Abstract
Much of the research effort in the area of technology acceptance has been directed to investigating the effects of various variables operating at the individual-level without considering the conjoint effects of group-level variables on individual acceptance. The present research addresses this issue by proposing a group-level variable, organizational facilitating conditions, and examining its effects on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model, a widely used individual user acceptance model. Two field studies were conducted to explore the multilevel nature of technology acceptance. In the first study, we refined the construct of facilitating conditions and developed a new measure of facilitating conditions to explicitly add the organizational facilitating conditions dimension as well as to augment the existing measure. Subsequent testing of the measure confirmed the multilevel nature of the construct. In the second study, we examined the effects of the organizational facilitating conditions on individual acceptance behaviors by utilizing the hierarchical linear modeling approach. The results indicate that the two constructs, individual facilitating conditions and organizational facilitating conditions, are distinct and that, compared to individual facilitating conditions, the organizational facilitating conditions as a group-level variable explain a larger amount of variance in individual acceptance behavior. The resulting model offers a multilevel perspective to the technology acceptance research area while the study results provide an augmented way to evaluate facilitating conditions with a prescriptive guidance to managers.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this article, we do not differentiate business organizations and non-profit institutions. The term organization will be used throughout to refer to a form of social arrangement that pursues collective goals with a boundary separating it from its environment, regardless of its profit-making nature.
Note that in our conceptual model (Fig. 2), three other individual perceptions that may have a direct effect on actual usage of a system (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence) are identified. These are tested along with Hypothesis 3, but not formally hypothesized.
References
Aitkin M, Longford N (1986) Statistical modeling issues in school effectiveness studies. J R Stat Soc Ser A 149:1–43
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103:411–423
Aubert B, Barki H, Patry M, Roy V (2008) A multi-level, multi-theory perspective of information technology implementation. Inf Syst J 18:45–72
Bagozzi RP (2007) The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. J Assoc Inf Syst 8:244–254
Bhattacherjee A, Premkumar G (2004) Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: a theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Q 28:229–254
Burton-Jones A, Gallivan MJ (2007) Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: a multilevel perspective. MIS Q 31:657–679
Cattell RB (1966) The meaning and strategic use of factor analysis. In: Cattell RB (ed) Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Rand McNally, Chicago
Cho S, Mathiassen L (2007) The role of industry infrastructure in telehealth innovations: a multi-level analysis of a telestroke program. Eur J Inf Syst 16:738–750
Churchill GA (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16:64–73
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn. Erlbaum, Mahwah
Compeau DR, Higgins CA (1995) Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q 19:189–211
Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 31:93–96
deLeeuw J, Kreft I (1986) Random coefficient models for multilevel analysis. J Educ Stat 11:57–85
deLeeuw J, Meijer E (2008) Handbook of multilevel analysis. Springer, New York
Fornell C, Larcker DG (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 19:39–50
Gefen D, Ragowsky A (2005) A multi-level approach to measuring the benefits of an ERP system in manufacturing firms. Inf Syst Manag 22:18–25
Hatcher L (1994) A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. SAS Publishing, Cary
Hinkin TR (1995) A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. J Manag 21:967–988
Horn JL (1965) A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30:179–186
Igbaria M, Zinatelli N, Cragg P, Cavaye ALM (1997) Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model. MIS Q 21:279–302
James LR (1982) Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. J Appl Psychol 67:219–229
Koste LL, Malhotra M, Sharma S (2004) Measuring dimensions of manufacturing flexibility. J Oper Manag 22:171–196
Kozlowski S, Klein K (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Lai V, Guynes J (1997) An assessment of the influence of organizational characteristics on information technology adoption decision: a discriminative approach. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 44:146–157
Lapointe L, Rivard S (2005) A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Q 29:461–491
Markus LM, Robey D (1988) Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research. Manag Sci 34:583–598
Mason WM, Wong GM, Entwistle B (1983) Contextual analysis through the multilevel linear model. In: Leinhardt S (ed) Sociological methodology. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 72–103
Mellarkod V, Appan R, Jones DR, Sherif K (2007) A multi-level analysis of factors affecting software developers’ intention to reuse software assets: an empirical investigation. Inf Manag 44:613–625
Moore GC, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 2:192–222
Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA (1999) The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Acad Manag Rev 24:249–265
Netemeyer R, Bearden B, Sharma S (2003) Scaling procedures. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Niederman F, Davis A, Wynn D, York PT (2006) A research agenda for studying open source: a multi-level framework. Commun AIS 18:2–38
Nunnaly J (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York
Pare G, Elam JJ (1995) Discretionary use of personal computers by knowledge workers: testing of a social psychological theoretical model. Behav Inf Technol 14:215–228
Pavlou PA, Zheng E, Gu B (2010) Latent growth modeling in IS research: basic tenets, illustration, and practical guidelines. In: ICIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 269, 2010 (http://www.aisel.aisnet.org/icis2010_submissions/269)
Ployhart RE (2005) Hierarchical models. In: Everitt BS, Howell DC (eds) The encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. Wiley, Chichester, pp 810–816
Ployhart RE, Pitariu A (2007) Hierarchical linear modeling. In: Rogelberg S (ed) Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 494–497
Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Rogers EM (1995) Innovation in organizations. In: Rogers E (ed) Chapter 10 in diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York, pp 371–404
Sarker S, Valacich JS, Sarker S (2005) Technology adoption by groups: a valence perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst 6:37–71
Sykes TA, Venkatesh V, Gosain S (2009) Model of acceptance with peer support: a social network perspective to understand employees’ system use. MIS Q 33:371–393
Taylor S, Todd PA (1995) IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS Q 19:561–570
Taylor S, Todd PA (1995) Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf Syst Res 6:144–176
Thompson RL, Higgins CA, Howell JM (1991) Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q 15:124–143
Triandis HC (1980) Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In: Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1979: beliefs, attitudes, and values. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 195–259
Vallerand RJ (1997) Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In: Zanna M (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 29. Academic Press, New York, pp 271–360
Venkatesh V (1999) Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Q 23:239–260
Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, Davis F (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27:425–478
Acknowledgment
This research was partially supported by the Korean Government IT R&D Program of MKE/KEIT (#10035166).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
We provide additional analyses to further establish that organizational facilitating conditions (OFC) and individual facilitating conditions (IFC) should be treated as separate constructs. We built five models for a model comparison. The first model has all final items of OFC and IFC as one comprehensive facilitating conditions construct in UTAUT. The second model has the three final items of OFC, while the third model has the three final items of IFC for representing the FC construct in UTAUT. The fourth model has the four original items of the facilitating conditions construct in UTAUT. The fifth model has all final items of OFC and IFC and two separate constructs (OFC and IFC) for representing the FC construct in UTAUT. The five models are based upon the original UTAUT with various combinations of facilitating conditions (combined OFC and IFC as one construct, OFC only, IFC only, the original UTAUT facilitating condition, OFC and IFC as two separated constructs) and were tested using LISREL 8.8. It should be noted that all other UTAUT constructs except facilitating conditions were measured with the original items from UTAUT. Model-data fit statistics for the five models are shown in Table 17. In addition, Table 17 reports total explained variances for the five alternative models.
The model fit statistics for the five models were reasonable. Although the RMSEA values were slightly outside the recommended cut-off value, these values are acceptable. According to the three fit indicators, Model 2 and Model 5 showed better model fit than others. However, the differences in model fit among the five models were found very small (e.g., biggest difference was only at the level of 0.02). So, although it can be argued that Model 2 and 5 are a bit better representations of the data, all five models are very similar. In terms of total explained variances of two dependent variables (behavioral intention and use behavior), Model 5 showed the highest value while increasing the total explained variances by 5% from Model 4 (the original UTAUT model). That is, Model 5 with OFC and IFC as two separated constructs is the best when evaluated by explanatory and predictive power.
Additionally, we conduct more simplified model comparisons, where we have facilitating conditions as only predictor (without other independent variables) and behavioral intention as the only dependent variable. In terms of facilitating conditions, we used the same five variations: Model 1—combined OFC and IFC items as one facilitating conditions construct; Model 2—OFC only; Model 3—IFC only; Model 4—the original UTAUT facilitating condition; and Model 5—OFC and IFC as two separated constructs. The five simplified models were tested using LISREL 8.8, and the results are shown in Table 18. Model 3 showed the best model fit, but Model 5 showed highest explained variances while OFC and IFC factors were all significant and explained 38% of behavioral intentional (BI) variance. Standardized parameter estimates for the OFC-BI and IFC-BI links were 0.24 and 0.40 in Model 5.
Table 19 displays the results from the additional five simplified model tests with satisfaction as dependent variable. Satisfaction is often used as an important dependent variable in IT acceptance studies [6], and we believe it is worthy to see how the variations of facilitating conditions work with satisfaction. As the results indicate, Model 2 showed the best model fit, while Model 1 and 5 showed highest explained variances of satisfaction. Standardized parameter estimates for the OFC-BI and IFC-BI links were 0.27 and 0.49 in Model 5.
Overall, the results from the three rounds of model comparisons indicate that Model 5 with OFC and IFC as two separated constructs showed better fit indices and also explained variances more than other models. This suggests that conceptualizing facilitation conditions as two separate constructs (OFC and IFC) would provide better representations of the reality, as well as enhance our explanatory and predictive power in the IT acceptance context.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, SH.“., Lee, L. & Yi, M.Y. Group-level effects of facilitating conditions on individual acceptance of information systems. Inf Technol Manag 12, 315–334 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-011-0097-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-011-0097-2