Technology Acceptance Model

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the business computer science denoting Technology Acceptance Model ( TAM , and technology acceptance model ) is a model , which strikes out why people a technology to use or not use. It was developed in Davis' dissertation and published in 1989.

history

Previous studies had come to the recommendation for the study of technology use in information systems on models fall back from the empirical social research. The basis of the TAM is therefore also the social-psychological model Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) by Ajzen and Fishbein from 1980. In 2000, the original model by Venkatesh and Davis was expanded by a few elements and published as TAM2. Another revision was made in 2003 by Venkatesh, Morris and Davis as Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and in 2008 by Venkatesh and Bala as TAM3.

construction

Technology Acceptance Model

TAM postulates that the Attitude Toward Using (A) depends on one person critically on two variables to exploit technology, the perceived usefulness ( Perceived Usefulness ) and perceived ease of use ( Perceived Ease of Use ). The Perceived Usefulness (U) is the subjective perception of the person that the application of a particular technology improves his job performance. The Perceived Ease of Use (E) in turn measures the person's perception of how much - or better, how little - effort is involved in learning to use the new technology. Furthermore, the intention to use ( BI ) depends on the perceived usefulness and the attitude .

distribution

The Technology Acceptance Model is a widely used instrument for studying technology usage in the field of information systems . Reasons for this may lie in its comprehensibility and simplicity, but also in the high reliability of its input variables, which was proven in a meta-analysis by King (2006). The model was often modified for the respective context. Previous investigations with the TAM covered a wide range of different areas. The group of participants varied with laypeople, students and experts, as did the area of ​​application with computer technology and other technologies and the cultural group with western and non-western countries. There has been a substantial increase in the annual TAM-based screening. According to King's (2006) analysis, the number of studies published per year increased from four in 1998–2001 to ten in 2002–2003. Currently (March 2011), according to the GVK-Plus online directory of the joint library network, six studies on the keyword “Technology Acceptance Model” have already been published in the first two months of 2011.

Extensions

Technology Acceptance Model 2

In 2000, Venkatesh and Davis added some input variables to the TAM under the name TAM2 . It was differentiated which input variables were divided into the groups social influence and cognitive processes ( social influence , cognitive instrumental process ). As part of this new study, the validity of these input variables was demonstrated in four longitudinal studies.

The group of social influence the variables include Subjective Norm , Image and voluntary ( voluntariness ). Further, a variable experience (will experience ) defined, has the influence on former variables.

Subjective norm was taken directly from the TRA model and is defined as "the perceived social pressure to or not to perform a behavior". It was excluded from the original TAM for reasons of insufficient research, but reintroduced here. It is implied that the subjective norm has a direct positive effect on the intention to use when the use of the technology is prescribed. It also has a positive effect on the image . Image is defined as the “degree of influence of the use of a technology on the status of the person”. TAM2 postulates a positive effect of Subjective Norm on Image and a positive effect of Image on Perceived Usefulness . The variable experience is also introduced. Higher experience has a mitigating effect of the direct effect of subjective norm on intention to use in the case of involuntary use and also a mitigating effect of the positive direct effect of subjective norm on perceived usefulness .

The second group, the cognitive processes that include the variables job relevance ( Job Relevance ), output quality ( Output Quality ) and earnings clarity ( Result demonstrability ).

Job relevance is defined as a person's perception of the suitability of using a technology for his work, i.e. whether the functions of a system help him to carry out his tasks. Job relevance has a positive effect on perceived usefulness . While job relevance is a more quantitative measure of the extent to which a technology helps at work, output quality is a qualitative measure of effectiveness. Output quality has a positive effect on perceived usefulness . Finally, Result Demonstrability says something about whether and to what extent an increase in work performance can be directly attributed to the new technology. If a system improves performance in an imperceptible way, the user becomes less aware of the benefits of the system. Result demonstrability also has a positive effect on perceived usefulness .

criticism

Basically, the Technology Acceptance Model is criticized for being subject to innovation positivism in that it is characterized by a positive basic attitude towards technologies and, when considering reasons for rejection in the use of technology, disregarding negative properties of an innovation.

While the Technology Acceptance Model is seen as a robust model, it has been criticized for being too simple ( parsimonious ) to explain complex psychological processes such as behavior and technology acceptance . The more complex successor models TAM2 and TAM3, on the other hand, are criticized for being too complex and inflexible to reliably explain the behavior and technology acceptance of users.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Davis, F. (1985), A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems - theory and results, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Inst. Of Technology.
  2. ↑ Davis, F., Bagozzi, P. and Warshaw, P. (1989), 'User acceptance of computer technology - a comparison of two theoretical models', Management Science 35 (8), 982-1003.
  3. ↑ Christie, B. (1981), Face to File Communication - A Psychological Approach to Information Systems, Wiley.
  4. ^ Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice Hall.
  5. ↑ Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F. (2000), 'A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies.', Management science 46 (2), 186-204.
  6. ^ Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, F. and Davis, M. (2003), 'User acceptance of information technology - toward a unified view', MIS Quarterly 27 (3), 425-478.
  7. ^ Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008), 'Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions', Decision Science 39 (2), 273-315.
  8. ↑ King, WR (2006), 'A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model', Information & Management 43 (6), 740-755.
  9. ↑ Schepers, J. (2007), 'A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model - investigating subjective norm and moderation effects', Information & Management 44 (1), 90-103.
  10. ^ Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior - An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley.
  11. ^ Ajzen, I .: The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes . 1991, p. 50, 179-211 .
  12. ↑ Olof Leps: Use and acceptance of e-government specialist applications in public administration . Logos Verlag, Berlin 2016, ISBN 978-3-8325-4272-6 , p. 24 .