Motivating employees into accepting information
communication technology at the workplace
A qualitative research to explore the factors that are perceived as important for
technology acceptance and motivation of technology acceptance in a Dutch
Multinational
Student Name: Wouter Rigters
Student Number: 10908048
Date: 24 – 06 – 2016
Supervisor: Dr. Lise A. van Oortmerssen
Master thesis Corporate Communication
Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam
2 Abstract
This research explores the acceptance of technology at the workplace and how management can influence the process of acceptance. The Technology Acceptance Models are regarded as the most influential theories on technology acceptance. This thesis will take into account the theory available in the Technology Acceptance Models and projects that in a case study regarding the Dutch multinational Heineken. Also is researched what interventions are recommended by employees in order to enhance the acceptance of technology. A qualitative research (N=13) is conducted in a case study about SharePoint at Heineken International. The analysis shows that job relevance, simplicity in design and structure of the technology, and opinion of peers are important for technology acceptance. Differences in acceptance are strongly influenced by difference in personality, organization, job and resources available to use the technology. Finally the analysis shows that managers motivate their employees to accept technology in various ways. Directional support such as clear communication will support in identifying the need and relevance of the technology. Content support such as training helps employees to understand the structure and design of technology. Above all, managers should not underestimate their influence on technology acceptance by their employees and should not underestimate the importance of involving employees in the development of technology.
3 Introduction
In the past decennia, information technology (IT) has taken great leaps in terms of development and even became fully integrated into our lives (Marangunic & Granic, 2015). From an organizational perspective, the recent changes in IT presented IT as a crucial factor in organization survival (Lia & Mahapatra, 1997). This is not surprising, considering the fact that research already showed that IT tools bring strategic value and support knowledge management, innovation, which in the end is a key aspect for the survival of an organization (Tallon, Kraemer & Gurbaxani, 2000; Neirotti & Paolucci, 2007; Gressgard, Amundsen, Merethe Aasen & Hansen, 2014). Surprisingly, when investing in new IT often the IT implementation fails (Legris, Ingham & Collerette, 2003; Feld & Stoddard, 2004).
The research of Bikson and Gutek (1984) showed that 40 percent of the technology implementations in organizations in the United States fail because of human or organizational problems. Human and organizational factors which influence the implementation and in the end the use of the technology, have been identified. For example the lack of motivation (Siegel, 2008). Most of these factors were combined in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) originally created by Davis (1986) (Bailey & Pearson, 1983; Cheney, Mann & Amoroso, 1986; Chau, 1996). Over time, more internal and external factors were added to the model and even new models were created that were based on the TAM (Siegel, 2008; Marangunic & Granic, 2015).
Although much research has been conducted on the subject of technology acceptance, there are still a few areas for further research (Marangunic & Granic, 2015). First of all the role of motivation in acceptance of technology should be researched in an organizational context instead of in the context of students at a University (Siegel, 2008). Secondly, it was highly stressed that there should be more qualitative research because this would give useful
4 and rich information (Lee, Kozar & Larsen, 2003). Almost all previous research was conducted via quantitative methods. While it is qualitative research that helps to understand a context specific phenomenon, like acceptance of technology (Patton, 1990). Also qualitative research could also give new perspectives on already established concepts, which TAM is (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Thirdly it was highlighted by Venkatesh & Bala (2008) that multiple pre- and post implementation interventions could be used to motivate individuals to use a technology. The authors suggested these interventions could be associated with TAM and should be object of future scientific research (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
The aim of the research is to explore the factors that are important for acceptance of technology and for the motivation of employees to do so. This is researched by exploring experiences of employees on these subjects. On a practical note, this research aims to provide insight for employers in how they can motivate their employees for using technology at work. This qualitative research will be conducted at the Dutch multinational Heineken. More about the case will be explained in the method section.
Theoretical background
Foundation of the Technology Acceptance Model
The most well-known model about accepting technology, which is still a dominant model in the accepting technology research, is the TAM by Davis (1986). The original TAM highlights has two variables, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, which play a mediating role for the acceptance of technology (Davis, 1986). This model is shown in figure 1.
5 Figure 1: Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1986)
Before the TAM was formulated there were two other theories that are the origin of TAM; Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1985). Theory of Reasoned Action focuses on the intent of behavior of individuals and states that attitude is mediated by intentions of individuals. Theory of Planned Behavior is acknowledged as an addition on Theory of Reasoned Action. Theory of Planned Behavior added the variable perceived behavior control, which took into account that individuals might be affected by others and that this could be outside the control of the individual (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1985). Davis built his TAM from the two models but changed two things. He did not include subjective norms in his model and decided that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were sufficient predictors of attitudes towards technology (Davis, 1986). Perceived usefulness is defined by Davis as the extent to which an individual believed that using a certain technology would enhance his job performance (Sharp, 2006). Perceived ease of use is defined as the extent to which an individual believed that using the technology would be free of effort. For this research perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are used as starting points from which experiences and feelings of employees on the process of accepting technology are explained.
Development of the Technology Acceptance Model
Since the original model created by Davis (1986) there have been many developments, modifications and applications on the TAM (Lee et al., 2003; Marangunic & Granic, 2015). The developments and modifications in the end led to the creation of TAM 2. This model is shown in figure 2. First of the variable attitude toward using was changed to intention to use. The reason for this was that an individual could have a behavioral intention without having a certain attitude (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi & Washaw, 1989). More external factors which
6 had an influence were identified in 145 different articles (Yousafzai, Foxall & Pallister, 2007). One important extension was created by Venkatesh and Davis (2000). They added the variables: subjective norm, image, job relevance, output quality and result demonstrability into one model (TAM 2). Subjective norm describes the influence another has on the user’s decision. Image is the desire of the user to stand favorable among other users. Job relevance describes the degree to which the technology fits the job. The output quality describes the extent to which technology performs tasks and services which are required and result demonstrability describes to what extent the technology delivers the user a tangible result (Marangunic & Granic, 2015). Venkatesh and Davis (2000) also added two variables as moderators on subjective norm. These variables were: experience and voluntariness. All the variables had a significant effect on perceived usefulness (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Venkatesh and Bala (2008) research this with a longitudinal study conducted in four organizations. Two of those organizations had technology implemented which was voluntary to use for employees. The other two organizations implemented technology which was obligatory for employees. Not only did the results show that the added variables influenced perceived usefulness, it also showed that in the four organizations subjective norm, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use had a direct influence on the intention to use technology by employees (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
7 Figure 2: Technology Acceptance Model 2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000)
Venkatesh (2000) then made a further improvement on the TAM model by adding external variables which influenced perceived ease of use. These external variables were grouped as ‘anchors’ and ‘adjustments’. The anchor variables; computer self-efficiency, perceptions of external control, computer anxiety and computer playfulness, are beliefs about computers from social norm and the use of computers. The adjustment variables; perceived enjoyment and objective usability, are beliefs created from experience with the technology. By integrating TAM 2 with the improvements by Venkatesh (2000), TAM 3 was computed (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). This model is shown in figure 3. All of the ease of use factors bar Computer Self-efficacy had a significant direct effect on the perceived ease of use in a research regarding acceptance of e-learning (Al-Gahtani, 2016).
8 Figure 3: Technology Acceptance Model 3 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000)
9
Motivation and accepting technology
TAM 3 ignores the motivational factor on the acceptance of new technology (Siegel, 2008). The commitment and Necessary Effort model created by Clark (1998) explained the motivation of choices and commitment of individuals. According to the model, commitment and necessary effort define motivation. And motivation is affected by three independent variables: personal agency, mood and task value (Clark, 1998).
The MAM model was formed out of the Commitment and Necessary Effort model and TAM model (Siegel, 2008). The article of Siegel (2008) researched the use of technology at a University with help of the MAM. The author measured with MAM the amount of motivation and resistance of students toward the software package LiveText, which was used to track student progress. Siegel (2008) stated that perceived organizational support was an important element for motivation and acceptance of technology and that it had direct and indirect effects. The concept of perceived organizational support is taken into account (sensitizing concept) for this research. It might explain further how employees could feel motivated to use technology or not.
Organizational support
Venkatesh and Bala (2008) further researched ways organizations could intervene, in doing so showing organizational support, on the acceptance of technology and presented a research agenda for future research. These types of organizational support could, according to Venkatesh and Bala (2008) have a potential relationship with the factors that influence perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. On the agenda the topics of intervention were divided into pre-implementation interventions and post-implementation interventions.
implementation interventions take place before the launch of the technology. Pre-implementation interventions could be important because they might reduce resistance and
10 provide employees with relevant information about the technology (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). The organization can intervene via the design characteristics of the system. The amount of information-related characteristics can for example provide employees with relevant information which helps them understand the relevance of the system to the job (Speier, Valacich & Vessey, 2003). Another intervention method can be user participation. This would make the employee more connected to the technology and could enhance both perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. The management could intervene by setting the right example, by showing that they themselves are using the technology. This may have an impact on for example the subjective norm surrounding the technology use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). The superior influence of management is a determinant of accepting behavior in general, so it would be far-fetched to suggest that it would influence acceptance of technology (Abbasi, Tarhini, Hassouna & Shah, 2015).
Post-implementation interventions can help individuals deal with the initial shock of the new technology (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). For example training could enhance employees’ familiarity with technology and enhance technology acceptance (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004; Sharma & Yetton, 2007). Gaining familiarity via training enhances the expectancy of the technology and will influence the behavior towards the use (Harris, 2016). Organizations can also support via setting up helpdesks or by hiring technology experts (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). This way helping the employees gain control of the technology. The support from peers is also reckoned to be an important factor in technology acceptance (Jasperson, Carter & Zmud, 2005). Working with peers can make clear what the relevance of the technology is for their jobs, increasing the understanding of the total relevance of the technology for the organization
All the interventions above are merely suggested and it is highlighted in the above researches that more exploratory research is needed. When for example talking about
11 management support, it is still questioned what forms of management support would be perceived as favorable by employees and would result them into being motivated to use a technology. Also although quite a few variables have been verified into TAM 3, this research still looks to explore other possible influencers that are experienced by the employees as important for the acceptance of technology. Qualitative research is a good fit to research and explore this area. This thesis explores the following question: How do employees experience
acceptance of a new information communication technology and the interventions from the
organization to influence this process?
Method
Study design
The data was obtained via face-to-face or Skype interviews, all interviews were conducted at either the Heineken office in Zoeterwoude or Heineken Head office in Amsterdam. The case study below gives more context about the Heineken case. Qualitative research was chosen because qualitative research is an approach that helps to understand a context specific phenomena and could give new perspectives on something that is known well (Patton, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). An advantage of research via interviews is that it is easier to keep the focus of the respondent while collecting data and that there is a higher richness in the data collection (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2008). However it had to be taken into account that this way of data collection relies strongly on the quality of the interviewer.
Case study
The single case study was researched at Heineken, a Dutch beer-brewing company which is active in over more than 70 countries in the world and delivers its products to over more than 170 countries worldwide. To enhance the effectiveness and efficiency inside the organization
12 an internal information communication technology platform is updated. For knowledge management inside Heineken the platform SharePoint 2010 is used. The main problem however, according to the management responsible for the implementation of SharePoint 2010, was that employees resisted or disliked the use of the information communication technology. Resulting in the platform not being used or it being used not as it was meant to do. Now, the update with SharePoint 2013 is being customized to Heineken preferences and aimed to be implemented in the third quarter of 2016. This time it is meant for all the employees to intensively use the platform right after implementing. The case study has given the option to explore how acceptance of technology is motivated in an organizational context.
Participants
All respondents in the sample (n=13) were contacted from within Heineken. The type of sample was a non-probability sample. This means that each respondent did not have a known non-zero chance of being included (Blumberg et al., 2008). The sampling strategy was purposive and judgmental. This gave the researcher influence in the choosing of the sample members, in doing so it ensured that all criteria, mentioned below, were met by every respondent and increasing the reliability (Mays & Pope, 1995; Blumberg et al., 2008). The respondents were contacted via e-mail or face-to-face and were interviewed in April 2016.
The criteria of the sample were that the respondent had to be an employees at Heineken, had to be between the ages of 25 and 67 and have used or uses SharePoint 2010. It was important to include only employees from Heineken and not external workers because employees would have perceive the job and its tasks in a different way than an external worker who is temporarily at the organization. Employees who were using or used to use the implemented technology were chosen because then the sample consisted of respondents who need to use the same information communication technology, which makes it easier to
13 compare. One more than half of the respondents was selected from the Global Supply Chain, the other half was selected from the other Global functions such as Human Resources, Finance, Corporate Relations, Legal, Commerce and Procurement. Because SharePoint was an important issue in the Global Supply Chain and on employees’ minds, many respondents were chose from that function. The reason to include employees from other functions was to obtain multiple perspectives on acceptance of SharePoint. The respondents from the Global Supply Chain are positioned in different sub-departments such as Network Performance, Innovation & Research, Production, Europa Region and Customer Service & Logistics.
Procedure and sensitizing concepts
The interviews were held in private meeting rooms at the Heineken office in Zoeterwoude or at the Head office in Amsterdam. These places were chosen because it is a familiar area for the interviewee and fit for individual interviews. All interviews were taken individually; the reason was to limit influences from other employees and simultaneously enhancing the reliability (Blumberg et al., 2008). It was taken into account that individual interviews could however become time consuming. Interviews were developed as semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured interviews gave each interview a similar start but in the end the option to differentiate and explore the subjects discussed (Blumberg et al., 2008). Interviews were held in either Dutch or English.
Prior to the interview the interviewee was informed about their anonymity. Also they were aware that they were interviewed regarding their experiences with information communication technology at Heineken. The duration of the interview varied from one hour to one-and-a-half hour. All interviews were conducted in English to ensure a higher validity and comparability.
14 The interview started with a few questions about demographics: age, cultural background, department, function. If requested the interview had the option to keep their demographics anonymous. The sensitizing concepts were translated into multiple topics for the interview. The interview will end with a question to the interviewee about their opinion of the interview. It could be that topics are questioned in another order, this depends on the content of the conversation.
The goal of the interview was to explore how employees experience the acceptance of technology, what their motives, feelings and attitudes are towards the use of the information communication technology and how the organization might motivate their employees. Sensitizing concepts used were perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, perceived organizational support. Perceived ease of use was assessed with questions like for example
“How do you perceive the control you have when using the information technology?” and “How effective do you feel that the information technology is?” Perceived usefulness was
assessed with questions such as “What do others think of the information technology” and
“How relevant is the information technology for your job/tasks?” Perceived organizational
support was assessed with questions like “How is communicated about the information
technology in the organization/department/team?” and “Do you feel that you have been prepared for the use of the information technology?”
Data analysis
The first time coding of the data was open coding, this resulted in many different codes which were redirected towards sensitizing concepts. Important was to keep an open mind while coding the interviews but also to keep in mind the research question and the sensitizing concepts. There were different type of codes. Thematic, is a code about the theme or topic that is discussed. Thematic codes will be direct about a factor included in the research, such as
15 perceived usefulness. Variation code, is a code that shows what is being said about the topic in for example feelings or experiences. This code was often used because many questions asked for experiences with SharePoint. Vivo codes are codes that are words from the data as literal codes. An example of a vivo code is “People use technology because it is FUN to use,
make it FUN!” The second step was to code the data with selective coding. Still using the
sensitizing concepts but aiming more towards the dimensions. Some codes mean the same thing for example “information technology” and “information systems.” These type of coding must be stacked together. The aim of selective coding is to find structure and variation in the information provided by the interviews. Both stages of coding were conducted with the program Atlas.ti. Open coding resulted in a long alphabetical list consistent of codes. By selective coding, those codes were stacked together, forming dimensions and eventually themes.
Results
The questions were set up for current SharePoint users and non-current-SharePoint users. In the data collection however just one from the thirteen interviewees admitted a too limited amount of experience about SharePoint to answer questions about it (Interviewee: 11). If however quotes from respondent 11 are included in the research it is explained why. Table 1 shows from what function the interviewees are.
The results from the data collection and analysis are discussed per topic. The topics were constructed from the sensitizing concepts. The topics discussed below are: Perceived ease of use, Perceived usefulness and Motivation. The sensitizing concept of Organizational support was rephrased to Motivation because that concept was more relevant to the dimensions and roots defining the concept. The concept Motivation is more than just support from the organization as defined in the theoretical framework.
16 Table 1
Respondents per function
Function Respondent number
Global Supply Chain 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13
Other Global Functions 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12
Perceived usefulness
The concept of usefulness was described to the participants as to which extent the individual believed that the SharePoint would enhance their job performance. The interviewees were asked about their thoughts on this concept. Answers highlighted the importance of the fit between the need and the goal of SharePoint, the reasons for the need and for it being relevant are the same. For SharePoint to be relevant for the employees it has to be user-centred. This is what interviewees thought:
It is useful because I need to go there to find some documents. But it is not like: “Yay I want to look up documents there” (SharePoint). […] Even without that (a strong motivational colleague) I will still use the technology because I need to use it to find my TPM documents (respondent 1).
I think it depends on how often people use it. For example a colleague of mine uses SharePoint quite intensively because it is relevant for his job. He had to embrace the role that SharePoint had in his job because it was very important to share the information in his job (respondent 6).
In order for employees to perceive SharePoint as a relevant tool for their jobs and make them willing to use it, they need to be made aware of the benefits. They need to know what the added value is and in what way it will make their job easier. For example interviewees perceived the ease with which documents could be shared via SharePoint as a valuable factor that made their job easier. How to ensure employees will perceive the value of SharePoint will be discussed below in the motivation section. The interviewees said the following:
We have to keep in mind that the tools are for the business. It (SharePoint) should help people to do their jobs. It can make life fun but at the end of the day it should make your job easier (respondent 5). People will use the system (SharePoint) when they see that it is valuable. […] It is the same with beer. It is easy to sell the first one. […] the second time people will throw in their experience and opinion of its value (respondent 9).
17 Another example of what way SharePoint could make the job easier was the extent to which SharePoint could be integrated with other technologies. If SharePoint can be used on phones and tablets, it has a bigger chance to be accepted by the user. This is demonstrated in the quote below:
I want to be able to connect any information on any device I have. That is most important. So I can write my notes independent of the device. […] You need a system where you can get all your input together and work on it, it makes your life easier (respondent 2).
From the interviews it became clear that peers have a big role to play in the acceptance of technology and SharePoint in specific. If a colleague shared a positive opinion about SharePoint it would have a positive effect on the acceptance of the receiver of the message. It will be the other way around when the opinion about SharePoint is negative. This is what the interviewees had to say about the role of peers:
If you come into a department and someone tells you that you got to get into SharePoint because it is good and easy then you will definitely use it. But if they are negative I won’t say you are likely to use it (respondent 5).
If a colleague says to me: “use this tool or use that tool it is super useful”, then I will take their advice (respondent 11).
Remarkable was that especially the Global Supply Chain interviewees, in their answers, showed a preference towards colleagues using the technology rather than just stating their opinion about it. They explicitly stated that SharePoint had to be populated in order to function. It was also acknowledged that employees would feel more peer pressure when colleagues were using SharePoint and would feel obliged to use it. As shown in the answers from the interviewees:
You need a critical mass to use it (SharePoint), if they don’t use it then nobody does. It can be very good but if you are the only one than you cannot use it for sharing whatsoever. […] When everybody does it people will also feel more obliged to use it (respondent 6).
Perceived ease of use
The concept of ease of use was described to the participants as the amount of effort it would take to use SharePoint. The interviewees were asked about their thoughts on this concept. The
18 interviewees showed a clear pattern on what their thoughts were surrounding the ease of use of SharePoint. The first thoughts often went to simplicity in design, logic, the amount of options or sources available and familiarity. The design of SharePoint 2010 was often described as too complex. For example there were too much navigation options available and it was not clear how to fast find the document that the employee was looking for. This is how SharePoint was described by the interviewees:
(On SharePoint 2010) I would describe the technology as difficult. […] Especially new people will have difficulty using it because it is not user friendly and has no clear structure. […] I’m really having a hard time finding the information. For example today I was looking for the Heineken logo and I couldn’t find it. So I went to a colleague and I asked him where to find it (respondent 1).
I want SharePoint to be easy to understand. That it is more graphical and less words. Now I see the lists of words and terms and that makes it more complex and less attractive (respondent 10).
Next to the many options available in SharePoint 2010, the interviewees also stated that having to many alternatives to a technology would have a negative effect on the use of the technology whereas having everything in one place could be perceived as a positive thing. Because there are a few alternatives or similar technologies to SharePoint inside Heineken, it is unclear for the employees what to find where. However some interviewees pointed out that when all the information was on one platform (SharePoint), they would be more willing to face the complex designs. Answers from the interviews made this clear:
Now it is getting complicated because we have SharePoint, A collaboration platform, we have One2Share and we have various environments on SharePoint on which it is not really clear who and what is on it. […] To me but also to the rest it is becoming unclear what we should use (respondent 8). The thing is, in SharePoint everything is in one place. Although it is not perfect, at least you know that everything can be found in one place. […] It is complex but at least the info is in one place. That is far better than to have information scattered all over the place (respondent 5).
Familiarity with SharePoint was perceived as a big influence on the ease of use. Previous tools were used because employees got used to them, however nobody got used to the SharePoint design and because of that it did not become mainstream. This resulted in SharePoint not being included as a tool that employees perceived as common knowledge. This had as an effect that the employees would not get familiar with it. Instead it was
19 perceived as something difficult and unknown. Which in the SharePoint case, did not drive usage. This was showed by the two quotes below. Furthermore, when technology was relevant for an employee they would more likely get familiar with the technology because they had to use it.
Lotus Notes was easy to use once we got used to it. […] I think SharePoint has so much more space. The reason why SharePoint is not seen as easy is because people have not been using it. So they haven’t figured out how things are done, this takes time (respondent 7).
I do not think SharePoint is a mainstream technology yet. So people perceive that you need to be an expert in order to build or make something on the tool (respondent 13).
A minor but interesting subject talked about was the subject fun. In order for SharePoint to be accepted by its users the interviewees acknowledged that the use of the technology should have a certain amount of enjoyment or entertainment. None of the interviewees described SharePoint 2010 as fun, but they acknowledged that future versions of SharePoint should be made fun. The effect of fun was discussed with examples from other tools as in the quotes below.
People absorb something best when they see a benefit, but second it should be fun. People partly use technology because it is just fun to use. Make SharePoint fun (respondent 7).
I worked with a website on which I could design and build a website. I was surprised that it was possible for me to so easily build a website. If a technology can do that, it is really nice. I spend two nights doing this (laugh). Because it was fun and had that wow effect (respondent 11).
Finally, the interviewees clearly discussed that individual differences in ease of use experiences with SharePoint in the workplace could be experienced because of multiple reasons. First of all it could be a consequence of personal traits such as age. Interviewees acknowledged that on average an older employee would be less likely to be familiar with new technology and therefore might have a harder time adopting SharePoint. One respondent was quoted reporting the following:
You have people like us who are more used to growing up with technology and then you have a group that is not used to it, […] In general SharePoint is very intuitive for people that are working in a company as Heineken but are maybe younger than let’s say forty-five. Although I have to say that it is hard to give a specific profile but it is definitely easier for the tech-savvy (respondent 6).
20 Secondly, it could be caused by job traits. An employee with a more technical job would more likely accept SharePoint than an employee who is in a non-technical job. Also it depends on how often the technology is used for the job. Interviewees stated that the more SharePoint is used by the employee, the more they would become familiar with it and find it less complex to use.
Some people are just more acquainted with the system (SharePoint) because for example it is a big part of their work. For me it is not a big role of my core business. This causes differences (respondent 3).
Thirdly, it could be caused by the difference in resources. This means that SharePoint was experienced differently in different countries. The cause could be for example a bad connection or infrastructure. According to the interviewees SharePoint was received differently in parts of Africa compared to Western Europe. The following was said about the differences because of the location and resources:
The system (SharePoint) is not designed for countries with slow connection. […] I was in Africa (Rwanda) and I did not have a good experience. […] We have to keep in mind that things like the connection can be a trouble for people (respondent 9).
Finally, experiences were influenced by the core business of the organization. Heineken is in its core a production and marketing organization, the core product does not lie in knowledge but in beer production. Although of course there are many knowledge based processes in Heineken. The quote below showed for example that for consultancy firms it is different because the product or service they sell is their knowledge and experience.
In consultancy knowledge is the bread of consulting. […] There (in consulting) we needed to be basically the first adopters of technology, this is different for production firms. […] For example companies such as Unilever will have the same problems as Heineken (respondent 6).
Motivation
The concept of motivation was described to the participants as to which extent the individual felt encouraged and more eager to accept and use SharePoint. Again, with this concept, the interviewees were asked about their thoughts. Interviewees were also asked what their thoughts were on more specific concepts such as training and managerial support. The support
21 given to employees in order to accept a technology is divided into two groups: directional support and content support. In the directional support it is about giving the employees a clear communication about SharePoint. In other words, it should be made very clear to the employees what can be done with SharePoint and why it is used. Adding clear directions for SharePoint sets goals for employees and shows them how they can be a part of the process towards reaching those goals. This was stressed by the interviewees:
Give employees the why (of SharePoint). Show them the benefits and who is using it. Give them the big picture. […] make clear that people are a part of the success of SharePoint (respondent 10).
One group was significantly more mentioned to be an important party for the clear directions: the management. Interviewees acknowledged that they were spurred on by support of the management and especially if it was from senior management. Interviewees highlighted that managers should show the value of SharePoint by communicating about it and encouraging the use of it. In other words, the management should act as ambassadors for SharePoint. The second quote shows the manager in an even more active involved role.
They (management) should be ambassadors for SharePoint. They should say that they all understand the need for this and should tell the employees to get aboard. It should be top-down (respondent 4). So for example the manager in New Zealand already send me an invitation when I arrived in order to explain me how I should use SharePoint and why it was so important. She helped me with the questions I had. That had an (positive) effect on my use (respondent 5).
It was questioned in multiple interviews whether in practice the awareness and support of SharePoint was on the agenda of the senior management. As they might have more urgent matters to discuss. However the majority of the interviewees acknowledged that in the ideal world the management should make time to support the acceptance of SharePoint. The Global Supply Chain interviewees remarkably highlighted more often than not that the management should not just take time to send the message, but should act as an example by using SharePoint themselves. Becoming more than just an ambassador, becoming a user. In the second quote is shown with another tool used in the Global Supply Chain what the effect of exemplary use is.
22 So I would say that from the director I find it more important that he is using SharePoint, instead of just receiving a message in which is asked to use it (respondent 1).
I’m the director for Europe, the highest position for logistics in Europe so I use it as well. If I show the example, they think: “Oh even this guy is using it”. I’ve been doing this with Skype-For-Business for a couple of years now. […] It has grown from fourteen people to a hundred (respondent 13).
The way the management should show the employees the value of SharePoint would be via demonstrations. If employees could see the benefits with their own eyes, it would encourage them to accept SharePoint. One responded said the following:
As soon as you give demonstrations, people will see it and think “Hey, this is handy”. The demonstration should focus on the core capabilities of the tool (SharePoint) (respondent 2).
Next to directional support from the management, another type of support was identified: content support. Content support is aimed at making employees aware of how to use the technology, preparing them and showing continuous support. This can be done by training to help employees see the value and make employees familiar with SharePoint. However several interviewees mentioned that it was important that the training was light to digest and not too long or too technical. These were the primal characteristics with which the previous training of SharePoint was described.
I did do the training (for SharePoint). I made a twitter account during the training because we got bored. We spend a full day on it so it is fair to say that it was a disaster. […] The guy sitting next to me was helping me with setting up the Twitter account so I can guarantee that he was also bored (respondent 9).
Although training in general was perceived as useful for motivation, preparation and the process of getting familiar with SharePoint, training is not fit for every employee because some might want to explore the SharePoint themselves rather than listen to an external trainer. However it was acknowledged by the interviewees that this was a minority group.
Content support would have to be ongoing in order to motivate employees to keep using SharePoint. This could be done by providing a helpdesk or the offer of support by peers. The option to have a helpdesk for questions provided employees with confidence to start using SharePoint. It proved valuable in the past. However, multiple interviewees showed that
23 the first point of help-seeking however was often not the helpdesk but with a colleague. Employees perceive the threshold to ask a peer as lower than the call with a helpdesk. Having peers informed in each department could be a way to assist the employees in their acceptance of SharePoint.
Interviewees insisted that the end-users would have to be involved in the development of and the decisions about SharePoint. The system would be more easy to use if the focus during development was on the use by end-users. Their involvement could differ from simple feedback to extensive involvement in the development. With the inclusion of the end-user it was more likely to beforehand get a clear view on the blockers that could prohibit acceptation of SharePoint. Interviewees also acknowledged that involvement of the end-user would result in more innovative ideas and an improved product. One interviewee explained this with his experiences in development teams of previous SharePoints.
Involvement is important. When we think of SharePoint here from the Global Functions and they have to use it on the shop floor then it often does not work. What we define in the Global Functions, we have to define together with the people from the shop floor. You need each other (respondent 12).
However the involvement is not always perceived as easy as it seems. Interviewees showed that not every employee will be willing to give feedback and not every employee has to give feedback. The employees that want to be involved will be motivated by the chance of being involved just in the slightest way. They will more likely accept SharePoint even if their feedback is not directly included in the end product. Employees feel appreciated to have been considered for the development team and will enjoy the chance of influencing the end-design. This was stated by the interviewee:
When they were launching the TPM SharePoint site, the one responsible send an email to several people […] what their opinion was. […] She was very grateful for the advices I gave and acknowledged that in her reply. When it was launched I could see that she considered my options. I was really happy about that and it motivated me to use the tool (respondent 1).
A final point of discussion was whether the motivation to use technology should be forced in organisations or whether it should be voluntary. One interviewee gave an interesting notice
24 that the force and freedom could be combined to reach the same purpose. So with for example shutting down alternatives of SharePoint, employees were forced to use SharePoint. At the same time content was stored on SharePoint that drew visits from employees. Visits that might not primarily be for the reason the organization wants its employees on SharePoint, but according to the quote below, visits nonetheless.
You can be motivated by different ways [...] I was motivated because the previous tool was shut down and your info had to be transferred to SharePoint. [...] That is one way of motivating. I have to say that I’m not always against the stick. […] However not everyone thinks the same way. So you sometimes have to use the carrot. For example when on news of SharePoint things like the menu of the canteen is used I say to the guys “good!” Because this is the type of things that attract people to visit and use the tool, they want to know what is on for lunch (respondent 5).
Conclusions & discussion
Conclusions
The central question formulated in this research aimed to explore the experiences of employees in the process of the acceptance of a new information communication technology. Based on the SharePoint case study at Heineken it can be concluded that for the technology to be perceived as useful it should be relevant to the job. It has to fit the needs for the job and make the job easier. Interviewees acknowledge that they would use a more complex technology when it is perceived as useful. Suggesting that the perceived usefulness in acceptance is more important than perceived ease of use. When colleagues understand the relevance it will strengthen even more the acceptance. How it is relevant should be demonstrated by the organization by showing the benefits and added value.
For the perceived ease of use the design, lay-out and familiarity were big factors. It was important that SharePoint was simplified since it was lacking on all three aspects. Make the design easier by not adding a lot of options or by offering multiple alternatives. When employees are familiar with aspects or parts of the technology they will more likely accept it. When they are not, they should be given the option to get familiar. Also, technology should be
25 fun. Enjoyment will boost the chance of technology acceptance by employees. Finally, technology is perceived differently based on several traits and situations. First of all, on the combination of personal traits and (technical) skills. Secondly, on the type of job. Thirdly, on the core of the organization. Finally, on the location and resources. These differences were for SharePoint a massive reason why it was experienced differently across the globe.
Motivation is split into two types: Directional- and content support. Employees want managers to show the relevance and value by directional support. This does not only apply to senior directors but also to middle and lower management. For SharePoint in Heineken it was questioned whether this was actually done. Content support such as training, involvement in the development and helpdesks give the employees a chance to become familiar and skilled with the technology. The SharePoint case showed that training should be timed closely to the launch and should be fit for the audience. If the audience is not familiar with technology in general, the training should not be too complex. Directional support will result in a more positive perceived usefulness via job relevance and content support will result in a more positive perceived ease of use via familiarity and enhanced technology skills.
Theoretical implications
The conclusions on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are not entirely new in technology acceptance research. TAM 3 already mentioned the factors job relevance, peer opinion, complexity and individual differences based on personality (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). The notion that perceived usefulness was more important than perceived ease of use could be explained with recent research, Rogers (2016) concludes that usefulness is more important for adopting while ease of use is more important for continuous use. In that way the need for usefulness is a logical first step to take.
26 The individual differences in technology acceptance was also highlighted in several previous articles (Lu, Yu, Liu & Yao, 2003; Mun, Jackson, Park & Probst, 2006). However in that research the personal situation regarding the job, the organizational core and the resources available were not included. But rather just personal traits such as age or anxiety. This could be explained by the fact that the research of Lu et al. (2003) was focussed on consumers instead of employees and that the focus of Venkatesh and Davis (2000) was on technology in general instead of technology used in an organization. As mentioned in the conclusion, the organization core causes differences in technology acceptance. It is possible that the organization recruit their employees based on favourable traits for technology acceptance (Devaraj, Easley & Crant, 2008). This could be similar for the job core. The more technical the job is, the more open and used the employee is to technology. A possible explanation for this could be that the technology will be perceived as more relevant for the job (Devaraj, Easley & Crant, 2008). This would mean that the differences do not only influence ease of use, but can also indirectly influence usefulness. Little other research can be found that focusses on the subject of multinationals and therefore it could make sense that the above differences were not identified as such in previous studies. It is however aligned with research by Lu et al. (2003), where was concluded that facilitating conditions will have an effect on ease of use.
Both directional and content support are important factors for the motivation technology acceptance by employees. Although some of the interventions were already suggested in previous research (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), they have not yet been grouped in this way. Interviewees felt that clear directions, the ‘why’, were necessary for motivation to accept technology. Preferably these directions were shared by the different layers of management. These conclusions are aligned with previous research regarding management support (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004). It was also mentioned in previous studies that
27 vocal managerial support would have a significant positive effect on perceived ease of use (Schepers, Wetzels & de Ruyter, 2005). The most preferred way of vocal support is through demonstrations of the technology. Employees want to see with their own eyes the value and benefits. Consistent with research (Venkatesh, Speier & Morris, 2002; Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004; Sharma & Yetton, 2007) it is stated that content support such as training and help desks are ways to motivate employees to accept and use a technology. It is also preferred to learn from colleagues or peers instead of from externals. The bar seems lower to learn from them instead of from external trainers. Helpdesks are deemed useful as long as they can be contacted quickly and help quickly. Important to note is that helpdesks do not drive usage of technology, it drives the continuous usage of technology. Helpdesks is a form of support that enhances the ease of use which in a recent study is perceived as important for continuous usage (Rodgers, 2016). It can be concluded that directional support influences the attitude that employees have towards technology by showing them the ‘why’ and that content support will influence their behaviour with technology by showing the ‘how’.
Practical implications
When managers are implementing a new technology such as SharePoint they can subtract learnings from this research. First of all it is important for them to realize that acceptance is not just a collective matter but also an individual matter. For example they will need to realize that in the implementation the non-technical employees might need more support or directions on how and why to use the technology. The technology should only be implemented if it plays into the needs of employees and makes their job easier. Next to that managers need to be aware that the acceptance of the technology is heavily dependent on the design and purpose of the technology. The design should not be too complex and should have logic so every employee is able to work with it. The second part is motivation to accept a technology via
28 support. Management should support themselves via communicating a clear why and how to use the technology. Show the employees via demonstrations what the technology does and what is in it for them. Managers should facilitate the possibility for training and helpdesk. This helps employees get familiar and trusted with the technology, provoking a bigger chance of acceptance. Also this enhance the chance of continuous use of the technology. Finally, there are factors that are hard to play into. For example, the opinions of employees about the technology. This the managers can influence by letting end-users be involved in the development, training and implementation. They will feel a part of the design and will communicate more positively about the technology to their peers and other colleagues.
Limitations and future research
This study had several limitations. The first limitation is that the research is only conducted inside one organization. Future research could focus on comparing different organizations on the acceptance of technology by their employees. This way the impact of the organizational core and organizational infrastructure could be measured, differences between different types of organizations. Secondly, as already mentioned above another limitation of the research is the lack of time and resources. The research was conducted in a time span of three months and just by one researcher. Future research could focus on a more longitudinal study and perhaps by multiple researchers to enhance resources available for qualitative research. Finally, it would be recommended to research the findings with quantitative research methods to see whether the findings of this research again come to surface when questioned in a survey.
30 References
Abbasi, M. S., Tarhini, A., Hassouna, M., & Shah, F. (2015). Social, Organizational, Demography and Individuals’ Technology Acceptance Behaviour: A Conceptual Model. European Scientific Journal, 11(9). 48-76.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior (pp. 11-39). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Al-Gahtani, S. S. (2016). Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: A structural equation model. Applied Computing and Informatics, 12(1), 27-50. doi:10.1016/j.aci.2014.09.001
Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Salam, A. F. (2004). An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Information & management, 41(6), 731-745. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.08.010
Bailey, J. E., & Pearson, S. W. (1983). Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science, 29, 530-545.
Bikson, T., & Gutek, B. (1984). Implementation of office automation. Santa Monica, USA:
Rand Corporation.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business Research Methods. Second European Edition. Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
Chau, P. Y. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of management information systems, 13(2), 185-204. doi:10.1080/07421222.1996.11518128
Cheney, P. H., Mann, R. I., & Amoroso, D. L. (1986). Organizational factors affecting the success of end-user computing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3(1), 65-80. doi:10.1080/07421222.1986.11517755
Clark, R. (1998). Motivating performance: Part 1—Diagnosing and solving motivational problems. Performance Improvement, 37(8), 39–47.
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. doi:10.2307/249008
31 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
Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Crant, J. M. (2008). Research note-how does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems
Research, 19(1), 93-105.
Feld, C. S., & Stoddard, D. B. (2004). Getting IT right. Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 72-81.
Gressgård, L., Amundsen, O., Merethe Aasen, T., & Hansen, K. (2014). Use of information and communication technology to support employee-driven innovation in organizations: a knowledge management perspective. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 18(4), 633-650. doi:10.1108/JKM-01-2014-0013
Harris, M. E. (2016). Incorporating a Training Construct into the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University). Jasperson, J. S., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of
post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 525-557.
Lai, V. S., & Mahapatra, R. K. (1997). Exploring the research in information technology implementation. Information & Management, 32(4), 187-201. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(97) 00022-0
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 12(1), 752-780.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191-204. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4
Lu, J., Yu, C. S., Liu, C., & Yao, J. E. (2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Research, 13(3), 206-222. doi.org/10.1108/10662240310478222 Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature review from
1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81-95. doi:10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1995). Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ: British Medical Journal,
32 Mun, Y. 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. doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.08.006
Neirotti, P., & Paolucci, E. (2007). Assessing the strategic value of Information Technology: An analysis on the insurance sector. Information & Management, 44(6), 568-582. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Washington, USA:
SAGE Publications, inc.
Rogers, A. D. (2016). Examining Small Business Adoption of Computerized Accounting Systems Using the Technology Acceptance Model (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
Schepers, J., Wetzels, M., & de Ruyter, K. (2005). Leadership styles in technology acceptance: do followers practice what leaders preach? Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, 15(6), 496-508. doi:10.1108/09604520510633998
Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2007). The contingent effects of training, technical complexity, and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS
Quarterly, 219-238.
Sharp, J. H. (2006). Development, extension, and application: a review of the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Education Journal, 5(9). 3-11.
Siegel, D. M. (2008). Accepting technology and overcoming resistance to change using the
motivation and acceptance model. Ann Arbor, USA: ProQuest.
Speier, C., Vessey, I., & Valacich, J. S. (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer‐supported decision‐making performance.
Decision Sciences, 34(4), 771-797. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5414.2003.02292.x
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, USA: Sage.
Tallon, P. P., Kraemer, K. L., & Gurbaxani, V. (2000). Executives’ perceptions of the business value of information technology: a process-oriented approach. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 16(4), 145-173. doi:10.1080/07421222.2000.11518269
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems
33 Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions. Decision sciences, 39(2), 273-315. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.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., Speier, C., & Morris, M. G. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual
decision making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decision Sciences,
33(2), 297-316. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2002.tb01646.x
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007). Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 251-280. doi:10.1108/17465660710834453
