Platform Adoption Factors in the Internet Industry
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Technology Acceptance Model
2.2. Systematic Structure of the Online Platform Service
3. Research Design and Method
3.1. Research Hypothesis
3.2. Research Design and Data Collection
4. Data Analysis
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Yun, J.J.; Won, D.; Park, K.; Yang, J.; Zhao, X. Growth of a platform business model as an entrepreneurial ecosystem and its effects on regional development. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 25, 805–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J. The platform business model and business ecosystem: Quality management and revenue structures. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2016, 24, 2113–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Della Corte, V.; Iavazzi, A.; D’Andrea, C. Customer involvement through social media: The cases of some telecommunication firms. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2015, 1, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, D.; Hagiu, A.; Schmalensee, R. Invisible Engines; MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Armstrong, M.; Wright, J. Two-sided markets, competitive bottlenecks and exclusive contracts. Econ. Theory 2007, 32, 353–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rochet, J.C.; Tirole, J. Two-sided markets: A progress report. Rand J. Econ. 2006, 37, 645–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenmann, T.; Parker, G.; Van Alstyne, M.W. Strategies for two-sided markets. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 92–103. [Google Scholar]
- Adner, R.; Levinthal, D. What is not a real option: Considering boundaries for the application of real options to business strategy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2004, 29, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rietveld, J.; Eggers, J.P. Demand Heterogeneity in Platform Markets: Implications for Complementors. Org. Sci. 2018, 29, 304–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boudreau, K.J.; Hagju, A. Platform Rules: Multi-Sided Platforms as Regulators; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hagiu, A. Multi-Sided Platforms: From Microfoundations to Design and Expansion Strategies; Harvard Business School Strategy Unit Working Paper; Harvard Business Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; Available online: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/07-094.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2018).
- Eisenmann, T.; Parker, G.; Van Alstyne, M. Opening Platforms: How, When and Why; Harvard Business School Strategy Unit Working Paper; Harvard Business Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008; Available online: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-030.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2018).
- Henderson, R.; Clark, K. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 1990, 35, 9–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldwin, C.; Woodard, C. The architecture of platforms: A unified view. In Platforms, Markets and Innovation; Gawer, A., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Seoul, UK, 2009; pp. 19–44. [Google Scholar]
- Gawer, A.; Cusumano, M. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013, 31, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2002, 11, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iansiti, M.; Levien, R. Strategy as ecology. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2004, 82, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Yun, J.J.; Jeong, E.; Lee, Y.; Kim, K. The Effect of Open Innovation on Technology Value and Technology Transfer: A Comparative Analysis of the Automotive, Robotics, and Aviation Industries of Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J.; Jung, K.; Yigitcanlar, T. Open Innovation of James Watt and Steve Jobs: Insights for Sustainability of Economic Growth. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1553. [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]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.W.; Chervany, N.L. Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Q. 1999, 23, 183–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, C.M.; Chang, C.C.; Cheng, H.L.; Fang, Y.H. Determinants of customer repurchase intention in online shopping. Online Inf. Rev. 2009, 33, 761–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Yang, S.; Lehto, X. Adoption of mobile technologies for Chinese consumers. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2007, 8, 196–206. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, J. Market entry strategy for a digital platform provider. Baltic J. Manag. 2018, 13, 390–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rochet, J.; Tirole, J. Platform competition in two-sided markets. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2003, 1, 990–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rysman, M. The economics of two-sided markets. J. Econ. Perspect. 2009, 23, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, G.; Van Alstyne, M. Two-sided network effects: A theory of information product design. Manag. Sci. 2005, 51, 1494–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smedlund, A. Value cocreation in service platform business models. Serv. Sci. 2012, 4, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pikkarainen, T.; Pikkarainen, K.; Karjaluoto, H.; Pahnila, S. Consumer acceptance of online banking: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Int. Res. 2004, 14, 224–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.H.; Wang, S.C. What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 719–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha, S.; Stoel, L. Consumer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a technology acceptance model. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 565–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, E.; Kim, K.J. An integrated adoption model of mobile cloud services: Exploration of key determinants and extension of technology acceptance model. Telemat. Inf. 2014, 31, 376–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, Q.; Ravid, G.; Rafaeli, S. Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Inf. Syst. Res. 2004, 15, 194–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, N.A.; Kaleka, A.; Katsikeas, C.S. Antecedents of export venture performance: A theoretical model and empirical assessment. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 90–108. [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]
- 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]
- Lu, J.; Plataniotis, K.N.; Venetsanopoulos, A.N. Regularized discriminant analysis for the small sample size problem in face recognition. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 2003, 24, 3079–3087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vijayasarathy, L.R. Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: The case for an augmented technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2004, 41, 747–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronin, J.J., Jr.; Brady, M.K.; Hult, G.T.M. Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J. Retail. 2000, 76, 193–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parasuraman, A.; Grewal, D. Serving customers and consumers effectively in the twenty-first century: A conceptual framework and overview. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2000, 28, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, J.L. Customer satisfaction, service quality and perceived value: An integrative model. J. Mark. Manag. 2004, 20, 897–917. [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, 21, 279–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Sun, J.; Zhu, X.; Fang, Y. Privacy and security for online social networks: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Netw. 2010, 24, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. Servqual: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of sevice quality. J. Retail. 1988, 64, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, S.W.; Swartz, T.A. A gap analysis of professional service quality. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carman, J.M. Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. J. Retail. 1990, 66, 33–55. [Google Scholar]
- Yun, J.J.; Won, D.; Park, K. Dynamics from open innovation to evolutionary change. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2016, 2, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauniar, R.; Rawski, G.; Yang, J.; Johnson, B. Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: An empirical study on Facebook. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2014, 27, 6–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Demographic Characteristics | n | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 98 | 44.14 |
Female | 124 | 55.86 | |
Age (years) | 15–24 | 82 | 36.94 |
25–34 | 78 | 35.13 | |
35–44 | 48 | 21.62 | |
Over 45 | 14 | 6.31 | |
Occupation | Student | 124 | 55.86 |
Worker | 98 | 44.14 | |
- Office worker | 68 | 30.63 | |
- Professional | 10 | 4.51 | |
- Self-employed | 20 | 9.11 |
Variable | Item | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | p | AVE | α | Construct Reliability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intention to use | IU1 | 1.000 | 0.86 | 0.901 | 0.94 | |||
IU2 | 1.680 | 0.084 | 20.111 | *** | ||||
IU3 | 1.083 | 0.096 | 11.321 | *** | ||||
IU4 | 0.99 | 0.051 | 19.29 | *** | ||||
Perceived usefulness | PU1 | 1.294 | 0.084 | 15.413 | *** | 0.82 | 0.889 | 0.93 |
PU2 | 0.95 | 0.049 | 19.27 | *** | ||||
PU3 | 0.94 | 0.046 | 20.48 | *** | ||||
Perceived ease of use | PE1 | 1.246 | 0.088 | 14.211 | *** | 0.88 | 0.927 | 0.96 |
PE2 | 1.16 | 0.058 | 20.11 | *** | ||||
PE3 | 1 | *** | ||||||
Perceived diversity | PD1 | 1 | 0.88 | 0.911 | 0.94 | |||
PD2 | 0.98 | 0.039 | 25.08 | *** | ||||
PD3 | 1.12 | 0.073 | 15.43 | *** | ||||
Security risk | SR1 | 1 | 0.72 | 0.835 | 0.87 | |||
SR2 | 0.98 | 0.051 | 19.24 | *** | ||||
SR3 | 0.88 | 0.057 | 15.32 | *** | ||||
Perceived satisfaction | PS1 | 1.09 | 0.062 | 17.68 | *** | 0.82 | 0.912 | 0.93 |
PS2 | 1 | |||||||
PS3 | 1.12 | 0.052 | 21.42 | *** |
Hypothesis and Path | Path Coefficient | C.R. | p | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1: Perceived ease of use → Perceived usefulness | 0.351 | 5.212 | *** | Adopted |
H2: Perceived usefulness → Intention to use | 0.048 | 0.581 | 0.584 | Rejected |
H3: Perceived ease of use → Intention to use | 0.419 | 8.574 | *** | Adopted |
H4: Perceived diversity → Perceived usefulness | 0.412 | 8.246 | *** | Adopted |
H5: Perceived diversity → Perceived ease of use | 0.042 | 0.528 | 0.598 | Rejected |
H6: Perceived security risk → Perceived usefulness | −0.171 | −2.886 | * | Adopted |
H7: Perceived satisfaction → Perceived usefulness | 0.387 | 6.015 | *** | Adopted |
H8: Perceived satisfaction → Perceived ease of use | 0.322 | 4.988 | *** | Adopted |
© 2018 by the author. 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, J. Platform Adoption Factors in the Internet Industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093185
Kim J. Platform Adoption Factors in the Internet Industry. Sustainability. 2018; 10(9):3185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093185
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Junic. 2018. "Platform Adoption Factors in the Internet Industry" Sustainability 10, no. 9: 3185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093185
APA StyleKim, J. (2018). Platform Adoption Factors in the Internet Industry. Sustainability, 10(9), 3185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093185