Nesnelerin İnterneti Teknolojisinin Tüketiciler Tarafından Kabulü

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 351 - 371, 22.10.2019

Hande Begüm Bumin Doyduk , Ebru Beyza Bayarçelik

https://doi.org/10.17336/igusbd.538182

Cited By: 3

Öz

Günümüzde son teknolojik ilerlemeler muazzam değişimleri beraberinde getirmekte ve yeni bir döneme kılavuzluk etmektedir. Bu yeni dönemin temel değişim araçlarından biri Nesnelerin İnterneti teknolojisidir. “Nesnelerin İnterneti” terimi ile nesnelerin kimliklere sahip olması ve birbirleriyle her an her yerde bağlantıda bulunması ifade edilmektedir. Söz konusu kavram çok yeni olmasına rağmen pek çok bilim insanı ve uygulamacının ilgisini çekmektedir. Ancak konunun tüketici perspektifinden incelendiği çok sayıda çalışmaya rastlanmamıştır. Potansiyel kullanıcılar kendilerine yeni bir teknoloji sunulduğunda bir kabul sürecinden geçerler. Bu çalışmada tüketicilerin Nesnelerin İnterneti kavramına bakış açıları Teknoloji Kabul Modeli (TKM) üzerinden irdelenmiştir. TKM, algılanan kullanım kolaylığı ve algılanan kullanışlılık etkenlerini, kullanıcıların yeni teknolojileri kullanmada davranışsal niyetlerinin önemli belirleyicileri olarak tanımlamaktadır. Veriler, Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi (YEM) ile analiz edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Nesnelerin İnterneti, Teknoloji Kabul Modeli, İnovasyon, Tüketici, Teknoloji Yayılımı

Consumers’ Acceptance of Internet of Things Technology

Öz

Recent technological advancements entail immense changes and lead to a new era. One of the main change agents of this new era is internet of things technologies. The term “internet of things” (IoT) indicates objects having an identity and having ubiquitous connection with each other. Notwithstanding the novelty of the concept, it captured the interest of many scholars and practitioners. The subject area has not been analyzed profoundly from the consumers’ point of view. Whenever potential users face a new technology, they experience an acceptation process. In this study, how this new concept is perceived by the consumers is scrutinized. Consumer perspective of IoT is studied through Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). TAM introduced perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, as significant determinants for a potential user to have behavioral intention to use a new technology. Data were analyzed through Structural Equational Modeling (SEM).

Anahtar Kelimeler

Internet of Things, Technology Acceptance Model, Technology Diffusion, Consumer, Innovation

Kaynakça

• ABU, F., YUNUS, A. R., & JABAR, J. (2015). Modified of UTAUT theory in adoption of technology for Malaysia Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in food industry. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 104-109.
• Accenture. (2014). The Internet of Things: The Future of Consumer Adoption . Accenture.
• AGARWAL, R., & KARAHANNA, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 665-694.
• AL-AJAM , A., & NOR, K. (2013). Internet banking adoption: integrating technology acceptance model and trust. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(3), 207-215.
• AL-MOMANI, A. M., MAHMOUD, M. A., & AHMAD, S. (2016). Modeling the adoption of internet of things services: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Applied Research, 361-367.
• ALOLAYAN, B. (2014). Do I Really Have to Accept Smart Fridges ? An empirical study. The Seventh International Conference of Advances in Computer Human Interactions (pp. 186-191.). ACHI 2014.
• ASHTON, K. (2009). RFID Journal. Retrieved from That 'Internet of Things' Thing.: http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/pdf?4986
• ATZORI, L., IERA, A., & MORABITO, G. (2010). The internet of things: A survey. Computer networks, 2787-2805.
• BOONSIRITOMACHAI , W., & PITCHAY, K. (2017). Determinants affecting mobile banking adoption by generation Y based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model modified by the Technology Acceptance Model concept,. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences , 2452-3151.
• CHAU, P. Y., & HU, P. J. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decision Sciences, 699-719.
• COUGHLAN, T., BROWN, M., MORTIER, R., HOUGHTON , R. J., GOULDEN, M., & LAWSON, G. (2012). Exploring Acceptance and Consequences of the Internet of Things in the Home. IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and Communications (pp. 148-155). IEEE.
• DA XU, L., HE, W., & LI, S. (2014). Internet of things in industries: A survey. IEEE Transactions on industrial informatics,, 2233-2243.
• DAVIS, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
• DAVIS, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user acceptance of information technology. Doctoral Dissertation. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• DAVIS, F., BAGOZZI, R., & WARSHAW, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.
• DONG, X., CHANG, Y., WANG, Y., & YAN, J. (2017). Understanding usage of Internet of Things (IOT) systems in China: Cognitive experience and affect experience as moderator. Information Technology & People, 117-138.
• FEATHERMAN, M. S., MIYAZAKI, A. D., & SPROTT, D. E. (2010). Reducing online privacy risk to facilitate e-service adoption: the influence of perceived ease of use and corporate credibility. Journal of Services Marketing, 219-229.
• FISHBEIN, M., & AJZEN, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. PA: Addison-Wesiey.
• GAO, L., & BAI, X. (2014). A unified perspective on the factors influencing consumer acceptance of internet of things technology. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 211-231.
• GARTNER. (2016, 11 10). Gartner Says 6.4 Billion Connected "Things" Will Be in Use in 2016, Up 30 Percent From 2015. Retrieved from Gartner: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2015-11-10-gartner-says-6-billion-connected-things-will-be-in-use-in-2016-up-30-percent-from-2015
• GEFEN, D., KARAHANNA, E., & STRAUB, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 51-90.
• GIUSTO, D., IERA, A., MORABITO, G., & ATZORI, L. (2010). The Internet of Things. Springer.
• GONG, M., XU, Y., & YU, Y. (2004). An enhanced technology acceptance model for web-based learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 365-374.
• GROUP, A. (2014). The Internet of Things : the continuation of the internet.
• GUINARD, D., TRIFA, V., KARNOUSKOS, S., SPIESS, P., & SAVIO, D. (2010). Interacting with the soa-based internet of things: Discovery, query, selection, and ondemand provisioning of web services. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing., 223–235.
• GÜNDÜZ, M. Z., & DAŞ, R. (2018). Nesnelerin interneti: Gelişimi, bileşenleri ve uygulama alanları. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 327-335.
• HANSEN, T., JENSEN, J. M., & SOLGAARD, H. S. (2004). Predicting online grocery buying intention: a comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Information Management, 539-550.
• HSU, C. L., & LIN, J. C. (2016). An empirical examination of consumer adoption of Internet of Things services: Network externalities and concern for information privacy perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 516-527.
• HSU, C. L., & LIN, J. C. C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & management, 45(1), 65-74.
• HSU, C., & LU, H. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & management, 41(7), 853-868. Hydra Middleware Project. (2010). FP6 European Project . . Retrieved from http:// 1747www.hydramiddleware.eu
• IDC. (2017). Retrieved from Worldwide Semiannual Internet of Things Spending Guide : https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=IDC_P29475
• JAN, A., & CONTRERAS, V. (2011). Technology acceptance model for the use of information technology in universities. Computers in Human Behavior, 845-851.
• KARAHANNA, E., STRAUB, D. W., & CHERVANY, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 183-213.
• KHAN, R., KHAN, S., ZAHEER, R., & KHAN, S. (2012). KHAN, R., KHAN, S. U., ZAHEER, R., & KHAN, S. (2012, December). Future internet: the internet of things architecture, possible applications and key challenges. 10th international conference on frontiers of information technology, (pp. 257-260).
• KHAN, W. Z., AALSALEM, M. Y., KHAN, M. K., & ARSHAD, Q. (2016). Enabling consumer trust upon acceptance of IoT technologies through security and privacy model. In J. J. ParkHai, H. Jin, Y. Jeong, & M. K. Khan, Advanced Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering (pp. 111-117). Singapore: Springer.
• KHAN, W. Z., ALSALEM, M. Y., KHAN, M. K., & ARSHAD, Q. (2017). Antecedents Affecting Consumer Trust Towards Adopting Internet of Things Enabled Products. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine.
• KHAN, W., AALSALEM, M. Y., & KHAN, M. K. (2018). KHAN, W. Z., AALSALEM, M. Y., & KHAN, M. K. (2018, January). Five acts of consumer behavior: A potential security and privacy threat to Internet of Things. IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics. IEEE.
• KIM , K., & SHIN, D. (2015). An acceptance model for smart watches Research. 25(4), 527-541.
• KOWATSCH , T., & MAASS, W. (2012). Critical privacy factors of internet of things services: An empirical investigation with domain experts. Knowledge and Technologies in Innovative Information Systems. Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (pp. 200-211). LNBIP.
• KUSKOV, V., KUZIN, M., SHMELEV, Y., MAKRUSHIN, D., & GRACHEV, I. (2017, 06 17). Honeypots and the Internet of Things. Retrieved from Ao KasperskyLab: https://securelist.com/honeypots-and-the-internet-of-things/78751/
• LEE, J., CHOI, J., & KIM, J. (2018). The adoption of virtual reality devices: The technology acceptance model integrating enjoyment, social interaction, and strength of the social ties. Telematics and Informatics.
• LI, Q., WANG, Z., LI, W., LI, J., WANG, C., & DU, R. (2013). Applications integration in a hybrid cloud computing environment: Modelling and platform. Enterprise Informations Systems, 237–271.
• LI, X. J., & WANG, D. (2013). Architecture and existing applications for internet of things. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 3317-3321.
• LI, X., LU, R., LIANG, X., SHEN, X., CHEN, J., & LIN, X. (2011). Smart Community: An Internet of Things Application. IEEE Communications Magazine, 68-75.
• LLC, P. I. (2015). Privacy and Security in a Connected Life: A Study of US, European and Japanese Consumers . Ponemon Institute LLC .
• LUETH , K. L. (2018, 8 8). State of the IoT 2018: Number of IoT devices now at 7B – Market accelerating. Retrieved from IoT Analytics: https://iot-analytics.com/state-of-the-iot-update-q1-q2-2018-number-of-iot-devices-now-7b/
• LUNNEY , A., CUNNINGHAM, N., & EASTIN, M. (2016). Wearable fitness technology: A structural investigation into acceptance and perceived fitness outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 114-120.
• MAIER, M. V. (2016). The Internet of Things (IoT): what is the potential of Internet of Things applications for consumer marketing? 7th IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference. Enschede: University of Twente.
• MARR, B. (2017, 09 29). How Walmart Is Using Machine Learning AI, IoT And Big Data To Boost Retail Performance. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2017/08/29/how-walmart-is-using-machine-learning-ai-iot-and-big-data-to-boost-retail-performance/#5182fbfd6cb1
• MATHIESON, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information System Research, 173-179.
• MEDAGLIA, C. M., & SERBANATI, A. (2010). An overview of privacy and security issues in the internet of things. The Internet of Things (pp. 389-395). NY: Springer.
• MIORANDI, D., SICARI, S., DEPELLEGRINI, F., & CHLAMTAC, I. (2012). Internet of things: Vision,applications and research challenges. Ad Hoc Netw, 1497–1516.
• MITAL, M., CHANG, V., CHOUDHARY, P., PAPA, A., & PANI, A. K. (2018). Adoption of Internet of Things in India: A test of competing models using a structured equation modeling approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 339-346.
• MOON, J. W., & KIM, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management, 217-230.
• NGAI, E., MOON, K. K., RIGGINS, F. J., & YI, C. Y. (2008). RFID research : An academic literature review (1995–2005) and future research directions. Int. J. Prod. Econ, 510–520.
• NOVAK, T. P., & HOFFMAN, D. (2015, 08). HOFFMAN, D. L., & NOVAK, T. (2015). Emergent experience and the connected consumer in the smart home assemblage and the internet of things. Retrieved from ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281113605_Emergent_Experience_and_the_Connected_Consumer_in_the_Smart_Home_Assemblage_and_the_Internet_of_Things?enrichId=rgreq-5683c4ae12c70f5b0ca49fe3b8e5a2d2-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4MTExMzYwNTtBUzoyNjQ3
• OOI, K.-B., & TAN, G.-H. (2016). Expert Systems with Applications. Mobile technology acceptance model: an investigation using mobile users to explore smartphone credit card, 59, 33–46.
• PAPER, M. S. (2014). The ‘Internet of Things’ Is Now Connecting the Real Economy . Morgan Stanley.
• PARK, E., BAEK, S., OHM, J., & CHANG, H. J. (2014). Determinants of player acceptance of mobile social network games: An application of extended technology acceptance model. Telematics and Informatics, 3-15.
• PARK, E., CHO, Y., HAN, J., & KWON, S. J. (2017). Comprehensive approaches to user acceptance of Internet of things in a smart home environment. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2342-2350.
• PATEL, K., & PATEL, H. (2018). Adoption of internet banking services in Gujarat: An extension of TAM with perceived security and social influence. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 36(1), 147-169.
• SCHERERA , R., SIDDIQB, F., & TONDEUR, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35.
• SEPASGOZAR, S. M., HAWKEN, S., SARGOLZAEI, S., & FOROOZANFA, M. (2018). Implementing citizen centric technology in developing smart cities: A model for predicting the acceptance of urban technologies. Technological Forecasting & Social Change.
• SHIH, Y., & FANG, K. (2004). The use of a decomposed theory of planned behavior to study Internet banking in Taiwan. Internet Research, 213-223.
• SOLIMA, L., DELLA PERUFA, M. R., & DEL GUIDICE, M. (2016). Object-generated content and knowledge sharing: the forthcoming impact of the internet of things. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 738–752.
• ŠUMAK, B. H. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 2067–2077.
• SUN, C. (2012). Application of RFID technology for logistics on internet of things. AASRI Procedia, 106–111.
• SVENDSEN, G. B., JOHNSEN, J. A., ALMAS-SORENSEN, L., & VITTERSO, J. (2013). Personality and technology acceptance: the influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 323-334.
• TOFT, M., SCHUITEMA, G., & THØGERSEN, J. (2014). Responsible technology acceptance: Model development and application to consumer acceptance of Smart Grid technology. Applied Energy, 134, 392–400.
• VENKATESH, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information System Research, 342-365.
• VENKATESH, V., & RAMESH, V. (2006). Web and wireless site usability: Understanding differences and modeling use. MIS quarterly, 181-206.
• 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.
• WANG, S., BEATTY, S. E., & FOXX, W. (2004). Signaling the trustworthiness of small online retailers. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 53-69.
• YONG WEE, S., SIONG HOE , L., KUNG KEAT, T., CHECK YEE, L., & PARUMO, S. (2011). Prediction of user acceptance and adoption of smart phone for learning with technology acceptance model. Journal of Applied Sciences, 2395-2402.
• ZAREMOHZZABIEH, Z. A. (2015). A test of the technology acceptance model for understanding the ICT adoption behavior of rural young entrepreneurs. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(2), 158-169.
• ZHANG, L., ZHU, J., & LIU, Q. (2012). A meta-analysis of mobile commerce adoption and the moderating effect of culture. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5).