Do telematics technologies help to manage road transport enterprises? Evidence from SME in Poland

• Autorzy: Zalewski Wojciech , Osińska Magdalena , Żurek Mirosława

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2022.157.46

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: This study evaluates the acceptance of GPS/GPRS-based telematics technology in freight road transport companies registered in Poland. Design/methodology/approach: The evaluation is based on a survey of 500 representative road transport companies carried out in 2020. The Technology Acceptance Model was estimated, and its results were checked for robustness. The scope of the information collected in telematics systems is defined in terms of its perceived utility and perceived ease of use at the operational management level. The latent factors affecting technology use are defined and implemented. Findings: Most respondents (80%) claimed that telematics systems had a considerable influence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the whole company's operation. It contributed to a higher number of orders executed per time unit, more effective use of the driver's working time, and increased the entrepreneurs' trust in the company. The companies employing more workers recognize the higher usefulness of telematics systems and are motivated to use the technology more widely than smaller enterprises. TAMs estimated separately for small and medium-sized enterprises did not significantly differ among the parameter estimates. Research limitations/implications: The Technology Acceptance Model is a useful analytical tool for evaluating telematics technology acceptance by the road transport sector. The study is based on a random sample of enterprises observed once in 2020. It is recommended to monitor them in two or three waves to compare the dynamics of the telematics usage process. It is planned to continue the study in that direction. Practical implications: The outcomes are valuable in practice twofold. Firstly, the extension of telematics systems use is interesting for final users, i.e., road transport companies that will find scope for their application. Secondly, the results are helpful for system providers who get knowledge on telematics perception from enterprise management. Originality/value: Although widely applied to other IT systems, the TAM model has not been used to evaluate the use of telematics in road transport companies. The paper justifies TAM's categories at the operational management level in road transport enterprises, contributing to understanding managers' behavioral aspects of decision-making.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Intelligent Transport Systems; technology acceptance model; Structural Equation Model; road transportation; small and medium enterprises; ITS; TAM; SEM

PL

Inteligentne Systemy Transportowe; model akceptacji technologii; model równania strukturalnego; transport drogowy; małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: z. 157
• Strony: 723--740
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 35 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Zalewski Wojciech

• Department of Logistics, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4318-6752

autor

Osińska Magdalena

• Department of Economics, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9796-2892

autor

Żurek Mirosława

• Department of Econometrics and Statistics, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9796-2892

Bibliografia

• 1. Aczel, A.D., Sounderpandian, J. (2002). Complete Business Statistics. Boston, Mass: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
• 2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 2, 179-211 https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
• 3. Analoui, F., Karami, A. (2003). Strategic Management in Small and Medium Enterprises. University of Bradford.
• 4. Bäumler, I., Kotzab, H. (2017). Intelligent Transport Systems for Road Freight Transport—An Overview. In: M. Freitag. H. Kotzab, J. Pannek (eds), Dynamics in Logistics. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45117-6_25.
• 5. Benbasat, I., Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), http://dx.doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00126.
• 6. Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.
• 7. Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS. New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805534.
• 8. Chen H.-H., Chen, S.-C. (2011). Applying the TAM to travellers' usage intentions of GPS devices. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 6217-6221, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.047.
• 9. Chen H.-H., Chen, S.-C. (2009). The empirical study of automotive telematics acceptance in Taiwan: comparing three Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal Mobile Communications, 7(1), https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2009.021672.
• 10. Davis, F. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• 11. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
• 12. Dillon, A., Morris, M. (1998). From "can they" to "will they?": extending usability evaluation to address acceptance. E. Hoadley, I. Benbasat (eds.). Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS). Baltimore: Univ. of Baltimore. http://aisle.aisnet.org/amcis1998/325.
• 13. Efron, B., Tibshirani, R. (1986). Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals, and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy. Statistical Science, 1(1), 54-75.
• 14. EU Transport and figures (2020). https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/da0cd68e-1fdd-11eb-b57e-01aa75ed71a1, 02.02.2021.
• 15. Fernandez-Hernandez, I., Senni, T., Calle, D., Cancela, S., Vecchione, G.A., Seco Grandos, G. (2020). Analysis of High - Accuracy Satellite Messages for Road Applications. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 12, (3), 92-108, https://doi.org/10.1109/MITS.2020.2994074.
• 16. Fischer, M., Imgrund, F., Janiesch, C., Winkelmann, A. (2020). Strategy archetypes for digital transformation: Definingmeta objectives using business process management, Information & Management, 57, 5, 103262, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103262.
• 17. Humphreys, T.E., Murrian, M.J., Narula, L. (2020). Deep-Urban Unaided Precise Global Navigation Satellite System Vehicle Positioning. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 12, 3, 109-122, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITS.2020.2994121.
• 18. Kassas, Z.Z.M., Maaref, M., Morales, J.J., Khalife, J.J., Shamei, K. (2020). Robust Vehicular Localization and Map Matching in Urban Environments Through IMU, GNSS, and Cellular Signals. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 12, 3, 36-25, https://doi.10.1109/MITS.2020.2994110.
• 19. Lewiński, A., Perzyński, T. (2019). Telematics as a New Method of Transport System Safety Verification. Research Methods and Solutions to Current Transport Problems, 266-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27687-4_27.
• 20. Moskal, A. (2018). The Impact of Brexit on the European Union's Future Development in the Context of European Integration. Torun International Studies, 1(11), 25-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/TIS.2018.002.
• 21. Nordhof, S., Louw,T., Innamaa,S., Lehtonen, E., Beuster, A., Torrao, G., Bjorvatn, A., Kessel, T., Malin, F., Happee, R., Merat, N. (2020). Using the UTAUT2 model to explain public acceptance of conditionally automated (L3) cars: A questionnaire study among 9.118 car drivers from European countries. Transportation Research Part F, 74, 280-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.07.015.
• 22. Park, E., Kim, K.K., Jin, D., del Pobil, A.P. (2012). Towards a successful mobile map services: An Empirical Examination of Technology Acceptance Model. International Conference on Networked Digital Technologies, 420-428. https://org/10.1007/978/-3-642-30507-8_36.
• 23. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• 24. Probst, L., Pedersen, B., Lonkeu, O., Martinez-Diaz, K., Araujo, C., Klitou, L.N., Rasmussen, M. (2017). Digital Transformation Scoreboard 2017: Evidence of positive outcomes and current opportunities for EU businesses. The European Commission.. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/21501/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf, 10.2021.
• 25. Rajesh, K. Pillania (2008). Strategic issues in knowledge management in small and medium enterprises Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6, 334-338. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2008.21.
• 26. Turner, J.R., Ledwith, A., Kelly, J. (2009). Project management in small to medium‐sized enterprises: A comparison between firms by size and industry. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(2), 282-296. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370910949301.
• 27. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
• 28. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872.
• 29. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Science, 39(2), 273-312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
• 30. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, F.D., Davis, G.B. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27, 3, 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
• 31. Yang, L., Bian, Y., Zhao, X., Liu, X., Yao, X. (2021). Drivers' acceptance of mobile navigation applications: An extended technology acceptance model considering drivers' sense of direction, navigation application affinity and distraction perception. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 145, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102507.
• 32. Weaver, B., Wuensch, K.L. (2013). SPSS and SAS programs for comparing Pearson correlations and OLS regression coefficients. Behavavior Research Methods, 45, 880-895. https://doi.10.3758/s13428-012-0289-7.
• 33. Zalewski, W. (2019). Telematics systems in road transport. Journal of Positive Management, 10(1), 3-20, http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/JPM.2019.001.
• 34. Zalewski, W. (2020). Advantages and limitations to application of telematics systems in the road transport industry in Poland. 36th International Business Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA), Granada, Spain, 4-5 November 2020. ISBN: 978-0-9998551-5-7.
• 35. Żurek, M. (2016). Behavioral inclinations in financial markets in the light of SEMs (In Polish), Torun: NCU Publishing House.

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).