parsimonious model that “belongs” to the IS field and represents the antecedents of technology usage through beliefs about two factors: the perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) of a technology. Hence, the TAM: . . . is specifically meant to explain computer usage behavior . . . (Davis et al., 1989, p. 983).

The goal of TAM is to [be] . . . capable of explaining user behavior across a broad range of end-user computing technologies and user populations, while at the same time being both parsimonious and theoretically justified.

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)Davis et al. (1989) test the original TAM in a longitudinal study and report that the data partially support the model. In a post hoc data analysis in voluntary settings (Davis et al., 1989), they suggest a revision of the original TAM which they claim is a more “powerful [model] for predicting and explaining user behaviour, based on only three theoretical constructs: intention, PU, and PEOU” (p. 997). The attitudinal construct was removed because of the partial mediation of the impact of beliefs on intentions by attitude, a weak direct link between PU and attitude, and a strong direct link between PU and intentions. PEOU had a small effect on intentions that subsided over time. From this point onwards, the implications for future research as pointed by Davis et al. (1989) was to test the generality of a PU – PEOU trade-off, and to assess the impact of external variables on these internal behavioural determinants.Originally developed to test the acceptance of word processor technology (Davis et al., 1989), the TAM has since been extended to the acceptance e-mail, voice mail, graphics (Adams et al., 1992), DBMS (Szajna, 1994), GSS (Chin and Gopal, 1995), personal computer (Igbaria et al., 1995b), WWW (Gefen and Straub, 2000), and tele-medicine technology (Chau and Hu, 2001), among other applications of IT. Table Ilists the 145 papers on the TAM reviewed here, indicating the sample size, sample type, study type, technology tested, dependent variable, and results of the hypothesis testing the original TAM relationships. The table also summarizes results about four new relationships not proposed in the original model, namely PU – usage, PEOU – intentions, PEOU – usage, and attitude – usage.No single study tests all the relationships, but they are all measured in at least one study. While about 47 per cent of the studies measured self-reported usage, less than 9 per cent measured the actual usage. The behavioral intention to use the technology was measured as the dependent variable in 43 per cent of the studies. The majority (59 per cent) of the studies have been conducted with non-students and 41 per cent with the students.

Operational definitions1. PU, perception of its usefulness is the

user’s “subjective probability that using a specific application system will increase his or her job performance within an organizational context”

2. PEOU, Perceived Ease of Use is “the degree to which the user expects the target system to be free of efforts”

Operational definitions

• Attitude is described in the literature as an “individual’s positive or negative feelings (evaluative effect) about performing the target behaviour

Hypothesis

• H1 A person’s Perceived Usefulness of a technology is hypothesized to have a relation with using the technology

• H2 A person’s Perceived Ease of Use of a technology is hypothesized to have a relation with using the technology

• H3 A person’s acceptance of a technology’ behavioural intention to use technology is affected by – Their attitude , – Perceived usefulness , – Perceived easy of use , – Self-efficacy , – Subjective norm , – System accessibility .

External

Variables

Attitude

Behavioral

Intention

Actual Behavior

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Perceived Usefulness

(PU)

Perceived Ease of

Use(PEOU)

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

TAM is a powerful model for predicting and explaining user behavior, based on only three theoretical constructs; Intention, PU, and PEOU.

External

Variables

Attitude

Behavioral

Intention

Actual Behavi

or

Perceived Usefulnes

s(PU)

Perceived Ease of

Use(PEOU)

internal behavioral

determinants

The widespread popularity of the TAM is broadly attributable to three factors:(1)It is parsimonious, IT-specific, and is designed to provide an

adequate explanation and prediction of a diverse user population’s acceptance of a wide range of systems and technologies within varying organizational and cultural contexts and expertise levels;

(2) It has a strong theoretical base and a well researched and validated inventory of psychometric measurement scales, making its use operationally appealing; and

(3) It has accumulated strong empirical support for its overall explanatory power and has emerged as a pre-eminent model of users acceptance of technology (Chau, 1996a; Hu et al., 1999; Mathieson, 1991; Szajna, 1996).

Role of attitude in the TAM

Attitude is an “individual’s positive or negative feelings (evaluative effect) about performing the target behavior” (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975, p. 216). Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) argue that attitudes towards an object influence intentions which, in turn, influence behavior with respect to the object, that is, its use.

Considering user satisfaction as an attitude, the IS research to date has mostly assessed the attitude towards the output of a system, rather than that of using the system. Brown et al. (2002) suggest that a neglected stimulus in IS research is the attitude towards using the system.

Measurement of the dependent variable

Previous research on the TAM has found little similarity between self-reported (subjective) and computer recorded (objective) measures of IT usage (Chin, 1996; Straub et al., 1995; Szajna, 1996). To be an effective surrogate, self-reported usage must be a valid measure of use correlating strongly with other methods of measuring usage, that is, it must exhibit convergent validity (Nunnally, 1978). In addition, it should correlate more strongly with another method of measuring the same construct (e.g. actual usage) than with another construct using the same measuring method (e.g. intentions), that is, show discriminate validity (Campbell and Fiske, 1959).

However, there is a weak correlation between self-reported and actual usage and the correlation of self-reported usage with intention was higher than its correlation with actual usage, providing little support for discriminated validity. The weak support for discriminated validity was due to the fact that all constructs of the TAM (PU, PEOU, intention, attitude) are self-reported and when correlated with self-reported usage, common method variance becomes an important factor. In addition, the demand characteristics of the research environment and the halo effect can influence associations among self-reported constructs.

External variables and internal beliefs

A key limitation of the TAM is that while it provides a valuable insight into users’ acceptance and use of technology, it focus only on the determinants of use (PU and PEOU) and does not reveal how such perceptions are formed or how they can be manipulated to foster users’ acceptance and increased usage.

One of the key purposes of the TAM was to provide a basis for tracing the impact of external factors on internal beliefs, i.e. PU and PEOU, and to link that to actual use. Understanding of the antecedents of PU and PEOU practitioners are unable to know which levers to pull in order to affect these beliefs and, through them, the use of technology.

Examples for external variables:- Competitive environment- Information quality- Job insecurity- Educational level

Variables

Independent variables : • PU – Perceived usefulness • PEOU – Perceived Ease of Use

Dependent variables : • Attitude • Intention• Usage

Data Sampling

Sample Size- 48 questionnaires are distributed- 31 are responded (64.58%)

Questionnaire

ResultsNo.

Questions

1-

Using MS Dynamics ERP in my job would enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly

2-

Using MS Dynamics ERP would improve my job performance

3-

Using MS Dynamics ERP in my job would increase my productivity

4-

Using MS Dynamics ERP would enhance my effectiveness on the job

5-

Using MS Dynamics ERP would make it easier to do my job

6-

I would find MS Dynamics ERP useful in my job

Strongly

AgreeAgree Indiffer

entDisagr

ee

Strongly

Disagree

Total

6 13 3 5 4 31

5 16 3 4 3 31

4 16 3 5 3 31

4 15 5 3 4 31

6 11 5 6 3 31

5 15 4 4 3 31

Total 30 86 23 27 20 186

% 16% 46% 12% 15% 11% 100%

ResultsQuestions

7- Learning to operate MS Dynamics ERP would be easy for me

8- I would find it easy to get MS Dynamics ERP to do what I want it to do

9- My interaction with MS Dynamics ERP would be clear and understandable

10- I would find MS Dynamics ERP to be flexible to interact with

11-

It would be easy for me to become skillful at using MS Dynamics ERP

12- I would find MS Dynamics ERP easy to use

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Indifferent

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Total

3 20 2 4 2 31

3 12 5 9 2 31

0 18 5 6 2 31

3 14 4 6 4 31

5 16 6 4 0 31

1 21 8 0 1 31

Total 15 101 30 29 11 186

% 8% 54% 16% 16% 6% 100%

ResultsQuestions

13- Using MS Dynamics ERP is a good idea

14- Using MS Dynamics ERP is a wise idea

15- I am positive toward MS Dynamics ERP

16- I intend to performing my job through MS Dynamics ERP frequently

17- I intend to be a heavy user of MS Dynamics ERP system

18- I feel confident to perform my job through the MS Dynamics ERP system

19- I have the necessary skills for using an MS Dynamics ERP system

20- What MS Dynamics ERP stands for is important for me as a B.TECH employee

21- In order for me to prepare for future job, it is necessary to take MS Dynamics ERP Training courses

22- I have no difficulty accessing and using an MS Dynamics ERP system in B.TECH

Strongly Agree

Agree Indifferent Disag

ree

Strongly

Disagree

Total

5 16 3 5 2 31

6 12 8 5 0 31

7 18 2 4 0 31

5 20 4 2 0 31

5 19 6 1 0 31

4 8 11 6 2 31

2 25 3 1 0 31

5 19 5 2 0 31

4 13 7 6 1 31

2 17 2 7 3 31

Total 45 167 51 39 8 310

% 15% 54% 16% 13% 3% 100

%

  No. Result of Hypotheises    

Group 1

1- Using MS Dynamics ERP in my job would enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly Perceived usefulness (PU) Supported

2- Using MS Dynamics ERP would improve my job performance Perceived usefulness (PU) Supported

3- Using MS Dynamics ERP in my job would increase my productivity Perceived usefulness (PU) Supported

4- Using MS Dynamics ERP would enhance my effectiveness on the job Perceived usefulness (PU) Supported

5- Using MS Dynamics ERP would make it easier to do my job Perceived usefulness (PU) Supported

6- I would find MS Dynamics ERP useful in my job Perceived usefulness (PU) Supported

Group 2

7- Learning to operate MS Dynamics ERP would be easy for me Perceived ease of use (PEOU) Supported

8- I would find it easy to get MS Dynamics ERP to do what I want it to do Perceived ease of use (PEOU) Supported

9- My interaction with MS Dynamics ERP would be clear and understandable Perceived ease of use (PEOU) Supported

10- I would find MS Dynamics ERP to be flexible to interact with Perceived ease of use (PEOU) Supported

11- It would be easy for me to become skillful at using MS Dynamics ERP Perceived ease of use (PEOU) Supported

12- I would find MS Dynamics ERP easy to use Perceived ease of use (PEOU) Supported

Group 3

13- Using MS Dynamics ERP is a good idea Attitude (AT) Supported

14- Using MS Dynamics ERP is a wise idea Attitude (AT) Supported

15- I am positive toward MS Dynamics ERP Attitude (AT) Supported

16- I intend to performing my job through MS Dynamics ERP frequently Behavioral intention BI Supported

17- I intend to be a heavy user of MS Dynamics ERP system Behavioral intention BI Supported

18- I feel confident to perform my job through the MS Dynamics ERP system Self efficacy (SE) Supported

19- I have the necessary skills for using an MS Dynamics ERP system Self efficacy (SE) Supported

20- What MS Dynamics ERP stands for is important for me as a B.TECH employee Subjective norm (SN) Supported

21- In order for me to prepare for future job, it is necessary to take MS Dynamics ERP Training courses Subjective norm (SN) Supported

22- I have no difficulty accessing and using an MS Dynamics ERP system in B.TECH System accessibility (SA) Supported

FINDINGS• 62% Of the respondents found that +ve

relation between Perceived usefulness (PU) and Usage .

Perceived usefulness (PU)

16%

46%

12%

15%

11%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Indifferent

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

FINDINGS• 62% Of the respondents found that +ve

relation between Perceived ease of use (PEOU) and Usage.

Perceived ease of use (PEOU)

8%

54%16%

16%6%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Indifferent

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

FINDINGS• This study confirmed TAM to be a useful

theoretical model in helping to understand and explain behavioral intention to use MS Dynamics ERP Results of the present research led to the conclusion that the model well represented the collected data according to the result of goodness-of-fit test.

• 68% Of the respondents found that +ve relation between Behavior Intentions and Usage.

• First, Managers should make an effort in boosting Employees self-efficacy.

• Second, subjective norm is the second most important construct that affects both behavioral intention and attitude towards Technology .

FINDINGS• Future researchers could use these instruments

for assessing the ease of use and usefulness of Web sites.

• Stimulate future researchers to develop better instruments for assessing those characteristics of Web sites.

References

• Shumaila Y. Yousafzai, Gordon R. Foxall and John G. Pallister , ( 2007) , ‘Technology Acceptance:a meta-analysis of the TAM : Part 1

• Park, S. Y. (2009). An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students' Behavioral Intention to Use e-Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (3), 150–162.

Thank you