Hoewel het Technology Acceptance Model al jaren lang erg veel wordt onderzocht in de literatuur, is er ook steeds meer kritiek gekomen. Door TAM te testen aan verschillende eisen die de literatuur stelt aan een goede theorie, blijkt dat TAM over het algemeen een zeer solide theorie is. De bruikbaarheid voor praktijksituaties is echter een van de belangrijkste
tekortkomingen van het model, omdat er onvoldoende advies wordt gegeven aan het management om de situatie te veranderen indien de uitkomst van TAM ongewenst is. Met slechts de opmerking dat de werknemers de technologie niet accepteren, kan men immers niet veel. Er blijkt een begin te zijn gemaakt aan de onderzoekstroming die managers wel de handvaten gaat geven die het nodig heeft, maar dit is nog lang niet zo breed als het onderzoek naar TAM zelf.
Onderzoek naar de acceptatie van technologie zou daarom vaker hand in hand moeten gaan met kwalitatief onderzoek, dat de redenen voor eventuele afwijzing van technologie achterhaalt. Daarnaast is het goed om het onderzoeksveld naar systeem design verder uit te breiden en te segmenteren, zodat het voor managers en designers makkelijker wordt om de juiste technologie bij de juiste doelgroep te vinden vóórdat er problemen ontstaan met de technologie acceptatie.
Dit onderzoek heeft gepoogd een potentieel gat in de literatuur verder uit te diepen en een goed advies te doen voor verder onderzoek. Er zijn echter ook beperkingen aan dit artikel. Zo is het volledig gericht op het Technology Acceptance Model en zijn andere, wellicht ook interessante, theorieën grotendeels buiten beschouwing gelaten. Zo zijn er theorieën rond innovation adoption (aannemen van een nieuw idee of innovatie, dus breder georiënteerd dan alleen technologie), diffusion (gericht op verspreiding van technologie en kan dus ook gaan over verspreiding op een ander niveau dan binnen een organisatie), en resistance (weerstand, als tegenovergestelde van acceptatie). Ook had het UTAUT als uitgangspunt genomen kunnen worden, aangezien sommigen dit als een superieur model zien ten opzichte van TAM. Door de grote hoeveelheid literatuur is er echter gekozen om voor nu de focus te behouden op TAM, maar er zou eenzelfde review gedaan kunnen worden op deze andere
veelal afgegaan op de vele artikelen die zijn gelezen en de meningen van gerenommeerde onderzoekers. Het zou bijvoorbeeld zeer nuttig zijn om uit te zoeken hoe veel managers en/of consultants gebruik maken van TAM. Ook zou het interessant kunnen zijn om een statistische meta analyse te maken van de aanbevelingen en adviezen die TAM-onderzoeken doen.
Bibliografie
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage 1. MIS quarterly, 24(4), 665- 694.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30 (2), pp. 361–391
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior (pp. 11-39). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Aken, J. E. V. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field‐ tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of management
studies, 41(2), 219-246.
Almahamid, S. O. U. D., Mcadams, C. A., AL Kalaldeh, T. A. H. E. R., & AL-Sa’eed, M. T. (2010). The relationship between perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived information quality, and intention to use e-government. Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Information Technology, 11(1), 30-44.
Althunibat, A., Zain, N.A.M., Sahari, N., (2011). The effect of social influence on mobile government adoption in Malaysia. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information
Technology (JATIT), 25(2).
Ammenwerth, E., Iller, C., & Mahler, C. (2006). IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: a fit framework and a case study. BMC Medical Informatics
and Decision Making, 6(1), 3.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of
management review, 14(4), 496-515.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift. Journal of the association for information systems, 8(4), 3.
Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis, TAM. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 8(4), 211-218.
Calisir, F., & Calisir, F. (2004). The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use to end-user satisfaction with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(4), 505-515.
Chuttur, M.Y., 2009. Overview of the technology acceptance model: origins, developments and future directions, Indiana University, USA. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information
Systems, 9(37).
Compeau, D., Marcolin, B., Kelley, H., & Higgins, C. (2012). Research Commentary – Generalizability of Information Systems Research Using Student Subjects – A Reflection on Our Practices and Recommendations for Future Research. Information Systems
Research, 23(4), 1093-1109.
Dahlberg, T., Mallat, N., & Öörni, A. (2003). Trust enhanced technology acceptance model- consumer acceptance of mobile payment solutions: Tentative evidence. Stockholm
Mobility Roundtable, 22-23.
Davis Jr, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology).
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (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.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS quarterly, 51-90.
Germonprez, M., Hovorka, D., & Collopy, F. (2007). A theory of tailorable technology design. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(6), 351-367.
Goodhue, D. L. (2007). Comment on Benbasat and Barki’s “Quo Vadis TAM” article. Journal
of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 219-222.
Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal,50(4), 775-782.
Ha, S., & Stoel, L. (2009). Consumer e-shopping acceptance: antecedents in a technology acceptance model. Journal of Business Research, 62(5), 565-571.
Harinck, F. J. H., & Vos, P. (2010). Basisprincipes praktijkonderzoek (Vol. 6). Maklu. He, H. A., Greenberg, S., & Huang, E. M. (2010, April). One size does not fit all: applying
the transtheoretical model to energy feedback technology design. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 927-936). ACM.
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B. T. (2010). The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. Journal of biomedical informatics, 43(1), 159-172.
Hu, P.J., Chau, P.Y.K., Liu Sheng, O.R., & Yan Tam, K. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 16 (2), pp. 91–112
Hughes, C. T., & Gibson, M. L. (1991). Students as surrogates for managers in a decision- making environment: An experimental study. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 8(2), 153-166.
Hunsinger, S., & Fransen, S. (2011). Factors Influencing People to Use Linux. Journal of
Information Systems Applied Research, 4(1), 30.
Igbaria, M., Iivari, J., & Maragahh, H. (1995). Why do individuals use computer technology? A Finnish case study. Information & Management, 29(5), 227-238.
Jackson, C.M., Chow, S., & Leitch, R.A. (1997). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decision Sciences, 28 (2), pp. 357–389
Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Information & Management, 35(4), 237-250.
Kayzel, R.A. (1993). Onderzoeken en adviseren. Kluwer bedrijfswetenschappen. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model.
Information & Management, 43(6), 740-755.
Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information systems research, 13(2), 205-223.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A. & Larsen, K.R.T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: past, present and future. Communications of the AIS, 12 (50), 752-80
Leeuw, A. C. J. (1996). Bedrijfskundige methodologie: management van onderzoek. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.
Legris, P., Ingham, J. & Collerette, P. (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of model. Information and Management 40 (3)
Lucas Jr, H. C., Swanson, E. B., & Zmud, R. (2007). Implementation, innovation, and related themes over the years in information systems research. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 8(4), 8.
Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2004). The technology acceptance model: a meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 16(1), 59-72. Mackenzie, K. D. (2000). Knobby analyses of knobless survey items, part I: The approach.
Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model to
account for social influence: theoretical bases and empirical validation. In System Sciences,
1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 14-pp). IEEE.
Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the
ACM, 26(6), 430-444.
Miner, J. B. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 296-306.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems
research, 2(3), 192-222.
Naor, M., Bernardes, E. S., & Coman, A. (2013). Theory of constraints: is it a theory and a good one?. International Journal of Production Research, 51(2), 542-554.
Olfman, L., & Mandviwalla, M. (1994). Conceptual versus procedural software training for graphical user interfaces: a longitudinal field experiment. Mis Quarterly, 405-426. Osigweh, C.A.B. (1989). Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 579-594.
Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International journal of electronic commerce, 7(3), 101-134.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research?. Academy of management review, 26(1), 22-40.
Rawstorne, P., Jayasuriya, R., & Caputi, P. (2000, December). Issues in predicting and explaining usage behaviors with the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior when usage is mandatory. Proceedings of the twenty first international
conference on Information systems(pp. 35-44). Association for Information Systems.
Rogers, E. M. (1976). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 290-301.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.
Saadé, R., & Bahli, B. (2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42(2), 317-327.
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44(1), 90-103.
Schuck, G. (1985). Intelligent technology, intelligent workers: A new pedagogy for the high- tech work place. Organizational Dynamics, 14(2), 66-79.
Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness. MIS
quarterly, 17(4), 517-525.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of
economics, 69(1), 99-118.
Straub, D. W., & Burton-Jones, A. (2007). Veni, vidi, vici: Breaking the TAM logjam.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 223-229.
Suh, B., & Han, I. (2003). Effect of trust on customer acceptance of Internet banking.
Electronic Commerce research and applications, 1(3), 247-263.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of
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.
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.
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., Davis, F. D., & Morris, M. G. (2007). Dead or alive? The development, trajectory and future of technology adoption research. Journal of the association for
information systems, 8(4), 267-286.
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS
quarterly, 115-139.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., & Speier, C. (1999). Computer technology training in the workplace: A longitudinal investigation of the effect of mood. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 79(1), 1-28.
Vijayasarathy, L. R. (2004). Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: the case for an augmented technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 41(6), 747- 762.
Wacker, J. G. (1998). A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 361-385.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 490-495.
Wu, I. L., & Chen, J. L. (2005). An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: an empirical study. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 62(6), 784-808.
Wu, J. H., & Wang, S. C. (2004). What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information & management, 42(5), 719-729. Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-
efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International journal of human-computer studies, 59(4), 431-449.
Yi, M. Y., Jackson, J. D., Park, J. S., & Probst, J. C. (2006). Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative
view. Information & Management, 43(3), 350-363.
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2010). Explaining internet banking
behavior: theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, or technology acceptance model?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1172-1202.
Zhang, N., Guo, X., & Chen, G. (2008). IDT-TAM integrated model for IT adoption.
Tsinghua Science & Technology, 13(3), 306-311.
Zhang, P., Li, N., & Sun, H. (2006, January). Affective quality and cognitive absorption: Extending technology acceptance research. In System Sciences, 2006. HICSS'06.
Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 8, pp. 207a-