AutoCAD: examination of factors influencing user adoption

• Autorzy: Baj-Rogowska Anna

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/emj-2020-0004

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The primary purpose of the research is to examine and validate determinants of user intention to use AutoCAD software, utilising the constructs from prior studies in a more integrated model. The paper proposes a revised Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) for measuring the adoption of AutoCAD. In the study, a latent construct PPA (perceived physical accessibility) was added to the proposed research model as a new determinant of AutoCAD adoption. An online survey of AutoCAD users was conducted to collect data. This data was empirically used to test the proposed research model. The Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) technique was used to evaluate the causal model, and the confirmatory factor analysis was performed to examine the reliability and validity of the measurement model. The study results show that user behavioural intention to use AutoCAD is significantly affected by three determinants: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived physical accessibility of the software. This finding contributes to an expanded understanding of the factors that promote acceptance of AutoCAD software. Moreover, the main contribution of this study is to verify the impact of the added PPA variable on the behavioural intention to use and the actual use of AutoCAD, and also to create measurement scales for this new latent variable in TAM.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Technology Acceptance Model; TAM; AutoCAD software; determinant of IT adoption; IT accessibility

PL

model akceptacji technologii; TAM; oprogramowanie AutoCAD; wyznacznik przyjęcia IT; dostępność IT

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Białostockiej
• Czasopismo: Engineering Management in Production and Services
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 12, no. 1
• Strony: 45--56
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 41 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Baj-Rogowska Anna

• Gdańsk University of Technology, Poland

Bibliografia

• Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204-215.
• Ahmad, S.Z., & Khalid, K. (2017). The adoption of M-government services from the user’s perspectives Empirical evidence from the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Information Management, 37(5), 367-379.
• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, United States: Prentice-Hall.
• Akkucuk, U. (Ed.) (2014). Handbook of Research on Developing Sustainable Value in Economics. Finance and Marketing. United States: IGI Global.
• Bazelais, P., Doleck, T., & Lemay, D.J. (2017). Investigating the predictive power of TAM: A case study of CEGEP students’ intentions to use online learning technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 93-111. doi: 10.1007/s10639-017-9587-0
• Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, United States: Sage Publications.
• Changchit, C., & Chuchuen, C. (2018). Cloud computing: An examination of factors impacting users’ adoption. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 58(1), 1-9.
• Charles, V., & Kumar, M. (2014). Performance Measurement and Management. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Scholars Publishing.
• Chintalapati, N., & Daruri, V.S.K. (2016). Examining the Use of YouTube as a Learning resource in higher education: Scale development and Validation of TAM model. Telematics and Informatics, 34(6), 853-860. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.008
• Culnan, M.J. (1985). The Dimensions of Perceived Accessibility to Information: Implications for the Delivery of Information Systems and Services. Journal of the American Society of Information Sciences, 36, 302-308.
• Davis, F.D. (1986). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Cambridge, United States: MIT Sloan School of Management.
• Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease Of Use, And User Acceptance Of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. doi: 10.2307/249008
• Davis, F.D. (1993). User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475-487. doi: 10.1006/imms.1993.1022
• Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, United States: Addison-Wesley.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
• Groß, M. (2018). Heterogeneity in consumers’ mobile shopping acceptance: A finite mixture partial least squares modelling approach for exploring and characterising different shopper segments. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 8-18.
• Hair, J.F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall International.
• Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A.L.M. (1997). Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A structural equation model. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 279-305.
• Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., & Angst, C.M. (2006). Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 781-804.
• King, W.R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43(6), 740-755.
• Lai, V.S., & Li, H. (2000). Technology acceptance model for internet banking: An invariance analysis. Information and Management, 42(2), 373-386.
• Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Ramos de Luna, I., & Montoro-Ríos, F.J. (2015). User behaviour in QR mobile payment system: the QR Payment Acceptance Model. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(9), 1031-1049. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2015.1047757
• Lim, W.M. (2018). Dialectic Antidotes to Critics of the Technology Acceptance Model: Conceptual, Methodological, and Replication Treatments for Behavioural Modelling in Technology-Mediated Environments. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 22, 1-11. doi: 10.3127/ajis.v22i0.1651
• Moon, J.W., & Kim, Y.G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information and Management, 38, 217-230.
• Park, E., Cho, Y., Han J., & Kwon, S.J. (2017). Comprehensive Approaches to User Acceptance of Internet of Things in a Smart Home Environment. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 4(6), 2342-2350.
• 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.
• Przechlewski, T. (2012). Modelowanie satysfakcji, użyteczności i wykorzystania oprogramowania Open Source [Modeling the satisfaction, usability and use of Open Source software]. Gdańsk, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
• Rice, R.E., & Shook, D. (1988). Access to, Usage of, and Outcomes from an Electronic Message System. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(3), 255-276.
• Sangi, N., Shuguang, L., & Sangi, A.R. (2018). Robustness of factors influencing social media usage/adoption amongst SMEs in developing countries: A case of Pakistan. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 103-109. doi: 10.1145/3183586.3183600
• Sobh, T. (ed.), (2010). Innovations and Advances in Computer Sciences and Engineering. Switzerland: Springer Science & Business Media.
• Teo, T.S.H., Lim, V.K.G., & Lai, R.Y.C. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in internet usage. Omega, 27(1), 25-37.
• Thong, J.Y.L., Hong, W., & Tam, K. (2002). Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: What are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 215-242.
• Ul Hassan, M., Iqbal, A., & Iqbal, Z. (2018). Factors affecting the adoption of internet banking in Pakistan: An integration of technology acceptance model and theory of planned behaviour. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 28(3), 342-370.
• Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
• Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (1996). A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-481. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x
• Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
• 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), 425-478.
• Wai I.S.H., Ng S.S.Y., Chiu D.K.W., Ho K.K.W., & Lo P. (2018). Exploring undergraduate students’ usage pattern of mobile apps for education. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 50(1), 34-47.
• Wu, J.H., & Wang, S.C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 42, 719-729.
• Zarantonello, L., & Pauwels-Delassus, V. (2015). The Handbook of Brand Management Scales. New York, United State: Taylor & Francis Group.