Integrating technology readiness into technology acceptance: The TRAM model

Abstract

Based on previous theoretical streams, the present study integrates technology readiness (TR) into the technology acceptance model (TAM) in the context of consumer adoption of e-service systems, and theorizes that the impact of TR on use intention is completely mediated by both perceptions of usefulness and ease of use. TAM was originally developed to predict people's technology-adopting behavior at work environments, but this research stemmed from a questioning of its applicability in marketing (i.e., non-work) settings. The differences between the two settings are exhibited by consumers' self-determining selection behavior and their high involvement in the e-service creation and delivery process. This paper first reviews the TAM and the construct of technology readiness, and then proposes and empirically tests an integrated Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model (TRAM) to augment TAM by taking technology readiness construct into the realm of consumers' adoption of innovations. The results indicate that TRAM substantially broadens the applicability and the explanatory power of either of the prior models and may be a better Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24 (7)

Measuring e-Learning Readiness Concept: Scale Development and Validation Using Structural Equation Modeling

“…As part of this study, perceived usefulness denotes the benefits derived from using e-learning such as saving time and money. Some authors have shown a positive relationship between technology readiness and perceived usefulness [15]. The latter argued that this related to the degree of readiness that the individual felt in using a technology.…”

Shifting Paradigms in Information Flow: An Open Science Framework (OSF) for Knowledge Sharing Teams

“…However, technological advances that help to minimize these types of collaboration barriers are only part of the culture equation. Stakeholder and team member congruence, task interdependence, team commitment and participative decisionmaking need to be continually nurtured within a collaborative culture if open science is to be valued as a viable context in which to advance how knowledge is shared and disseminated in a new age of information fluidity (Lin, Shih, & Sher, 2007). This cultural shifting within science communities draws our attention to how open science, technologies, and the new relationships these contracts promote, affect existing and emerging teams and stakeholder groups.…”

“…These include (1) pairing the need for success with teaming procedures that complement these goals, (2) practicing the sharing of knowledge as a common team and stakeholder activity, (3) linking knowledge to identified and deeply shared values (for both teams and stakeholders) using the language of these values as a means to communicate results and impact, (4) constantly underscoring that information networks are human networks requiring a sensitivity about how these networks operate and need to be maintained, and (5) as in business corporate communities, recruiting scientific team members and stakeholders that already understand the value of openness and sharing so that team workflows can be reinforced through expansion and not hampered by each new addition to the network (McDermott & O'Dell, 2001). Such organizational culture dynamics and behaviors when utilized within scientific teams ideally should be embraced by all stakeholders; however, strong leadership that reinforces that these dynamics has been proven to result is greater and more successful collaborative outcomes (Lin et al, 2007;Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006).…”

“…Research associated with technological readiness is also a factor. Technological readiness and, maybe more importantly, technological acceptance is particularly pivotal to issues of communication in these teams as each ultimately contributes to the degree to which scientific teams can more forward capitalizing on the benefits of machine assisted scholarship and communication tools that advance impact and dialogue with networks of scientists and stakeholders (Lin et al, 2007;Olson & Olson, 2000).…”

Development of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Metrics and Risk Measures

“…In the psychometric-centered technology readiness studies, the research focus is to understand consumers' perception and beliefs about the maturity of a technology or product, and to investigate the relationship between the perception of technology readiness and product adoption and acceptance behavior by consumers (Parasuraman 2000;Lin 2007;Heslop et al 2001). Technology readiness is conceptualized as consumers' beliefs (Lin et al 2007) regarding a technology's usefulness, innovation, ease of application, and reliability (Parasuraman 2000). In Heslop et al (2001) technology readiness assessment concentrates on attributes such as whether a technology is new, a major scientific breakthrough or core technology, whether background research is complete, and whether dominant alternatives exist (p. 382).…”