Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2020, , 34 - 44, 30.03.2020

Mustapha Osman Opoku Francis Enu-kwesi

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1186

Abstract

References

  • Akortsu, M. A., & Abor, P. A. (2011). Financing public healthcare institutions in Ghana. Journal of Health Organisation and Management, 25 (2), 128-141.
  • Akotia, P. (2003). Public sector records systems in Ghana: Some lessons in development management. African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science, 13 (2).
  • Abdul Kargbo, J. (2005). Archives management in post-war Sierra Leone: Luxury or necessity? Journal of the Society of Archives, 26 (2).
  • Adams, M. (2006). Freedom of information and records management in Ghana. African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science, 16 (1), 1-6.
  • Al-Adwan, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Smedley, J. (2013). Exploring students acceptance of e-learning using Technology Acceptance Model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9, (2), 4-18.
  • Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Salam, A. F. (2004). An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Information & Management, (41) 731- 745.
  • Anand, V., Manz, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1988). An organisational memory approach to information management. Academy of Managemet Review, 23 (4), 796-800.
  • Averweg, R. U. (2008). Information technology acceptance in South Africa: An investigation of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and actual system use construct. African Journal of Information Systems, 1, (1), Article 4.
  • Basharat, M., Mahmood, Z., & Bashir, Z. (2012). Review of classical canagement theories . International Journal of Social Sciences and Education , 512-522.
  • Bertrand, M., & Bouchard, S. (2008). Applying the technology acceptance mpdel to virtual reality among clinicians. Journal of Cyber Therapy and Rehabilitation; Virtual Reality Medical Institute, 1, 2.
  • Çelik, H. E., & Yılmaz, V. (2011). extending the technology acceptance model for adoption of e shopping by consumers in Turkey. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 12, 2.
  • Chiome, C. (2013). e-Infrastructure acceptance in e-Health, e-Learning and e-Agriculture in Zimbabwe: The quest for the user acceptance variable. The 6th UbuntuNet Alliance annual conference (pp. 29-39). Harare, Zimbabwe: UbuntuNet Alliance.
  • Chuttur, M. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions. Indiana University, USA . Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37). http://sprouts.aisnet.org/9-37.
  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organisational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, Jstor., 32 (5), 554-571.
  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart., 13(1), 319–339.
  • Davis, F. D. (1986). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.” MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
  • Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 9-21.
  • Dorr, S., Walther, S., & Eymann, T. (2013). Information systems success: A quantitative literature review and comparison . 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftinformatik, (pp. 1813 - 1827). Leipzig, Germany.
  • Hanadi, A. Z., Samer, B. M., & Hasan, A.-Z. A. (2012). Information technology acceptance by university lecturers: Case Study at Applied. European Scientific Journal, (10) 8.
  • Henczel, S. (2000). The information audit as a first step towards. Brighton: Special Libraries Association.
  • Hitt, L. M., Wu, D. J., & Zhou, X. (2002). Investment in enterprise resource planning: Business impact and productivity measures. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (1), 71-98.
  • King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management: Science Direct, (43) 740–755.
  • Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behaviour. Information Systems Research , 205.
  • Kulviwat, S., Bruner II, G. C., Kumar, A., Nasco, S. A., & Clark, T. (2007). Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology. Psychology & Marketing;Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 24(12), 1059–1084.
  • Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology: A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 191-204.
  • Maceviciute, E., & Wilson, T. D. (2002). The development of the information management research area. Information Research, 7, 3.
  • Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F. (1999). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. Proceeding of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Science, (pp. 1-14). Hawaii.
  • Mensah, M., & Adams, M. (2014). The nexus between corporate governance and records management in private and public hospitals in Ghana. Records Management Jounal, 24 (1), 32-55.
  • Ogbomo, J. A., & Ogbmo, E. F. (2008). Importance of Information and Communication Technology in making a healty information society. Ethiope East Local Government Area of data state, Nigeria: Philosophy and practice.
  • Oluwule, D. O. (2016). Technology acceptance model as a predictor of using information system to acquire information literacy skills.https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-assessment-of-the-changing-needs-of-information-Chikonzo-Bothma.
  • Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students behavioural intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology and Society, 12 (3), 150-162.
  • Pijpers, G. (2001). An examination of factors influencing managerial beliefs, attitude and use of information technology. Guus Pijpers.
  • Punnoose, A. C. (2012). Determinants of Intention to Use eLearning Based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11.
  • Ravi, T. M. (2011). The path to information management Nirvana. Information Management Daily, 1(2), 1-7.
  • Read-Smith, J., Ginn, M. L., & Kallaus, N. F. (2002). Records management (7th ed.). New York: Thompson Learning Inc: South-Western.
  • Robertson, J. (2005). Ten principles of effective information management: Step Two Design Limited. (http//.www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_effectiveim/index.html).
  • Rothaermel, F. T. (2012). Strategic management: Concepts and cases. New York: MacGraw-Hill/Irwin.
  • Sharma, S. K., & Chandal, J. K. (2013). Technology acceptance model for use of learing through websites among students in Oman. International Arab Journal of E-technology, 3, (1), 44 - 49.
  • Shlh-Chlh, C., Shlng-Han, L., & Chlen-Yi, L. (2011). Recent related research in Technology Acceptance Model: A literature review. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1 (9), 124-127.
  • Shroff, R. H., Deneen, C. C., & Ng, E. M. (2011). Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in examining students’ behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 600-618.
  • Tan, F. B., & Chung, J. (2005). Validating the Extended Technology Acceptance Model: Perceived playfulness in the context of information-searching websites. New Zealand: ACIS.
  • Vogelsang, K., Steinhuser, M., & Hoppe, U. (2013). A qualitative approach to explain technology acceptance. Thirty fourth International Conference on Information Systems. University of Osnabrück.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences Institute, 39 (2), 1-43.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, (2), 186–204.
  • Wang, W. T. (2011). Examining knowledge management during issue management: anagement Research Review, 34(4), 436-449

RELEVANCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) IN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF SELECTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Year 2020, , 34 - 44, 30.03.2020

Mustapha Osman Opoku Francis Enu-kwesi

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1186

Abstract

Purpose- The purpose of the study was to examine the relevance of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in information management research, and how it has been extended in relation to its perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.
Methodology- A desk study approach was used to review some of the studies that have used the model. Search engines, such as google scholar, yahoo search, and answers. com, were used to search through internationally renowned journals like Emerald, Science direct, IJRIC, South African Journal of Information Management and others. In all, twenty two (22) articles that were published from 1999 to 2016 were used. The 22 articles were those which have used the TAM in empirical studies and have well-described methodologies and clear findings.
Findings- The review showed that TAM is still recognized as the right model for quantitative based information management research, and to a lesser extent qualitative information management research and desk studies. However, while some researchers concluded that the TAM is relevant in determining and assessing users’ behaviour regarding technology usage with respect to time, others have criticised the TAM as too limited in the areas of theoretical assumptions and practical effectiveness. These critics have concluded that the model lacks the necessary attributes as a good theory for information system research.
Conclusion- In essence, the conflicting views create inconclusiveness about usage of TAM as a theoretical model. Such inconclusiveness calls for further research, and such research should set clear boundaries with respect to measurement of the issues, sampling procedures, and the analytical procedures.

Keywords

Technology acceptance model users’ behavioural information management intention to use perceived usefulness

References

  • Akortsu, M. A., & Abor, P. A. (2011). Financing public healthcare institutions in Ghana. Journal of Health Organisation and Management, 25 (2), 128-141.
  • Akotia, P. (2003). Public sector records systems in Ghana: Some lessons in development management. African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science, 13 (2).
  • Abdul Kargbo, J. (2005). Archives management in post-war Sierra Leone: Luxury or necessity? Journal of the Society of Archives, 26 (2).
  • Adams, M. (2006). Freedom of information and records management in Ghana. African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science, 16 (1), 1-6.
  • Al-Adwan, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Smedley, J. (2013). Exploring students acceptance of e-learning using Technology Acceptance Model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9, (2), 4-18.
  • Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Salam, A. F. (2004). An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Information & Management, (41) 731- 745.
  • Anand, V., Manz, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1988). An organisational memory approach to information management. Academy of Managemet Review, 23 (4), 796-800.
  • Averweg, R. U. (2008). Information technology acceptance in South Africa: An investigation of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and actual system use construct. African Journal of Information Systems, 1, (1), Article 4.
  • Basharat, M., Mahmood, Z., & Bashir, Z. (2012). Review of classical canagement theories . International Journal of Social Sciences and Education , 512-522.
  • Bertrand, M., & Bouchard, S. (2008). Applying the technology acceptance mpdel to virtual reality among clinicians. Journal of Cyber Therapy and Rehabilitation; Virtual Reality Medical Institute, 1, 2.
  • Çelik, H. E., & Yılmaz, V. (2011). extending the technology acceptance model for adoption of e shopping by consumers in Turkey. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 12, 2.
  • Chiome, C. (2013). e-Infrastructure acceptance in e-Health, e-Learning and e-Agriculture in Zimbabwe: The quest for the user acceptance variable. The 6th UbuntuNet Alliance annual conference (pp. 29-39). Harare, Zimbabwe: UbuntuNet Alliance.
  • Chuttur, M. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions. Indiana University, USA . Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37). http://sprouts.aisnet.org/9-37.
  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organisational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, Jstor., 32 (5), 554-571.
  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart., 13(1), 319–339.
  • Davis, F. D. (1986). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.” MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
  • Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 9-21.
  • Dorr, S., Walther, S., & Eymann, T. (2013). Information systems success: A quantitative literature review and comparison . 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftinformatik, (pp. 1813 - 1827). Leipzig, Germany.
  • Hanadi, A. Z., Samer, B. M., & Hasan, A.-Z. A. (2012). Information technology acceptance by university lecturers: Case Study at Applied. European Scientific Journal, (10) 8.
  • Henczel, S. (2000). The information audit as a first step towards. Brighton: Special Libraries Association.
  • Hitt, L. M., Wu, D. J., & Zhou, X. (2002). Investment in enterprise resource planning: Business impact and productivity measures. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (1), 71-98.
  • King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management: Science Direct, (43) 740–755.
  • Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behaviour. Information Systems Research , 205.
  • Kulviwat, S., Bruner II, G. C., Kumar, A., Nasco, S. A., & Clark, T. (2007). Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology. Psychology & Marketing;Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 24(12), 1059–1084.
  • Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology: A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 191-204.
  • Maceviciute, E., & Wilson, T. D. (2002). The development of the information management research area. Information Research, 7, 3.
  • Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F. (1999). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. Proceeding of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Science, (pp. 1-14). Hawaii.
  • Mensah, M., & Adams, M. (2014). The nexus between corporate governance and records management in private and public hospitals in Ghana. Records Management Jounal, 24 (1), 32-55.
  • Ogbomo, J. A., & Ogbmo, E. F. (2008). Importance of Information and Communication Technology in making a healty information society. Ethiope East Local Government Area of data state, Nigeria: Philosophy and practice.
  • Oluwule, D. O. (2016). Technology acceptance model as a predictor of using information system to acquire information literacy skills.https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-assessment-of-the-changing-needs-of-information-Chikonzo-Bothma.
  • Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students behavioural intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology and Society, 12 (3), 150-162.
  • Pijpers, G. (2001). An examination of factors influencing managerial beliefs, attitude and use of information technology. Guus Pijpers.
  • Punnoose, A. C. (2012). Determinants of Intention to Use eLearning Based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11.
  • Ravi, T. M. (2011). The path to information management Nirvana. Information Management Daily, 1(2), 1-7.
  • Read-Smith, J., Ginn, M. L., & Kallaus, N. F. (2002). Records management (7th ed.). New York: Thompson Learning Inc: South-Western.
  • Robertson, J. (2005). Ten principles of effective information management: Step Two Design Limited. (http//.www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_effectiveim/index.html).
  • Rothaermel, F. T. (2012). Strategic management: Concepts and cases. New York: MacGraw-Hill/Irwin.
  • Sharma, S. K., & Chandal, J. K. (2013). Technology acceptance model for use of learing through websites among students in Oman. International Arab Journal of E-technology, 3, (1), 44 - 49.
  • Shlh-Chlh, C., Shlng-Han, L., & Chlen-Yi, L. (2011). Recent related research in Technology Acceptance Model: A literature review. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1 (9), 124-127.
  • Shroff, R. H., Deneen, C. C., & Ng, E. M. (2011). Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in examining students’ behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 600-618.
  • Tan, F. B., & Chung, J. (2005). Validating the Extended Technology Acceptance Model: Perceived playfulness in the context of information-searching websites. New Zealand: ACIS.
  • Vogelsang, K., Steinhuser, M., & Hoppe, U. (2013). A qualitative approach to explain technology acceptance. Thirty fourth International Conference on Information Systems. University of Osnabrück.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences Institute, 39 (2), 1-43.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, (2), 186–204.
  • Wang, W. T. (2011). Examining knowledge management during issue management: anagement Research Review, 34(4), 436-449
There are 45 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Business Administration
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Mustapha Osman Opoku This is me 0000-0001-6314-1976

Francis Enu-kwesi This is me 0000-0003-0965-541X

Publication Date March 30, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020

Cite

APA Opoku, M. O., & Enu-kwesi, F. (2020). RELEVANCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) IN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF SELECTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Research Journal of Business and Management, 7(1), 34-44. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1186
AMA Opoku MO, Enu-kwesi F. RELEVANCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) IN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF SELECTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. RJBM. March 2020;7(1):34-44. doi:10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1186
Chicago Opoku, Mustapha Osman, and Francis Enu-kwesi. “RELEVANCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) IN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF SELECTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE”. Research Journal of Business and Management 7, no. 1 (March 2020): 34-44. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1186.
EndNote Opoku MO, Enu-kwesi F (March 1, 2020) RELEVANCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) IN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF SELECTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Research Journal of Business and Management 7 1 34–44.
IEEE M. O. Opoku and F. Enu-kwesi, “RELEVANCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) IN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF SELECTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE”, RJBM, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 34–44, 2020, doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1186.
ISNAD Opoku, Mustapha Osman - Enu-kwesi, Francis. “RELEVANCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) IN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF SELECTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE”. Research Journal of Business and Management 7/1 (March 2020), 34-44. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1186.
JAMA Opoku MO, Enu-kwesi F. RELEVANCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) IN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF SELECTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. RJBM. 2020;7:34–44.
MLA Opoku, Mustapha Osman and Francis Enu-kwesi. “RELEVANCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) IN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF SELECTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE”. Research Journal of Business and Management, vol. 7, no. 1, 2020, pp. 34-44, doi:10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1186.
Vancouver Opoku MO, Enu-kwesi F. RELEVANCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) IN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF SELECTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. RJBM. 2020;7(1):34-4.

Research Journal of Business and Management (RJBM) is a scientific, academic, double blind peer-reviewed, quarterly and open-access online journal. The journal publishes four issues a year. The issuing months are March, June, September and December. The publication languages of the Journal are English and Turkish. RJBM aims to provide a research source for all practitioners, policy makers, professionals and researchers working in all related areas of business, management and organizations. The editor in chief of RJBM invites all manuscripts that cover theoretical and/or applied researches on topics related to the interest areas of the Journal. RJBM publishes academic research studies only. RJBM charges no submission or publication fee.

Ethics Policy - RJBM applies the standards of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). RJBM is committed to the academic community ensuring ethics and quality of manuscripts in publications. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden and the manuscripts found to be plagiarized will not be accepted or if published will be removed from the publication. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work. Plagiarism, duplicate, data fabrication and redundant publications are forbidden. The manuscripts are subject to plagiarism check by iThenticate or similar. All manuscript submissions must provide a similarity report (up to 15% excluding quotes, bibliography, abstract, method).

Open Access - All research articles published in PressAcademia Journals are fully open access; immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers. Community standards, rather than copyright law, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now.