Quality Evaluation Models - High Level Models and Methodologies for Information Systems - page 91

unreasonable to expect that one model and one so simple, would explain decisions
and behavior fully across a wide range of technologies, adoption situations, and
differences in decision making and decision makers.

(Bagozzi 2007 ).
Nevertheless, the fundamental simplicity of the TAM also makes it very easy to
use as the starting point to design a more complex framework. Indeed, many
researchers have attempted to expand the TAM, instead of merely creating a new
model altogether, which in itself accounts for the usefulness of Davis

”

' ground-

breaking work as an outline for research.

6.3 Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2)

The TAM was later expanded upon into what would be designated as TAM 2. This
new approach tried to address some of the shortcomings of its predecessor, namely
the lack of plausible justi cations for a user to deem a system as useful. It was

developed by Venkatesh and Davis ( 2000 ), who noted that in many of the studies
that used the TAM as a research model, the variable of perceived usefulness
consistently proved to be the most important variable in determining system use.
Therefore, it was necessary to expand that particular concept and pinpoint the
determinants of perceived usefulness, and what kind of in

uence and interactions
those determinants could effect on system use (Venkatesh and Davis 2000 ).
The authors extended the TAM by integrating supplementary theoretical
frameworks: social influence and cognitive instruments (Venkatesh and Davis
2000 ). By exploring the social in uence process and the cognitive instrumental

process, TAM2 provides an explanation for the impact of the multiplicity of
variables on the two main precepts of TAM: perceived usefulness and behavioral
intention (Venkatesh and Bala 2008 ). Also, TAM2 supports the idea that the per-
ceived usefulness of a technology is in

is relevance in the sense
that if the users possess a full understanding of the knowledge and the tools that
concern their work, the adoption of the technology will have a positive effect on job
pro

uenced by the job '

ciency and hence affect perceived usefulness (Lee et al. 2010 ).
According to the new interpretation of the TAM, there are three interrelated
social forces that can in uence an individual who is deciding whether to adopt or

reject a system. The first is subjective norm, which encompasses the perceived

intentions and beliefs of the social web in which the user is inserted, such as the
opinions of other people around him/her. The user might not have decided to adopt
a system if other people who are considered to be important references to him/her
did not endorse it (Venkatesh and Davis 2000 ).
The second social force is voluntariness, understood as compliance with social

in uence, which refers to the degree to which the user perceives he/she has a choice

in using the system. It was found, in some studies, that even when users perceive
system use to be mandatory, their adoption can vary if they are less willing to
adhere to the organizational mandates (Venkatesh and Davis 2000 ). In this context,
it is also important to recognize the role of the internalization of social influence,