Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
stating that no single factor will determine the success or failure of technological innovation, but
that it is the combination of many factors across disciplines such as social, political and economic,
which may explain innovation effectiveness.
Communication channel speaks to how this 'new' idea is exchanged or passed on from one
individual to others (Rogers 1994). While diffusion of the innovation is critical to the adoption
process it does not guarantee innovation adoption. It is, however, a prerequisite for adoption
since the use of an innovation would require previous knowledge of its existence and usefulness.
Hoffman and Roman (1984) viewed information fl ow as having two key dimensions in
organizations: the origin of the information and the emphasis on innovation. Although leadership
is not explicitly stated it is inherent in their argument. The second dimension in particular is
dependent on leadership decisions and may be infl uenced through organizational culture or
strategy. Additionally innovations are likely to be deemed more legitimate if they originate with
organizational leadership. Information fl ow about innovation may have become easier however
through the speed of the Internet, which has had a revolutionary impact (Xue 2005). While this
may hold partial validity, it does not explain what drives the diffusion of information about the
Internet as an innovation itself.
Technology acceptance and adoption
The work of Zhou (2008) categorizes innovation diffusion research as covering three levels:
individual, organizational and national. Much of the same drivers of innovation diffusion such as
personal, situational, social, socioeconomic, market and infrastructural factors, can be found at
these three levels. Zhou further argues that a fourth level known as the intra-organizational level
should be introduced which articulated varying levels of adoption within the organization taking
into account how persons respond differently to various stimuli. These are termed as voluntary
adopters, forced adopters, resistant non-adopters and dormant non-adopters.
In addition to the seminal work of Rogers, however, the
Technology Acceptance Model
by Davis
(1989) argues that the degree to which a person feels that the technology will require little or
no effort determines perceived ease of use. Therefore if there seems to be added value to a
process, individuals are more likely to accept technology.
Lederer et al
. (1998) support the notion
that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were the primary factors which led to an
intention to use and ultimately usage behaviour. A key weakness in the TAM is that it only
focuses on cognitive processes of the individual. This essentially places this technology decision
model within micro decision-making models. The importance of combining the infl uence of
personal factors as well as social systems which was previously articulated makes the TAM very
limited in its approach. Perceptions of usefulness and ease of use are often infl uenced by attitude
(Wöber and Gretzel 2000). The idea of technology attitude is critical to the discussion and forms
an important part of the adoption debate. Theorists focusing on attitude and personal behaviour
have, however, looked at personal usage intentions without suffi ciently considering the impact
of macro issues. It may be argued that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and attitudes
are affected by demographic factors such as age and education. Another important personal
factor is the role of learning in adoption. Bagozzi
et al
. (1992) developed a discussion of the
importance of the role of 'learning to use' the computer in the overall adoption process. This was
an important development in the literature as previous arguments tended to focus in a limited
way on the act of using computers.
In contrast to the proponents of the TAM, contemporary researchers such as Dulle and
Minishi-Manjanja (2011) found support in their research for the Unifi ed Theory of Acceptance
and Use of Technology Model. This model identifi es in addition to personal factors such as
