Searching for New Model of Digital Informatics for Human–Computer Interaction: Testing the Institution-Based Technology Acceptance Model (ITAM)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
2.1. New Information Technology in the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Its Adoption
2.2. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Its Limitation
2.3. Hypothesis Development
- Institution includes laws, regulations, guidelines, strategies, and work procedures
- Intention to use is the level of individual’s behavioral intention to adopt new technologies
- M(PEOU, PU) plays a mediating role in explaining intention to use
3. Data and Methods
3.1. Research Method
3.2. Data
3.3. Measures
3.4. Analysis Method: Structural Equation Modeling
4. Results
4.1. Measurement Model
4.2. Reliability Analysis and Correlations
4.3. Hypothesis Tests
4.3.1. Structural Model
4.3.2. Alternative Expanded Model
5. Discussion and Implication
5.1. Discussing the Main Results
5.2. Practical Implications
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Brynjolfsson, E.; McAfee, A. The Second Machine age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies; WW Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bertot, J.C.; Jaeger, P.T.; Munson, S.; Glaisyer, T. Social media technology and government transparency. Computer 2010, 43, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziemba, E. The contribution of ICT adoption to the sustainable information society. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2019, 59, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sachs, J.D. The Age of Sustainable Development; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Sobaci, M.L.; Karkin, N. The use of twitter by mayors in Turkey: Tweets for better public services? Gov. Inf. Q. 2013, 30, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mergel, I. Open innovation in the Public Sector: Drivers and barriers for the adoption of challenge.gov. Pub. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 726–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glyptis, L.; Christofi, M.; Vrontis, D.; Del Giudice, M.; Dimitriou, S.; Michael, P. E-Government implementation challenges in small countries: The project manager’s perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 152, 119880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pahl-Wostl, C. A conceptual framework for analyzing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 354–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution; Currency: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Mian, S.H.; Salah, B.; Ameen, W.; Moiduddin, K.; Alkhalefah, H. Adapting universities for sustainability education in Industry 4.0: Channel of challenges and opportunities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, T.K. Industry 4.0: A Korea perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 132, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safar, L.; Sopko, J.; Dancakova, D.; Woschank, M. Industry 4.0—Awareness in South India. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kromidha, E.; Córdoba-Pachón, J.R. Discursive institutionalism for reconciling change and stability in digital innovation public sector projects for development. Gov. Inf. Q. 2017, 34, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashok, M.; Al, M.S.M.A.B.; Madan, R.; Dzandu, M.D. How to counter organisational inertia to enable knowledge management practices adoption in public sector organisations. J. Knowl. Manag. 2021, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hannan, M.T.; Freeman, J. Structural inertia and organizational change. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1984, 49, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strat. Manag. J. 1992, 13, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frost, A. A synthesis of knowledge management failure factors. Recuper. El 2014, 22, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Anton, C.; Camarero, C.; San José, R. Public employee acceptance of new technological processes: The case of an internal call centre. Public Manag. Rev. 2014, 16, 852–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldwin, J.N.; Gauld, R.; Goldfinch, S. What public servants really think of e-government. Public Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 105–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfeiffer, S. The vision of “Industrie 4.0” in the making—A case of future told, tamed, and traded. Nanoethics 2017, 11, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lee, M.; Yun, J.J.; Pyka, A.; Won, D.; Kodama, F.; Schiuma, G.; Park, H.; Jeon, J.; Park, K.; Jung, K.; et al. How to respond to the fourth industrial revolution, or the second information technology revolution? Dynamic new combinations between technology, market, and society through open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- World Economic Forum. The Future of Jobs: Employment, Skills and Workforce Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution; Global Challenge Insight Report; WEF: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ali, O.; Soar, J.; Yong, J. An investigation of the challenges and issues influencing the adoption of cloud computing in Australian regional municipal governments. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 2016, 27, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, O.; Soar, J.; Yong, J. Impact of cloud computing technology on e-government. Inf. Soft. Technol. 2014, 456, 272–290. [Google Scholar]
- March, J.G. Footnotes to organizational change. Adm. Sci. Q. 1981, 26, 563–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehraeen, M.; Dadkhah, M.; Mehraeen, A. Investigating the capabilities of information technologies to support policymaking in COVID-19 crisis management; A systematic review and expert opinions. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2020, 50, e13391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ślusarczyk, B. Industry 4.0—Are we ready? Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2018, 17, 232–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reischauer, G. Industry 4.0 as policy-driven discourse to institutionalize innovation systems in manufacturing. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 132, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolfe, D. A Digital Strategy for Canada: The Current Challenge. IRPP Insight, 25. 2019. Available online: https://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/A-Digital-Strategy-for-Canada.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2020).
- Mexican Ministry of Economy. Crafting the Future: A Roadmap for Industry 4.0 in Mexico. 2016. Available online: https://knoware.biz/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/industry-4.0-mexico.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2020).
- Liao, Y.; Loures, E.R.; Deschamps, F.; Brezinski, G.; Venâncio, A. The impact of the fourth industrial revolution: A cross-country/region comparison. Production 2018, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- KISDI(Kora Information Development Institute). ICT Industry Outlook of Korea. 2019. Available online: https://www.kisdi.re.kr/kisdi/jsp/fp/eng/research/KE_25000.jsp (accessed on 9 September 2020).
- O’Reilly, T. Government as a Platform. Innov. Technol. Gov. Glob. 2011, 6, 13–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Government of the Republic of Korea. People-Centered plan for the Fourth Industrial Revolution to promote Innovative Growth I-Korea 4.0. 2017. Available online: https://www.4th-ir.go.kr/article/detail/220 (accessed on 14 September 2020).
- Presidential Committee on the Fourth Industrial Revolution (PCFIR) of Korea. Recommendations to the Government for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. 2019. Available online: https://www.4th-ir.go.kr/article/download/623 (accessed on 17 September 2020).
- Hilty, L.M.; Aebischer, B. ICT for sustainability: An emerging research field. In ICT Innovations for Sustainability; Hilty, L., Aebischer, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 3–36. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, H.; Xu, X.; Xiao, J. Diffusion of e-government: A literature review and directions for future directions. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31, 631–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, L.; Bélanger, F. The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Inf. Syst. J. 2005, 15, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, B.G. The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models; University Press of Kansas: Lawrence, KS, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Weaver, R.; Rockman, B. Assessing the effects of institutions. In Do Institutions Matter? Weaver, K., Rockman, B., Eds.; The Brookings Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 2–18. [Google Scholar]
- Decramer, A.; Smolders, C.; Vanderstraeten, A.; Christiaens, J. The impact of institutional pressures on employee performance management systems in higher education in the low countries. Brit. J. Manag. 2012, 23, S88–S103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Reading, Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, J. Toward an understanding of web-based subscription database acceptance. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2006, 57, 1715–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Bala, H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 2008, 39, 273–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verma, S.; Bhattacharyya, S.S.; Kumar, S. An extension of the technology acceptance model in the big data analytics system implementation environment. Inf. Process. Manag. 2018, 54, 791–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dishaw, M.T.; Strong, D.M. Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs. Inf. Manag. 1999, 36, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decis. Sci. 1996, 27, 451–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas, H.C., Jr.; Spitler, V.K. Technology use and performance: A field study of broker workstations. Decis. Sci. 1999, 30, 291–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chtourou, S.; Souiden, N. Rethinking the TAM model: Time to consider fun. J. Consum. Mark. 2010, 27, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beglaryan, M.; Petrosyan, V.; Bunker, E. Development of a tripolar model of technology acceptance: Hospital-based physicians’ perspective on EHR. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2017, 102, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, P.J.; Chau, P.Y.; Sheng, O.R.L.; Tam, K.Y. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1999, 16, 91–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-user Information Systems: Theory and Results. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agarwal, R.; Prasad, J. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decis. Sci. 1997, 28, 557–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Igbaria, M.; Zinatelli, N.; Cragg, P.; Cavaye, A.L. Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A structural equation model. MIS Q. 1997, 279–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marangunić, N.; Granić, A. Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Univers. Access. Inf. Soc. 2015, 14, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngai, E.T.; Poon, J.L.; Chan, Y.C. Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Comput. Educ. 2007, 48, 250–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teo, T. Examining the influence of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2010, 11, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajibade, P. Technology acceptance model limitations and criticisms: Exploring the practical applications and use in technology-related Studies, mixed-method, and qualitative researches. Lib. Phil. Prac. 2018. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/189486068.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2021).
- Lin, F.H.; Wu, J.H. An empirical study of end-user computing acceptance factors in small and medium enterprises in Taiwan: Analyzed by structural equation modeling. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2004, 44, 98–108. [Google Scholar]
- Luna-Reyes, L.F.; Gil-Garcia, J.R. Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-government phenomena. Gov. Inf. Q. 2011, 28, 329–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thornton, P.H.; Ocasio, W. Institutional logics. In Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism; Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin-Andersson, K., Suddaby, R., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 165–201. [Google Scholar]
- Currie, W.L. Institutional theory of information technology. In The Oxford Handbook of Management Information Systems: Critical Perspectives and New Directions; Gallier, R.D., Currie, W.L., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 137–173. [Google Scholar]
- Butler, T. Institutional change and green IS: Towards problem-driven, mechanism-based explanations. In Information Systems Theory. Integrated Series in Information Systems; Dwivedi, Y., Wade, M., Schneberger, S., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 383–407. [Google Scholar]
- Jepperson, R.L. Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis; Powell, W.W., DiMaggio, P.J., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1991; pp. 143–163. [Google Scholar]
- DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scott, W.R. Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Scott, W.R. Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agents. Organ. Stud. 2008, 29, 219–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barley, S.R.; Tolbert, P.S. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Org. Stud. 1997, 18, 93–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orlikowski, W.J.; Stephen, R.B. Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Q. 2001, 25, 145–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douglas, M. How Institutions Think; Syracuse University Press: Syracuse, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Ciborra, C.U.; Lanzara, G.F. Formative contexts and information technology: Understanding the dynamics of innovation in organizations. Accou. Manag. Inf. Technol. 1994, 4, 61–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, T.B.; Kjærgaard, A.; Svejvig, P. Using institutional theory with sensemaking theory: A case study of information system implementation in healthcare. J. Inf. Technol. 2009, 24, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, W.; Richard, M.; John, W. Institutional Environment and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Straub, D.; Keil, M.; Brenner, W. Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study. Inf. Manag. 1997, 33, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lluch, M. Healthcare professionals’ organisational barriers to health information technologies—A literature review. Inter. J. Med. Inf. 2011, 80, 849–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J.; Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind; Mcgraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values; Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- McCoy, S.; Galletta, D.F.; King, W.R. Applying TAM across cultures: The need for caution. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2007, 16, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triandis, H.C. Cross-cultural social and personality psychology. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1977, 3, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- March, J.G.; Olsen, J.P. Rediscovering Institutions; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Fountain, J.E. Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change; Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Subramanian, G.H. A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decis. Sci. 1994, 25, 863–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chau, P.Y. An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of case by systems developers. Inf. Manag. 1996, 30, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1111–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legris, P.; Ingham, J.; Collerette, P. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2003, 40, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W. The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 1, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abdullah, F.; Ward, R.; Ahmed, E. Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students’ perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of e-portfolios. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 63, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keil, M.; Beranek, P.M.; Konsynski, B.R. Usefulness and ease of use: Field study evidence regarding task considerations. Decis. Support Syst. 1995, 13, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, D. Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Hevner, A.R.; March, S.T.; Park, J.; Ram, S. Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 75–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hevner, A.; Chatterjee, S. Design science research in information systems. In Design Research in Information Systems; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 9–22. [Google Scholar]
- Arnott, D.; Pervan, G. Design science in decision support systems research: An assessment using the Hevner, March, Park, and Ram Guidelines. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012, 13, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orlikowski, W.J. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organ. Sci. 2000, 11, 404–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A. Systems thinking, design science, and paradigms: Heeding three lessons from the past to resolve three dilemmas in the present to direct a trajectory for future research in the information systems field, keynote address. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Information Management, Taipei, Taiwan, 20 May 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R.; Black, W.l. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Stevens, J. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Sung, W.; Kim, C. A study on the effect of change management on organizational Innovation: Focusing on the mediating effect of members’ innovative behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weston, R.; Gore, P.A., Jr. A brief guide to structural equation modeling. Couns. Psychol. 2006, 34, 719–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M. Factors versus composites: Guidelines for choosing the right structural equation modeling method. Proj. Manag. J. 2019, 50, 619–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashok, M.; Narula, R.; Martinez-Noya, A. How do collaboration and investments in knowledge management affect process innovation in services? J. Knowl. Manag. 2016, 20, 1004–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentler, P.M.; Yuan, K.H. Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1999, 34, 181–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentler, P.M.; Chou, C. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol. Methods Res. 1987, 16, 78–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jöreskog, K.G.; Sörbom, D. LISREL 7 User’s Reference Guide; SPSS Publications: Chicago, IL, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, R.J. Path analysis: Pollination. In Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments; Scheiner, S.M., Gurevitch, J., Eds.; Chapman and Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 211–231. [Google Scholar]
- KIPA (Korea Institute of Public Administration). A Survey Results of Public Service Innovation through the Use of Information Technology in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Research Paper. Seoul, Korea. 2018. Available online: https://www.kipa.re.kr/site/mblk/sta/selectBaseView.do?gubun=IA&seqNo=STAT_000000000001000 (accessed on 2 May 2020).
- Jackson, D.L. Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates: Some support for the n:q hypothesis. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2003, 10, 128–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Barrett, P. Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Pers. Individ. Differ 2007, 42, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fountain, J.E. Bureaucratic Reform and E-Government in the United States: An Institutional Perspective; National Center for Digital government; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, G.C.; Benbasat, I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 192–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orcan, F. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Which one to use first. J. Meas. Eval. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 9, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Worthington, R.L.; Whittaker, T.A. Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns. Psychol. 2006, 34, 806–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis; Chicago Univer: Chicago, IL, USA, 1960. [Google Scholar]
- Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Prac. Assess Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.D. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, L.J.; Vandenberg, R.J.; Edwards, J.R. 12 Structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2009, 3, 543–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, H.K.; Hirschheim, R.A. Legitimation in information systems development: A social change perspective. Off. Technol. People 1989, 5, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, A.J.W.; Boudreau, M.; Watson, R.T. Information systems and ecological sustainability. J. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2008, 10, 186–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, J. Effect analysis in structural equation models: Extensions and simplified methods of computation. Sociol. Methods Res. 1980, 9, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, J.W.; Rowan, B. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am. J. Sociol. 1977, 83, 340–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pfeffer, J. New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects; Oxford University Press on Demand: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Scott, W.R. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Q.; Hart, P.; Cooke, D. The role of external and internal influences on information systems security–a neo-institutional perspective. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2007, 16, 153–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierson, P. Public policies as institutions. In Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State; Shapiro, I., Skowronek, S., Galvin., D., Eds.; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 114–131. [Google Scholar]
- Fountain, J. On the effects of e-government on political institutions. In Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology and Society; Kleinman, D.L., Moore, K., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 471–488. [Google Scholar]
- Lips-Wiersma, M.; Hall, D. Organizational career development is not dead: A case study on managing the new career during organizational change. J. Organ. Behav. 2007, 28, 771–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lloyd, K.; Boer, D.; Keller, J.; Voelpel, S. Is my boss really listening to me? The impact of perceived supervisor listening on emotional exhaustion, turnover intention, and organizational citizenship behavior. J. Bus. Ethic 2015, 130, 509–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robbins, S.F.; Judge, T.A. Organizational Behavior, 12th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 2000, 11, 342–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weinberg, B.A. Experience and Technology Adoption; IZA Discussion Paper No. 1051; Institute of Labor Economics: Bonn, Germany, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Zuboff, S. In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power; Basic Books Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Borkovich, D.J.; Skovira, R.J.; Breese-Vitelli, J. New technology adoption: Embracing cultural influences. Issue Inf. Syst. 2015, 16, 138–147. [Google Scholar]
- Flyverbom, M.; Deibert, R.; Matten, D. The governance of digital technology, big data, and the internet: New roles and responsibilities for business. Buss. Sociol. 2019, 58, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strickland, L.S.; Hunt, L.E. Technology, security, and individual privacy: New tools, new threats, and new public perceptions. J. Am. Sociol. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2005, 56, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hancher-Rauch, H.L.; Bishop, C.; Campbell, A.; Cecil, K.; Yazel, L. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on the professional roles and responsibilities of health educators. Health Promot. Pr. 2021, 22, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzgerald, M.; Kruschwitz, N.; Bonnet, D.; Welch, M. Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2014, 55, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Harrison, D.A.; Mykytyn, P.P., Jr.; Riemenschneider, C.K. Executive decisions about adoption of information technology in small business: Theory and empirical tests. Inf. Syst. Res. 1997, 8, 171–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gagnon, Y.C. The behavior of public managers in adopting new technologies. Public Perform Manag. Rev. 2001, 24, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alekseev, A.N.; Buraeva, E.V.; Kletskova, E.V.; Rykhtikova, N.A. Stages of formation of industry 4.0 and the key indicators of its development. In Industry 4.0: Industrial Revolution of the 21st Century; Elena, G.P., Yulia, V.R., Aleksei, V.B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 93–100. [Google Scholar]
- Kulin, J.; Sevä, I.J. The role of government in protecting the environment: Quality of government and the translation of normative views about government responsibility into spending preferences. Int. J. Sociol. 2019, 49, 110–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schuster, C.; Weitzman, L.; Sass Mikkelsen, K.; Meyer-Sahling, J.; Bersch, K.; Fukuyama, F.; Kay, K. Responding to COVID-19 through surveys of Public Servants. Pub. Adm. Rev. 2020, 80, 792–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tejedor, S.; Pérez-Escoda, A.; Ventín, A.; Tusa, F.; Martínez, F. Tracking Websites’ Digital Communication Strategies in Latin American Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2020, 17, 9145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahmad, A.; Rasul, T.; Yousaf, A.; Zaman, U. Understanding Factors Influencing Elderly Diabetic Patients’ Continuance Intention to Use Digital Health Wearables: Extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tulenko, K.; Vervoort, D. Cracks in the system: The effects of the Coronavirus pandemic on public health systems. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2020, 50, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horst, J.; Santiago, F. What Can Policymakers Learn from Germany’s Industrie 4.0 Development Strategy; Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial Development; Working Paper Series, WP, 22; United Nations Industrial Development Organization: Vienna, Austria, 2018; pp. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
- Corrocher, N.; Fontana, R. Objectives; Obstacles and drivers of ICT adoption: What do IT managers perceive? Inf. Econo. Pol. 2008, 20, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holden, H.; Rada, R. Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2011, 43, 343–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soh, C.; Connolly, D. New frontiers of profit and risk: The Fourth Industrial Revolution’s impact on business and human rights. New Political Econ. 2021, 26, 168–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capano, G.; Woo, J.J. Resilience and robustness in policy design: A critical appraisal. Policy Sci. 2017, 50, 399–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, J.A. The New Covid-19 home office worker: Evolving computer-human interactions and the perceived value of workplace technology. Tech. Soc. Sci. J. 2020, 13, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, J.J. Capacity-building and Pandemics: Singapore’s Response to Covid-19; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Staley, B.; O’Boyle, J.; Armstrong, E.; Coonan, E.; Taylor, L.; Dutton, J. The impact of COVID-19 on professional practice in the northern territory, Australia. Perspect. Asha Spec. Int. Groups 2020, 5, 1789–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budd, J.; Miller, B.S.; Manning, E.M.; Lampos, V.; Zhuang, M.; Edelstein, M.; McKendry, R.A. Digital technologies in the public-health response to COVID-19. Nat. Med. 2020, 26, 1183–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone-Johnson, C.; Weiner, J.M. Principal professionalism in the time of COVID-19. J. Prof. Cap. Community 2020, 5, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roca, J.B.; Vaishnav, P.; Morgan, G.M.; Fuchs, E.; Mendonça, J. Technology forgiveness: Why emerging technologies differ in their resilience to institutional instability. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 166, 120599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, B.; Dasgupta, S.; Gupta, A. Adoption of ICT in a government organization in a developing country: An empirical study. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 2008, 17, 140–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nedović-Budić, Z.; Godschalk, D.R. Human factors in adoption of geographic information systems: A local government case study. Public Adm. Rev. 1996, 554–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrés, A.R.; Amavilah, V.; Asongu, S. Linkages Between Formal Institutions, ICT Adoption, and Inclusive Human Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Catalyzing Development through ICT Adoption; Kaur, H., Lechman, E., Marszk, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 175–203. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, C.; Braund, W.E.; Auerbach, J.; Chou, J.H.; Teng, J.H.; Tu, P.; Mullen, J. Policy decisions and use of information technology to fight coronavirus disease, Taiwan. Emerg. Infect Dis. 2020, 26, 1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pagani, M. Determinants of adoption of high speed data services in the business market: Evidence for a combined technology acceptance model with task technology fit model. Inf. Manag. 2006, 43, 847–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, C.C.; Chiou, J.S. The impact of perceived ease of use on Internet service adoption: The moderating effects of temporal distance and perceived risk. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- House, R.J.; Hanges, P.J.; Javidan, M.; Dorfman, P.W.; Gupta, V. (Eds.) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Guidelines and Principles | Description | Application for This Study |
---|---|---|
Design of an artifact | Design science research must produce a viable artifact in the form of a construct, a model, a method, or an instantiation. | This study suggests the Institution-based Technology Acceptance Model (ITAM) as a framework to construct more effective information system arrangement and organizational settings in the fourth industrial revolution. |
Problem Relevance | The objective of design science research is to develop technology-based solutions to important and relevant business problems. | This study suggests technology-based (security), organization-based (internal institution and manager’s concern), and people-based (attitude toward technology and culture) artifacts to address new technology acceptance issues. |
Design Evaluation | The utility, quality, and efficacy of a design artifact must be rigorously demonstrated via a well-executed evaluation method. | The proposed model in this study is evaluated for informed argument from the knowledge base (e.g., perception of users) to explain its possible utility. It also integrates prototype IT artifacts that can be mathematically evaluated. |
Research Contributions | Effective design science must provide clear and verifiable contributions in the areas of design artifacts, design foundations, and/or design methodologies. | This study and the artifact, ITAM provide both research and practical contributions to South Korea and other countries which adopt new information technology in the fourth industrial revolution. The result of this study provides institutional requirements and constraints for new information technology adoption. |
Research Rigor | Design science research relies upon the application of rigorous methods in both the construction and evaluation of design artifact. | Our proposed model addresses possible alternatives for IT artifacts that can be applied to managerial and behavioral changes within appropriate environments. The applicability of the model and causal relationships between latent variables are verified by utilization of sophisticated statistical methods. |
Design as a Search Process | The search for an effective artifact requires utilizing available means to reach desired ends while satisfying laws in the problem environment. | The proposed model provides effective solutions to address new technology acceptance problem. The possible solutions suggested in this study include laws, managerial actions, and technical issues which in turn provide a pragmatic approach for design science research. |
Communication of the Research | Design science research must be presented effectively both to the technology oriented as well as management-oriented audiences. | The results provide both technological and managerial implications to enable the artifact to be implemented. It also provides an analytic framework for researchers as well as managers to evaluate new IT artifact. |
Frequency | Percent | ||
---|---|---|---|
Position | 3rd | 6 | 2.0 |
4th | 34 | 11.3 | |
5th | 106 | 35.3 | |
6th | 71 | 23.7 | |
7th | 49 | 16.3 | |
8th | 2 | 0.7 | |
9th | 2 | 0.7 | |
Other | 30 | 10.0 | |
Gender | Male | 215 | 71.7 |
Female | 85 | 28.3 | |
Total | 300 | 100.0 |
Statistics | Meaning | Interpretation |
---|---|---|
S.E (Standard error) | The standard error means an estimate of the standard deviation (S.D) of the coefficient. | The standard error allows us to identify the magnitude of error which is made in estimating an outcome variable from an independent variable. |
Estimate (β, standardized coefficient) | The standardized coefficient is calculated by multiplying the unstandardized coefficient by the ratio of standard deviation of explanatory variable and outcome variable. | Each of the estimated parameters represents the amount of change in the dependent variable as a function of a single unit change in the explanatory variable. |
AVE (Average Variance Extracted) | AVE is the level of variance that is captured by a construct compared to the level of variance. | The suggested threshold that is normally higher than 0.50 would be acceptable. |
R2 (R-Square) | As the independent variables are correlated in SEM, the R2 of each estimate indicates the partial effect of each variable on the dependent variable. | The R2 of the structural model can be interpreted as a proportion of variance explained. The full structural model relationships between latent variables and direct variables have the highest partial coefficient. |
CFI (The Comparative Fit Index) | CFI is an incremental relative fit index that measures the relative improvement in the fit of the researcher’s model. | CFI is a revised form of NFI. It ranged from 0 to 1. The recommended threshold is 0.9 or more. |
GFI (The Goodness of Fit) | GFI is the proportion of variance accounted for by the estimated population covariance. | GFI indicates the proportion of variance explained by the estimated population covariance. The recommended threshold is 0.9 or more. |
NFI (The Normed-Fit Index)/ TLI (Tucker–Lewis Index) | NFI indicates whether the proposed model improves the fit compared to the null model. TLI (also called non-Normed-Fit) is preferable for a small sample. | NFI ranges between 0 and 1. The recommended threshold for NFI is 0.9 or more. |
SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) | SRMR is the standardized difference between the residuals of the observed sample covariance matrix and the predicted hypothesized model. | SRMR ranges between 0 and 1. The recommended threshold for SRMR is 0.08 or less. |
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) | RMSEA represents a parsimony-adjusted index. | RMSEA ranges from 0 to 1. Values closer to 0 represent a good fit. The recommended threshold is 0.08 or less. |
EFA | CFA | |
---|---|---|
Purpose | Determining latent variables; Developing scale [115] | Investigating model assumption; Testing validity of items [118] |
Necessity | Explaining the existing structure [118] | Investigating previous proven structure; Requiring strong model assumption [116] |
Procedure | Initial testing between items [115] | Following EFA, evaluating or confirming the extent [116] |
Usage | Factor decision when the number of factors between items is not known; Resulting in a preliminary rather than definite outcome [116] | Prior knowledge of the expected relationships between items and factors are required [116] |
Fit Indices | Recommended Value | Measurement Model | Structural Model |
---|---|---|---|
CFI | >0.90 | 0.965 | 0.957 |
GFI | >0.90 | 0.931 | 0.924 |
NFI | >0.90 | 0.924 | 0.917 |
TLI | >0.90 | 0.956 | 0.947 |
SRMR | <0.08 | 0.055 | 0.058 |
RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.051 | 0.056 |
Survey Items | Factor Loadings | S.E | AVE | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Institution | I_1 | 0.703 | 0.045 | 0.672 |
I_2 | 0.785 | 0.038 | ||
I_3 | 0.837 | 0.033 | ||
I_4 | 0.812 | 0.030 | ||
I_5 | 0.655 | 0.047 | ||
I_6 | 0.664 | 0.046 | ||
PU | PU_1 | 0.797 | 0.040 | 0.632 |
PU_2 | 0.906 | 0.028 | ||
PU_3 | 0.548 | 0.065 | ||
PU_4 | 0.532 | 0.051 | ||
PU_5 | 0.592 | 0.057 | ||
PEOU | PEOU_1 | 0.704 | 0.048 | 0.581 |
PEOU_2 | 0.561 | 0.059 | ||
PEOU_3 | 0.714 | 0.050 | ||
IU | IU_1 | 0.544 | 0.075 | 0.701 |
IU_2 | 0.749 | 0.047 | ||
IU_3 | 0.832 | 0.036 |
Variable | Mean | S.D | Reliability | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Institution | 3.03 | 0.636 | 0.896 | 1 | |||
2. PU | 3.62 | 0.556 | 0.819 | 0.308 ** | 1 | ||
3. PEOU | 3.63 | 0.595 | 0.699 | 0.285 ** | 0.409 ** | 1 | |
4. IU | 3.84 | 0.559 | 0.736 | 0.276 ** | 0.551 ** | 0.557 ** | 1 |
Path | Estimate | Hypotheses | Test Results | R2 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Institution | → | PEOU | 0.327 (p = 0.000) | H 1_1 | Supported | 0.107 |
Institution PEOU | → → | PU PU | 0.142 (p = 0.020) 0.554 (p = 0.000) | H 1_1 H3_2 | Supported Supported | 0.378 |
PU PEOU | → → | IU IU | 0.329 (p = 0.000) 0.547 (p = 0.000) | H2 H3_1 | Supported Supported | 0.624 |
Submodels | CFI | GFI | NFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Submodel 1 | 0.957 | 0.924 | 0.917 | 0.947 | 0.058 | 0.056 |
Submodel 2 | 0.955 | 0.921 | 0.908 | 0.943 | 0.054 | 0.053 |
Submodel 3 | 0.961 | 0.924 | 0.912 | 0.949 | 0.054 | 0.049 |
Submodel 4 | 0.956 | 0.918 | 0.903 | 0.940 | 0.052 | 0.049 |
Variables | Submodel 1 | Submodel 2 | Submodel 3 | Submodel 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Institution | 0.267 ** | 0.310 * | 0.370 ** | 0.387 * |
Perceived ease of use | 0.694 * | 0.737 ** | 0.885 ** | 1.032 * |
Perceived usefulness | 0.274 ** | 0.282 ** | 0.294 * | 0.277 |
Experience | 0.093 | 0.085 | ||
Voluntariness | 0.171 | 0.173 | ||
Specialty | −0.192 * | −0.264 * | ||
Culture | −0.007 | −0.019 | ||
Security | −0.284 * | −0.296 | ||
Manager’s concern | −0.017 | 0.028 |
Reference | Study Aims | Our Contributions |
---|---|---|
Sung [11] | To analyze practices of the fourth industrial revolution and industry 4.0 plan in Korea, along with guidelines and recommendations; to suggest that institutional infrastructure of central governments to lead all initiatives are required | Based on the survey of public employees in Korea, our study tested the basic theoretical framework for technological adoption of the fourth industrial revolution practices with the TAM approach. |
Safar et al. [12] | To examine opinions and attitudes of inhabitants of South India with a survey method; to emphasize insufficient knowledge of the fourth industrial revolution and industry 4.0 of the potential workforce and to suggest education and requalification is necessary | Our study showed the impact of institution on technology adoption of the fourth industrial revolution is critical. In our analysis, institution is a macro-level concept that includes work guidance, manual, plans, and strategies. Thus, institution deals with proper education and requalification to each section |
Anton [18] | To examine the adoption of new technological processes of public employees of internal call centers with the TAM approach; to emphasize the role of previous experience of public employees on technology, and to suggest further investigation on the effect of the environmental factors is required | Following the suggestion, our study focused on the influence of institution on technology adoption, especially huge dynamic changes of the fourth industrial revolution on public employees |
Baldwin [19] | To examine ICT use of public employees in New Zealand and whether technological development could comprehensively change administrative process; to suggest technology usage is not just a technical issue but managerial investment is needed | The purpose of our study is to find causal factors of new technology adoption by public employees. Our study proved that institution strongly influences TAM framework. The alternative model also showed that institution does not unintentionally relate to technology usefulness in the fourth industrial revolution. |
Pfeiffer [20] | To discuss current status of the fourth industrial revolution with in-depth analysis; to suggest further investigation of actors in various sectors about the trends | Our study aimed to investigate the adoptative behaviors of technology practices in the fourth industrial revolution, with a focus on public employees for diverse analysis about the current issue. |
Lee et al. [21] | To suggest various recommendations with brainstorming techniques on the fourth industrial revolution; to emphasize the role of institution in increasing creativity in organization. | Our study empirically analyzed the influence of institution with the TAM model. We showed the critical role of institution on the development of the fourth industrial revolution. |
Venkatesh and Davis [24] | To examine the impact of subjective and individual factors by extending TAM to address causal antecedents; to suggest adding designing patterns and system uses for structural consideration and functional design | Following the extended TAM, our study applied significant extensive factors like culture, experience, and voluntariness on our alternative model to confirm its role in the model. For extending theoretical constructs, our model focused on the role of institution as structural prerequisite for TAM to find whether there is causal antecedent with TAM. |
Reischauer [30] | To discuss and clarify the contents and identity of the fourth industrial revolution and Industry 4.0; to address various policy implications including the development institutionalization of the fourth industrial revolution for innovation | Our study empirically tested the impact of institution on technology adoption of the fourth industrial revolution by survey of public employees to confirm the role of institution is critical. |
Horst and Santiago [150] | To review and discuss the role of actors in policy process in various countries; to suggest that an institutionalized platform reframed and managed by the government is necessary | Our study investigated institution as a significant factor on technology adoption and examined its influence on the technology adoptive behavior of public employees. |
Liao [33] | To review and identify influential public policy and challenges by cross country comparison; to suggest various policy implications for inclusion in clear guidelines and process for policy implementation | Our study regarded institution as a composition of liability, structural formation, and procedural requirements for empirical test. |
Corrocher et al. [151] | To examine the obstacles and drivers of ICT adoption by surveying IT managers in Italy; to suggest from their empirical findings that contexts, compatible standards, and information diffusion are significant. Furthermore, authors indicated the sensitivity of institutional environment is strong and critical. | Following empirical results of ICT adoption, we empirically verified whether the role of institution is still valuable in the new technology context of the fourth industrial revolution. |
Fountain [130] | To explain how information technologies affects decision-making in complex organizations, especially with theoretical and qualitative approaches to the institutional perspective | Adopting the idea of basic framework, our study tried to confirm the role of institution on technology adoption with empirical results. |
Verma, Bhattacharyya and Kumar [47] | To empirically examine TAM with the system characteristics of quality and belief as causal antecedents; to suggest the influence of system and integrated model are needed | Adopting the idea of system characteristics, our study included institution with TAM to analyze its impact on technology adoption of the fourth industrial revolution. |
Holden and Rada [152] | To apply TAM with extensive variables of self-efficacy on attitudes toward using; to suggest that the role of external variable needs to be studied | To examine the impact of external variables, we selected institution as a significant external variable in the emerging trends of the fourth industrial revolution |
Alekseev et al. [144] | To review and analyze the process of formation of Industry 4.0; to suggest possible barriers and overcoming strategies in each stage, technology usefulness would be a key factor among them | To follow their proposition, our study examined the role of technology usefulness with extensive institutional TAM by empirically tested. |
Agarwal and Prasad [56] | To examine extended TAM with emotional variables like efficacy, anxiety, and managerial variables like innovativeness on the adoption of mobile-based money; to confirm significant impact of perceived ease of use in the model and also suggest the use of SEM technique to control the issues of endogeneity issues in TAM. | Following their findings to the context of the fourth industrial revolution, we regarded perceived ease of use of new technology as an important mediating factor in the model. |
Luna-Reyes and Gil-Garcia [63] | To analyze e-Government failure with regard to focus on ICT perspective on case study approach, authors demonstrated the important relationships between institutions, organization forms, and technology adoption of e-Government | Based on qualitative analysis by authors, our study focused on the role of institutions on new technology adoption of the fourth industrial revolution. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kang, Y.; Choi, N.; Kim, S. Searching for New Model of Digital Informatics for Human–Computer Interaction: Testing the Institution-Based Technology Acceptance Model (ITAM). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115593
Kang Y, Choi N, Kim S. Searching for New Model of Digital Informatics for Human–Computer Interaction: Testing the Institution-Based Technology Acceptance Model (ITAM). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(11):5593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115593
Chicago/Turabian StyleKang, Youngcheoul, Nakbum Choi, and Seoyong Kim. 2021. "Searching for New Model of Digital Informatics for Human–Computer Interaction: Testing the Institution-Based Technology Acceptance Model (ITAM)" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 11: 5593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115593
APA StyleKang, Y., Choi, N., & Kim, S. (2021). Searching for New Model of Digital Informatics for Human–Computer Interaction: Testing the Institution-Based Technology Acceptance Model (ITAM). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115593