Implementación de la propuesta pedagógica

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) was developed by Viswanath Venkatesh et al. in 2003 (Venkatesh et al., 2003). UTAUT is based on a review of eight other models from user acceptance literature, and the goal was to create a unified model which is combination of elements from the existing models. An additional motivation for creating a unified model is to make it simpler for researchers to choose a model without having to sacrifice the contributions of other models (Venkatesh et al., 2003). As can be seen in Figure 3.4 the model is formulated to explain behavioral intention and use behavior. This is done through four determinants of intention and usage, in addition to four moderators which is moderating the effect of the determinants.

Figure 3.4: UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003)

3.2.1

Constructs of UTAUT

In this section we will present the four determinants (performance expectancy, ef- fort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions) and the four moderators (gender, age, experience, voluntariness of use) of UTAUT. We will also do some comparisons with TAM (Section 3.1), which is one of the models that were evalu-

CHAPTER 3. TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE

ated in (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

Performance expectancy is the degree to which a user believes that an information system will help him get advantages in doing his job (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Per- formance expectancycan be compared to TAM’sperceived usefulness, and works as a direct determinant ofbehavioral intention. As we can see in Figure 3.4,performance expectancy is not placed as a main determinant as perceived usefulness is in TAM (see Figure 3.3), but rather equated with the rest of the determinants. Performance expectancy is moderated by gender and age, indicating that the effect of perfor- mance expectancy is stronger for young men (Venkatesh et al., 2003). They state research has indicated that men are more task-oriented than women, and that age changes work expectation as people go through different phases in life (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

Effort expectancy is the degree to which a user believes that an information system is easy to use (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Effort expectancy can be compared to TAM’s perceived ease of use, and is a direct determinant of behavioral intention. Like per- formance expectancy, effort expectancy is equated with the rest of the determinants in UTAUT, contrary to perceived ease of use in TAM (See Figure 3.3). Effort ex- pectancy is moderated by gender, age and experience and it is stated in (Venkatesh et al., 2003) that the effect of the moderators will be stronger for younger women, especially with low experience. Some of the arguments are thatage has an effect on the ability to learn new information systems, and that more experience will make systems easier to use.

Social influence is the degree to which a user believes that other people’s opinions are important for the decision of using an information system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Social influencecan be compared tosubjective norm which was introduced in TAM with TAM 2, and is a direct determinant onbehavioral intention (See Figure 3.3). As for TAM, experience and voluntariness of use are moderators of social influence, in addition to gender and age (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The effect of the moderators will be stronger for older women, especially with low experience and in a mandatory setting (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Many of the same arguments as in TAM (see Section 3.1.2) are used to explain the effect ofexperience and voluntariness of use. (Venkatesh et al., 2003) say that gender theory reveals that women are more sensitive tosocial influence than men. Social influence will also be more prominent with older people, but will have a decreasing effect with experience.

Facilitating conditions is the degree to which a user believes that organizational and technical infrastructure will support the use of an information system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Facilitating conditions is strongly related to effort expectancy in which that environmental factors will affect the using of an information system by making it easier to use and learn. By this we can say that it is also related to TAM’s perceived ease of use. Facilitating conditions works as a direct determinant on use behavior. It has no significant effect on the behavioral intention, although it would

CHAPTER 3. TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE

be natural to assume thatfacilitating conditions would predict behavioral intention ifeffort expectancywas not a part of the model (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Facilitating conditionsis moderated by ageand experience, so the effect will be more prominent for older and experienced people (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Research state that experienced users find more ways to get help and support, and that older people will be in more need for help and assistance in performing their job than younger people (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

Of a total of 32 constructs from the models which were evaluated, seven appeared to be significant direct determinants of intention or usage. Four determinants have already been presented. Attitude towards using technology,self-efficacy and anxiety was explained to not be direct determinants of intention and usage in UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003). They are all modeled as indirect determinants ofbehavioral intention. The reason for this is thatself-efficacyand anxiety are mediated through effort expectancy. Attitude towards using technology is defined as a user’s emotional reaction to using an information system, and this determinant will indirectly affect all the four determinants of UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

3.2.2

Validity of UTAUT and limitations in UTAUT re-

search

As UTAUT is a much more recent model than TAM there have not been that many critical reviews of the model. It is though stated, based on the empirical validation in (Venkatesh et al., 2003), that UTAUT can explain 70% of the variance in usage intention. This is significantly more than any of the eight models which were examined in the study. Other strengths which are pointed out in (Venkatesh et al., 2003) are:

• UTAUT is based on a compromise between eight other existing models. • All eight models in the study used within-subjects and longitudinal data from

four organizations.

• UTAUT was tested by using original data from four organizations and cross- validated by adding data from two additional organizations.

UTAUT is by some considered to be another extension of TAM, and is criticized for just doing patchwork on TAM without making any integration and coordination within the model (Bagozzi, 2007). Bagozzi (Bagozzi, 2007) says that even though it is important to find all the variables that are influencing intention and usage, it is also important that the field of information systems does not get overwhelmed and confused by the growing number of piecemeal parts in technology acceptance.

Chapter 4

Groupware challenges

In this part of the preliminary study we will present some of the challenges of de- veloping groupware. Groupware is defined as a collaborative application that helps people work together when they are in different locations (TechTarget, 2010). It is important to notice that groupware is defined in different ways by different re- searchers, and it can also be labeled as multi-user applications, computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) applications or collaborative computing (Grudin, 1994). Some of the key features which groupware offers are a centralized location for data storage, possibilities for communication and improvement of groups’ problem solv- ing and collaboration capabilities (Marotta, 2006). Groupware can include specific features like bulletin boards, cooperative writing, e-mail/message system, meeting support systems, workflow systems, sharing of calendars and shared database/file access (Grudin, 1994). As can be seen in Figure 4.1, groupware applications can be placed somewhere between single-user applications, and larger mainframe systems in organizations. Groupware is often targeted at smaller groups than mainframe systems, meant for serving organizational goals. Groupware is also marketed as a product, as opposed to larger organizational systems, which are developed internal or contracted (Grudin, 1994).

When groupware was introduced it presented additional challenges to the ones known from single-user applications. Since individual persons interact with group- ware applications, it has the same challenges as a single-user application, in addition to new challenges from multi-user environments and group processes (Grudin, 1994). The challenges presented in this chapter are taken from articles written by Jonathan Grudin (Grudin, 1994, 1988), where he explains why so many groupware applications fail to meet the expectations of the users. The challenges are presented below.

CHAPTER 4. GROUPWARE CHALLENGES

Figure 4.1: Development and research contexts (Grudin, 1994)

4.1

Disparity in work and benefit

The use of groupware applications will not always provide the same benefit for each person that is using the application. Even though groupware provides a collective benefit, some people will have to do additional work to create this benefit, without necessarily receiving a direct benefit from using the application themselves. In some cases this can lead to the application failing. An example of this problem is the use of an automatic meeting scheduling feature in an electronic calendar. The concept is that the meeting scheduler checks each person’s individual calendar to find an appropriate time for a meeting. The question for this type of feature is who actually benefits from using it. In this case, it is most likely the manager, who initiates the meeting. The subordinates who shall participate in the meeting would have to do most of the work by maintaining their electronic calendars. To avoid this problem the ideal solution is for the developers to make groupware where the work is equally divided amongst the contributors, or at least minimize the extra work required. This is, however, not possible in all situations. An example of a successful groupware application where there is a good balance between work and benefit is e-mail.