Week 4 Major Takeaways
Since I train colleagues on company platforms and systems on a regular basis, this week’s readings around the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and driving technology adoption were especially pertinent to me and my current role. Part of my training and deployment process includes identifying and applying effective ways to drive usage following live instructional sessions. Ensuring adoption is not an easy task, particularly when it comes to many adult learners at varying stages of technological expertise and with different levels of internal business process awareness.
One major takeaway from this week’s readings is the need for education leaders to understand how various interferences impact the factors of adoption in technology. A deeper comprehension of the reasons for technology acceptance and usage can lead to conclusions to help diminish the opposition to new systems and encourage active use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). For example, simply authorizing usage of new tools based on compliance could be less successful than focusing on the advantages, through features like communication and promotion (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). The ability to grasp that type of notion and recognize alternate solutions can help increase the learner’s sense of confidence and usefulness towards new technology.
Although the research by Davis (1985) had a significant impact towards creating a motivation model for a technology user, another major takeaway is that the TAM Model still has questions and areas to be investigated. Chuttur (2009) explained how there are still doubts and inconsistent opinions around the use and precision of the model, along with inconsistent views on the research. These uncertainties are reasons for the extension of the model and leave room for continued growth in exploring technology’s apparent worth and level of utility in an ever-changing digital environment.
Questions for the group: In what ways have you seen adult learners respond to new technology? Were any attempts made to help drive adoption and the improve the perception of the technology's usefulness and utility?
References
Chuttur M.Y. (2009). Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins, Developments and Future Directions. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37). https://aisel.aisnet.org/
Davis (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi-org.er.lib.k-
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204. https://go-gale-com.er.lib.k-
That's a good question. It touched on something that I didn't really consider when I was working through the week's reading. As you mentioned, the TAM model and associated studies noted potential increases in initial compliance and acceptance of digital systems if considerations were made to things such as initial user exposure, ease-of-use, and so forth (Davis, 1985).
ReplyDeleteMy personal experiences of digital system implementation has been that, once the novelty has worn off, it becomes all about functionality. Does it work the way it was advertised and intended? Regardless of how well done the implementation and initial training was, the definitive factor in continued success was the end user's perceived functionality and usefulness. That the technology did indeed support improved performance and support the organization's stated goals.
A 2021 study that utilized components of TAM emphasized this, arguing that a continued perception that a technology improves an organizational performance as a prime motivator for continued buy-in and usage (Panari et al., 2021).
I guess the take-home for me would be that if I chose to implement a system by following the TAM model and releasing early first impression material, that I would need to closely ensure that the marketing material matched the end-user experience. That really comes off as an obvious statement, but sometimes it feels like the hype of new software is something that is easy to get caught up in, but something the end product never quite lives up to.
References:
Davis (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15192
Panari, C., Lorenzi, G., & Mariani, M. G. (2021). The Predictive Factors of New Technology Adoption, Workers' Well-Being and Absenteeism: The Case of a Public Maritime Company in Venice. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(23), 12358. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312358
Some great points here, John! I totally agree that if the technology itself is not functional, the initial effort given towards implementation and onboarding are essentially wasted, leaving users little trust in the new technology. The actual quality of the technology provided to the learner must be up to par with the quality of the methods used to promote the system or tool.
DeleteTim,
ReplyDeleteGreat question! As Venkatesh and Davis (2000) highlighted, promoting the advantages of technology adoption and effectively communicating their benefits can significantly enhance user acceptance. This approach can help build confidence and demonstrate the usefulness of new tools, which is crucial for driving adoption.
Adult learners in my workplace typically respond more positively to new technology or modifications to how they use existing technology when a crosswalk between current (or old) processes is related to the new platform(s). Then, following up with demonstrations and communicating how their day-to-day quality of life will improve in the process. Providing stakeholders time and space to voice concerns and test-drive the technology goes a long way on these fronts. Additionally, offering near-real-time support and taking and providing user feedback also helps improve learner/employee dispositions toward the technology adoption process. feedback loop can further improve the perception of the technology’s usefulness and utility.
Reference:
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi-org.er.lib.k-state.edu/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Thanks Daniel! I have also seen examples in my workplace where colleagues respond positively to new technology when familiar aspects of current ways of working are incorporated. Having a prevalent frame of reference seems to make people more comfortable with taking the first step towards learning something new. I also agree that instilling a mechanism to consistently collect feedback is an effective way to discover user opinions and identify improvements towards the technology.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTim,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I can really relate to the efforts of deploying a system!
In response to your question – I have had a mix of reactions with adult learners and responding to new technology. As I have discussed some before – my work has implemented a new system that replaced a very dated system. With this deployment – we met some resistance from some of our more tenured employees and some employees from older generations but received open acceptance from newer employees and many of our employees that are recent college graduates. To help drive adoption and improve the perception of the technology’s usefulness and utility there was a pre-implementation phase for employees. This phase was used to help minimize resistance to the system and provide a realistic preview of the system to help develop an accurate perception of system uses and how it will impact employee jobs (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Prior to the service being available, employees were regularly invited to system demos and encouraged to ask questions – topics covered every day tasks and some changes that the employees would see in their daily tasks. Once the service was available for use – employees had 6 weeks of access to navigate through the system and were encouraged to complete mock work scenarios to introduce them to the new navigation and changes.
Reference:
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi-org.er.lib.k-state.edu/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.xLinks to an external site.
Thanks Katelyn! In certain instances, my company has conducted similar pre-implementation phases for new system launches or updates. When done correctly, this period gives users the time to become accustomed to the technology, as well as signals to the users that the company or institution has taken the time to carefully develop and deploy this new technology with them in mind. I have also seen the opposite approach, where releases of new technology are rushed for various reasons. In those cases, the training is less effective and the technology is often poorly received because the user has little time to acclimate themselves and accept the change.
Delete