Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Literature review of technology adoption models and theories | Coms Paper
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Please check the attached document for reference.A local community college has a problem with retention of students. The community college has done some preliminary research and found out that students feel disconnected and do not know what is going on with their course schedules, degree programs, and options. The community college’s board of directors has decided through the use of a consultant that a mobile phone application that runs on Apple and Android smartphones is the best strategy to help with the perceived feeling of being ‘disconnected’ by the students.You are in charge of coming up with a solution, essentially the application and making sure that this is going to be integrated with the school’s information systems (none are specified, so make some assumptions) which is going to provide students with information. What are some of the basic features that you would put in the application?How can you measure the potential success of the program before it is implemented?Who are your stakeholders in the project and how can they be useful to you in answering the question of whether or not they would use the program?Please make sure that the paper is APA formatted, citations and references, as well. Please reference some of the models that are mentioned in the article and/or a model or approach that you have found that you think will be more effective.JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
THE LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION MODELS
AND THEORIES FOR THE NOVELTY TECHNOLOGY
PC Lai
Help University, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
This paper contributes to the existing literature by comprehensively reviewing the concepts,
applications and development of technology adoption models and theories based on the literature
review with the focus on potential application for the novelty technology of single platform Epayment. These included, but were not restricted to, the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations (DIT)
(Rogers, 1995), the Theory of Reasonable Action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), Theory of
Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985, 1991), Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour,
(Taylor and Todd, 1995), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, Bogozzi and
Warshaw, 1989, Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) Venkatesh and Davis (2000) and
Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) Venkatesh and Bala (2008). These reviews will shed
some light and potential applications for technology applications for future researchers to
conceptualize, distinguish and comprehend the underlying technology models and theories that
may affect the previous, current and future application of technology adoption.
Keywords: TAM, TRA, TBP, DIT, TTF, technology adoption, single platform E-payment
1. INTRODUCTION
Constant technological change simultaneously creates threats to established business
models, while also offering opportunities for novel service offerings (Lai, 2006; 2007; 2010;
2016). Leading firms often seek to shape the evolution of technological applications to their own
advantage (Lovelock, 2001; Lai, 2007). With the advanced and dynamic growth of technologies,
how fast the consumers are accepting these technologies depends on a number of factors such as
availability of technology, convenience, consumers’ need, security etc. There have been a
number of researchers addressing the consumers’ adoption of new technologies (Meuter,
Ostrom, Roundtree, and Bitner, 2000; Dapp, Stobbe, and Wruuck. 2012; Lai and Zainal, 2014,
2015; Lai, 2016). Therefore, this paper presents the literature review of the technology
acceptance models and theories leading to the development of the novel technology single
platform E-payment theoretical framework.
Manuscript first received/Recebido em: 2017/02/19 Manuscript accepted/Aprovado em: 2017/04/19
JISTEM, Brazil
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017
pp. 21-38 www.jistem.fea.usp.br
JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
This paper analyzed the technology adoption models and theories leading to the
theoretical framework for an integrated E-payment system known as the “single platform Epayment System” of the technology acceptance for Card, Internet and Mobile. These included,
but were not restricted to, the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations (DIT) (Rogers, 1995) that
started in 1960, the Theory of Task-technology fit (TTF) (Goodhue, and Thompson, 1995), the
Theory of Reasonable Action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPB) (Ajzen, 1985, 1991), Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour, (Taylor and Todd,
1995), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, Bogozzi and Warshaw, 1989), Final
version of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Venkatesh and Davis (1996), Technology
Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) Venkatesh and Davis (2000), Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology (UTAUT), Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis (2003) and Technology
Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) Venkatesh and Bala (2008). This review could shed some light
and potential applications for technology applications for future researchers to conceptualize,
distinguish and comprehend the underlying technology models and theories that might affect the
previous, current and future application of technology adoption.
2. TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION MODELS AND THEORIES
Hoenig (1995) as well as Lai (2016) noted that the rate at which payment systems
develop depends largely on a struggle between rapid technological change and natural barriers to
new product or service acceptance. A number of theories have proposed to explain consumers’
acceptance of new technologies and their intention to use. These included, but were not restricted
to, the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations (DIT) (Rogers, 1995) that started in 1960, the Theory
of Task-technology fit (TTF) (Goodhue, and Thompson, 1995), the Theory of Reasonable Action
(TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985, 1991),
Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour, (Taylor and Todd, 1995), the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, Bogozzi and Warshaw, 1989), Final version of Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) Venkatesh and Davis (1996), Technology Acceptance Model 2
(TAM2) Venkatesh and Davis (2000), Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT), Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis (2003) and Technology Acceptance Model 3
(TAM3) Venkatesh and Bala (2008).
Rogers (1995) proposed that the theory of ‘diffusion of innovation’ was to establish the
foundation for conducting research on innovation acceptance and adoption. Rogers synthesized
research from over 508 diffusion studies and came out with the ‘diffusion of innovation’ theory
for the adoption of innovations among individuals and organization. The theory explicates “the
process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the
members of a social system” (Rogers, 1995, p. 5).
Basically, it’s the process of the members of a social system communicated an innovation
through certain channels over time known as diffusion. The Rogers’ (1995) diffusion of
JISTEM, Brazil
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017
pp. 21-38 www.jistem.fea.usp.br
JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
innovation theory explained that the innovation and adoption happened after going through
several stages including understanding, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation
that led to the development of Rogers (1995) S-shaped adoption curve of innovators, early
adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Innovation Adoption Curve (Roger, 1995)
Technology readiness (TR) refers to people’s propensity to embrace and use of new
technologies for accomplishing goals in home life and at work (Parasuraman and Colby, 2001).
Based on individual’s technology readiness score and the technology readiness, Parasuraman and
Colby (2001) further classified technology consumers into five technology readiness segments of
explorers, pioneers, skeptics, paranoids, and laggards. This is similar to Rogers (1995) S-shaped
adoption curve of innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. The
Diffusion of innovation or Technology readiness is vital for organization implementation success
because it is market focus.
According to Goodhue et al. (1995), Task-technology Fit (TTF) emphasizes individual
impact. Individual impact refers to improved efficiency, effectiveness, and/or higher quality.
Goodhue et al. (1995) assumed that the good fit between task and technology is to increase the
likelihood of utilization and also to increase the performance impact since the technology meets
the task needs and wants of users more closely. As shown in Figure 2, this model is suitable for
investigating the actual usage of the technology especially testing of new technology to get
feedback. The task-technology fit is good for measuring the technology applications already
release in the marketplace like in the google play store or apple store app (iTunes) etc.
JISTEM, Brazil
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017
pp. 21-38 www.jistem.fea.usp.br
JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
Figure 2. Task-technology fit (Goodhue and Thompson, 1995)
The Theory of Reasonable Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) is one of the most popular
theories used and is about one factor that determines behavioural intention of the person’s
attitudes toward that behaviour as shown in Figure 3. Fishbien and Ajzen (1975) defined
“attitude” as the individual’s evaluation of an object and defined “belief” as a link between an
object and some attribute, and defined “behaviour” as a result or intention. Attitudes are affective
and based upon a set of beliefs about the object of behaviour (e.g: Credit card is convenient). A
second factor is the person’s subjective norms of what they perceive their immediate
community’s attitude to certain behaviour (e.g: my peers are using credit card and it’s a status to
have one).
JISTEM, Brazil
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017
pp. 21-38 www.jistem.fea.usp.br
JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
Figure 3. The Theory of Reasonable Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)
Ajzen (1991) developed Theory of Planned Behavior which is about one factor that
determines behavioural intention of the person’s attitudes toward that behaviour as shown in
Figure 4. The first two factors are the same as Theory of Reasonable Action (Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975). The third factor that is known as the perceived control behaviour is the control which
users perceive that may limit their behaviour (e.g: Can I apply for the credit card and what are
the requirements?).
Figure 4. The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991)
JISTEM, Brazil
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017
pp. 21-38 www.jistem.fea.usp.br
JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour (Decomposed TPB) was introduced by
Taylor and Todd (1995). The Decomposed TPB consists of three main factors influencing
behavior intention and actual behavior adoption which are attitude, subjective norms and
perceived behavior control. Shih and Fang (2004) examined the adoption of internet banking by
means of the TPB as well as Decomposed TPB.
There has been a great deal of research on the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980; Sheppard, Hartwick, and Warshaw, 1988) Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen,
1991) and Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour, (Taylor and Todd, 1995) but mostly used
for products already in the marketplace and included the view of society (Subjective norm).
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was introduced by Fred Davis in 1986 for his
doctorate proposal as shown in Figure 5. An adaptation of Theory of Reasonable Action, TAM is
specifically tailored for modeling users’ acceptance of information systems or technologies.
Figure 5. Original Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1986).
In 1989, Davis used TAM to explain computer usage behaviour as shown in Figure 6.
The goal of Davis’ (1989) TAM is to explain the general determinants of computer acceptance
that lead to explaining users’ behaviour across a broad range of end-user computing technologies
and user populations. The basic TAM model included and tested two specific beliefs: Perceived
Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEU). Perceived Usefulness is defined as the
potential user’s subjective likelihood that the use of a certain system (e.g: single platform Epayment System) will improve his/her action and Perceived Ease of Use refers to the degree to
which the potential user expects the target system to be effortless (Davis, 1989). The belief of the
JISTEM, Brazil
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017
pp. 21-38 www.jistem.fea.usp.br
JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
person towards a system may be influenced by other factors referred to as external variables in
TAM.
Figure 6. First modified version of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, Bogozzi and Warshaw, 1989).
The final version of Technology Acceptance Model was formed by Venkatesh and Davis
(1996) as shown in Figure 7 after the main finding of both perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use were found to have a direct influence on behaviour intention, thus eliminating the
need for the attitude construct.
Figure 7. Final version of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Venkatesh and Davis, 1996).
Venkatesh and Davis (2000) proposed the TAM 2 as shown in Figure 8. This study
provided more detail explanations for the reasons users found a given system useful at three (3)
points in time: pre-implementation, one month post-implementation and three month postimplementation. TAM2 theorizes that users’ mental assessment of the match between important
goals at work and the consequences of performing job tasks using the system serves as a basis
for forming perceptions regarding the usefulness of the system (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).
The results revealed that TAM 2 performed well in both voluntary and mandatory environment.
JISTEM, Brazil
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017
pp. 21-38 www.jistem.fea.usp.br
JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
Figure 8. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM 2) (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).
Venkatesh and Bala (2008) combined TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and the model
of the determinants of perceived ease of use (Venkatesh, 2000), and developed an integrated
model of technology acceptance known as TAM3 shown in Figure 9. The authors developed the
TAM3 using the four different types including the individual differences, system characteristics,
social influence, and facilitating conditions which are determinants of perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use. In TAM3 research model, the perceived ease of use to perceived
usefulness, computer anxiety to perceived ease of use and perceived ease of use to behavioral
intention were moderated by experiences. The TAM3 research model was tested in real-world
settings of IT implementations.
JISTEM, Brazil
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017
pp. 21-38 www.jistem.fea.usp.br
JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
Figure 9. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM 3) (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).
JISTEM, Brazil
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017
pp. 21-38 www.jistem.fea.usp.br
JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
Figure 10. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis,
2003).
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis (2003) studied from the previous models/theories
and formed Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) shown in Figure
10. The UTAUT has four predictors of users’ behavioral intention and there are performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions. The five similar
constructs including perceived usefulness, extrinsic motivation, job-fit, relative advantage and
outcome expectations form the performance expectancy in the UTAUT model while effort
expectancy captures the notions of perceived ease of use and complexity. As for the social
context, Venkatesh et al. (2003) validation tests found that social influence was not significant in
voluntary contexts.
2.1 COMPARING THE MODELS
The TAM, TRA, TPB, TAM2, TAM3 and UTAUT have been used over the years by
various researchers to explain the adoption technology systems. This section will briefly discuss
the comparisons of these theories and lead to why TAM is selected for the novel technology of
single platform E-payment.
JISTEM, Brazil
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017
pp. 21-38 www.jistem.fea.usp.br
JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
These studies provide different context and methodology measuring different variables
using different models in different settings. After reviewing all the technology adoption models,
this paper will discuss the three most likely technology adoption models by comparing the
Technology Acceptance Models (TAM), Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Theory of
Planned Behavior (TPB). In addition, this paper will discuss the extension TAM models TAM2,
TAM3, UTAUT as well and then discuss the TAM as framework for the novel technology of
single platform E-payment.
2.2 COMPARING TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODELS (TAM), THEORY OF
REASONED ACTION (TRA) AND THEORY OF PHANNED BEHAVIOR (TPB)
Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw’s (1989) study compared the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) with Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and resulted in the convergence of TAM
and TRA. This led to a model based on the three theoretical determinants which are the
perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and behaviour intention. The study found social
norms (SN) as an important determinant of behavior intention to be weak. TAM does not include
social norms (SN) as a determinant of behavior intention (BI), which is an important
determinant, theorized by Theory of Reasoned Action TRA and Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPB).
Mathieson (1991) and Yi, Jackson, Park, and Probst (2006) argued that human and social
factors could play a role in the adoption of technology using TPB model. Therefore, the TAM
could be extended with constructs from the TPB to incorporate the social factors that could
explain technology adoption. Nevertheless, the TPB in Chau and Hu (2002) noted that social
norm and behavior intention to use finding was negative and did not support that social norm
would influence behavior intention. Shih and Fang (2004) also examined the adoption of internet
banking by means of the TPB as well as Decomposed TPB and found that it was in line with the
findings of Venkatesh and Davis (2000) that subjective norm was likely to have a significant
influence on behavioural intention to use in a mandatory environment, whilst the effect could be
insignificant in a voluntary environment. Since, this study is voluntary; therefore the Shih and
Fang (2004) study will not apply in the novel technology of single platform E-payment System.
Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw (1989) explained that social norms scales had a very poor
psychometric standpoint, and might not exert any influence on consumers’ behavior intention,
especially when the information system application like single platform E-payment System was
fairly personal while individual usage was voluntary. TAM was also specifically designed to
address the factors of users’ system technology acceptance (Chau and Hu 2002). Thus, the
comparisons of the study confirmed that Technology Acceptance Model was easy to apply
across different research settings. Han (2003) as well as Lai and Zainal (2014; 2015) noted that
using TAM capability was favorable compared with TRA and TPB.
JISTEM, Brazil
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017
pp. 21-38 www.jistem.fea.usp.br
JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Apr., 2017 pp. 21-38
ISSN online: 1807-1775
DOI: 10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
2.3 COMPARING TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODELS (TAM), TAM2, TAM3 AND
UTAUT
TAM2, an extensi…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

error: Content is protected !!