Background
TAM is one of the most influential extensions of Ajzen and Fishbein's theory of reasoned action (TRA) in the literature. Davis's technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) is the most widely applied model of users' acceptance and usage of technology (Venkatesh, 2000). It was developed by Fred Davis and Richard Bagozzi (, ). TAM replaces many of TRA's attitude measures with the two technology acceptance measures—''ease of use'', and ''usefulness''. TRA and TAM, both of which have strong behavioural elements, assume that when someone forms an intention to act, that they will be free to act without limitation. In the real world there will be many constraints, such as limited freedom to act (). Bagozzi, Davis and Warshaw say: Earlier research on theUsage
Several researchers have replicated Davis's original study () to provide empirical evidence on the relationships that exist between usefulness, ease of use and system use (; ; ; ; ; ). Much attention has focused on testing the robustness and validity of the questionnaire instrument used by Davis. Adams et al. () replicated the work of Davis () to demonstrate the validity and reliability of his instrument and his measurement scales. They also extended it to different settings and, using two different samples, they demonstrated the internal consistency and replication reliability of the two scales. Hendrickson et al. () found high reliability and good test-retest reliability. Szajna () found that the instrument had predictive validity for intent to use, self-reported usage and attitude toward use. The sum of this research has confirmed the validity of the Davis instrument, and to support its use with different populations of users and different software choices. Segars and Grover () re-examined Adams et al.'s () replication of the Davis work. They were critical of the measurement model used, and postulated a different model based on three constructs: usefulness, effectiveness, and ease-of-use. These findings do not yet seem to have been replicated. However, some aspects of these findings were tested and supported by Workman () by separating the dependent variable into information use versus technology use. Mark Keil and his colleagues have developed (or, perhaps rendered more popularisable) Davis's model into what they call the Usefulness/ EOU Grid, which is a 2×2 grid where each quadrant represents a different combination of the two attributes. In the context of software use, this provides a mechanism for discussing the current mix of usefulness and EOU for particular software packages, and for plotting a different course if a different mix is desired, such as the introduction of even more powerful software (). The TAM model has been used in most technological and geographic contexts. One of these contexts is health care, which is growing rapidly Venkatesh and Davis extended the original TAM model to explain perceived usefulness and usage intentions in terms of social influence (subjective norms, voluntariness, image) and cognitive instrumental processes (job relevance, output quality, result demonstrability, perceived ease of use). The extended model, referred to as TAM2, was tested in both voluntary and mandatory settings. The results strongly supported TAM2 (). * ''Subjective norm'' – An individual's perception that other individuals who are important to him/her/them consider if he/she/they could perform a behavior. This was consistent with the theory of reasoned action (TRA). * ''Voluntariness'' – This was defined by Venkatesh & Davis as "extent to which potential adopters perceive the adoption decision to be non-mandatory" (). * ''Image'' – This was defined by Moore & Benbasat as "the degree to which use of an innovation perceived to enhance one's status in one's social system" (). * ''Job relevance'' – Venkatesh & Davis defined this as personal perspective on the extent to which the target system is suitable for the job (). * ''Output quality'' – Venkatesh & Davis defined this as personal perception of the system's ability to perform specific tasks (). * ''Result demonstrability'' – The production of tangible results will directly influence the system's usefulness (). In an attempt to integrate the main competing user acceptance models, Venkatesh et al. formulated the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). This model was found to outperform each of the individual models (Adjusted R square of 69 percent) (). UTAUT has been adopted by some recent studies in healthcare. In addition, authors Jun, Yoon, and Lee also think that the technology acceptance model is essential to analyze the factors affecting customers’ behavior towards online food delivery services. It is also a widely adopted theoretical model to demonstrate the acceptance of new technology fields. The foundation of TAM is a series of concepts that clarifies and predicts people’s behaviors with their beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intention. In TAM, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, considered general beliefs, play a more vital role than salient beliefs in attitudes toward utilizing a particular technology.Alternative models
# The MPT model: Independent of TAM, Scherer () developed the matching person and technology model in 1986 as part of her National Science Foundation-funded dissertation research. The MPT model is fully described in her 1993 text (, 1st ed. 1993), "Living in the State of Stuck", now in its 4th edition. The MPT model has accompanying assessment measures used in technology selection and decision-making, as well as outcomes research on differences among technology users, non-users, avoiders, and reluctant users. # The HMSAM: TAM has been effective for explaining many kinds of systems use (i.e.Criticisms
TAM has been widely criticised, despite its frequent use, leading the original proposers to attempt to redefine it several times. Criticisms of TAM as a "theory" include its questionable heuristic value, limited explanatory and predictive power, triviality, and lack of any practical value (). Benbasat and Barki suggest that TAM "has diverted researchers' attention away from other important research issues and has created an illusion of progress in knowledge accumulation. Furthermore, the independent attempts by several researchers to expand TAM in order to adapt it to the constantly changing IT environments has lead to a state of theoretical chaos and confusion" (). In general, TAM focuses on the individual 'user' of a computer, with the concept of 'perceived usefulness', with extension to bring in more and more factors to explain how a user 'perceives' 'usefulness', and ignores the essentially social processes of IS development and implementation, without question where more technology is actually better, and the social consequences of IS use. Lunceford argues that the framework of perceived usefulness and ease of use overlooks other issues, such as cost and structural imperatives that force users into adopting the technology. For a recent analysis and critique of TAM, see Bagozzi (). Legris et al.Legris et al. 2003, p. 191. claim that, together, TAM and TAM2 account for only 40% of a technological system's use. Perceived ease of use is less likely to be a determinant of attitude and usage intention according to studies of telemedicine () mobile commerce (), and online banking ()See also
*Notes
References
* * * * * * * In V. Mahajan & Y. Wind (Eds.), ''Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance''. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * In N. Bjørn-Andersen, K. Eason, & D. Robey (Eds.), ''Managing computer impact: An international study of management and organizations'' * * * * * * * * * * * Okafor, D. J., Nico, M. & Azman, B. B. (2016). The influence of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness on the intention to use a suggested online advertising workflow. Canadian International Journal of Science and Technology, 6 (14), 162-174. {{refend Diffusion Innovation economics Product development Product lifecycle management Product management Science and technology studies Stage theories Sociology of culture Technological change Technology in society