Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

User acceptance model of open source software: an integrated model of OSS characteristics and UTAUT

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Globally, the acceptance of Open Source Software (OSS) varies among the users of a company. Despite the substantive software, social, and infrastructure-related implications of OSS acceptance, the research on the acceptance of OSS across organizations inhabitants remains surprisingly limited. To propose a model for the acceptance of OSS; investigate the influence of the OSS characteristics, UTAUT constructs, and infrastructure factors on the acceptance of open source software system. It also examines the validity of UTAUT in the open source software context. Quantitative design has been used following the distribution of questionnaire among a sample of 255 individuals employed at public and private organizations (172 males and 83 females). Software quality, software interoperability, and software security had a significant impact on the performance expectancy (PE) (β = 0.445, P < 0.001), (β = 0.302, P < 0.001), (β = 0.139, P < 0.05), respectively. Moreover, PE, cost, facilitating conditions, social influence SI and self-efficacy had a notable impact on the behavioral intention (β = 0.275, P < 0.05), (β = 0.229, P < 0.01), (β = 0.136, P < 0.01), (β = 0.220, P < 0.01) and (β = 0.174, P < 0.01) respectively. A new path appears to exist between EE (effort expectancy) and PE (β = 0.215, P < 0.01). The outcomes indicated that users perceive that OSS user-friendliness must be upgraded for optimizing its benefits. It showed that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, self-efficacy, software security, software quality, software interoperability, and software cost are important indicators in the acceptance and implementation of OSS. Further research can be conducted in organizations to observe the implementation of OSS and its effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aberdour M (2007) Achieving quality in open source software. IEEE Softw 24(1):58–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Alenezi M, Almustafa K (2015) Empirical analysis of the complexity evolution in open-source software systems. Int J Hybrid Inf Technol 8(2):257–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Gahtani SS (2016) Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: a structural equation model. Appl Comput Inform 12(1):27–50

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida F, Oliveira J, Cruz J (2011) Open standards and open source: enabling interoperability. Int J Softw Eng Appl 2(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Alsoub RK, Alrawashdeh TA, Althunibat A (2018) User acceptance criteria for enterprise resource planning software systems. Int J Innov Comput Inf Control 14(1):297–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle JL (1995) Amos™ 16.0 User’s Guide. SPSS. http://irmfmrs.free.fr/Uploads/JIRFNI_2010/Amos_16.0_Users_Guide.pdf. Accessed  25 Aug 2018

  • Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16(1):74–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Baptista G, Oliveira T (2015) Understanding mobile banking: the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Comput Hum Behav 50(1):418–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry EJ, Kemerer CF, Slaughter SA (2007) How software process automation affects software evolution: a longitudinal empirical analysis. J Softw Maint Evol Res Pract 19(1):1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler PM, Bonett DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 88(3):588–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen KA, Stine RA (1992) Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res 21(1):205–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Ed 154:136

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock HE, Harlow LL, Mulaik SA (1994) Causation issues in structural equation modeling research. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 1(3):253–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan KY, Gong M, Xu Y, Thong JY (2008) Examining user acceptance of SMS: an empirical study in China and Hong Kong. In: Proceedings of 12th Pacific Asia conference on information system, Suzhou, p 294

  • Cheng YM (2015) Towards an understanding of the factors affecting m-learning acceptance: roles of technological characteristics and compatibility. Asia Pac Manag Rev 20(3):109–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng SI, Chen SC, Yen DC (2015) Continuance intention of E-portfolio system: a confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis of technology acceptance model. Comput Stand Interfaces 42(1):17–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Compeau D, Higgins C (1995) Computer self-efficacy: development of measure and initial test. MIS Q 19(2):189–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workspace. J Appl Soc Psychol 22(14):1111–1132

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLone WH, McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res 3(1):60–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposito A, Amorese T, Cuciniello M, Riviello MT, Esposito AM, Troncone A, Cordasco G (2019) Elder user’s attitude toward assistive virtual agents: the role of voice and gender. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01423-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feller J, Fitzgerald B (2002) Understanding open source software development. Addison-Wesley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B (2006) The transformation of open source software. Mis Q 30(1):587–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontana RE (2010) Open source license enforcement and compliance. Comput Internet Lawyer 27(4):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallego MD, Luna P, Bueno S (2008) User acceptance model of open source software. Comput Hum Behav 24(5):2199–2216

    Google Scholar 

  • García AS, Fernández-Sotos P, Fernández-Caballero A, Navarro E, Latorre JM, Rodriguez-Jimenez R, González P (2019) Acceptance and use of a multi-modal avatar-based tool for remediation of social cognition deficits. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01418-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George D, Mallery M (2003) Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. Pearson Education, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn E, Fitzgerald B, Exton C (2005) Commercial adoption of open source software: an empirical study. In: 2005 IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering, Noosa Heads, pp 225–234

  • Gortney WE (2016) Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Joint Chiefs of Staff Washington United States available from: https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=799027

  • Gwebu KL, Wang J (2011) Adoption of Open Source Software: the role of social identification. Decis Support Syst 51(1):220–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Haider SW, Zhuang G, Ali S (2019) Identifying and bridging the attitude-behavior gap in sustainable transportation adoption. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput 10(9):3723–3738

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauge Ø, Ayala C, Conradi R (2010) Adoption of open source software in software-intensive organizations—a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 52(11):1133–1154

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillary R (2004) Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise. J Clean Prod 12(6):561–569

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hippel EV, Krogh GV (2003) Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: issues for organization science. Organ Sci 14(2):209–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, Adamu T (2018) The role of technology acceptance model in explaining university academics: acceptance and behavioural intention to use technology in education. KnE Soc Sci 3(6):1162–1172

    Google Scholar 

  • Jan JF (2018) Application of open-source software in community heritage resources management. ISPRS Int J Geo Inf 7(11):426

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1996) LISREL 8: user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International Inc, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantor GS, Wilson WD, Midgley A (2003) Open-source software and the primary care EMR. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10(6):616

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai VS, Li H (2005) Technology acceptance model for internet banking: an invariance analysis. Inf Manag 42(2):373–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Letswamotse BB, Malekian R, Modieginyane KM (2019) Adaptable QoS provisioning for efficient traffic-to-resource control in software defined wireless sensor networks. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01263-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis GA (2013) The role of standards in cloud-computing interoperability. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on system sciences, Hawaii, pp 1652–1661

  • Li N, Kirkup G (2007) Gender and cultural differences in Internet use: a study of China and the UK. Comput Educ 48(2):301–317

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Jaquero V, Montero F, Teruel MA (2019) Influence awareness: considering motivation in computer-assisted rehabilitation. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput 10(6):2185–2197

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzoor M, Hussain W, Sohaib O, Hussain FK, Alkhalaf S (2019) Methodological investigation for enhancing the usability of university websites. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput 10(2):531–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller R, Collins CT (2001) Acceptance testing. XPUniverse conference, 23–25 July, Raleigh

  • Moolman L (2011) A characterisation of Open Source Software adoption decisions in South African organisations. Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch

  • Moreira MW, Rodrigues JJ, Carvalho FH, Chilamkurti N, Al-Muhtadi J, Denisov V (2019) Biomedical data analytics in mobile-health environments for high-risk pregnancy outcome prediction. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01230-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong CS, Lai JY, Wang YS (2004) Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Inf Manag 41(6):795–804

    Google Scholar 

  • Park E, Del Pobil AP (2013) Modeling the user acceptance of long-term evolution (LTE) services. Ann Telecommun annales des télécommunications 68(5):307–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Park E, Kim KJ (2014) An integrated adoption model of mobile cloud services: exploration of key determinants and extension of technology acceptance model. Telemat Inform 31(3):376–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston CC, Colman AM (2000) Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol 104(1):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Qu WG, Yang Z, Wang Z (2011) Multi-level framework of open source software adoption. J Bus Res 64(9):997–1003

    Google Scholar 

  • Queirós A, Faria D, Almeida F (2017) Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Eur J Educ Stud 3(9):369–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Safadi H, Chan D, Dawes M, Roper M, Faraj S (2015) Open-source health information technology: a case study of electronic medical records. Health Policy Technol 4(1):14–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Seddon PB (1997) A re-specification and extension of the De Lone and Mclean model of IS success. Inf Syst Res 8(3):240–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin D (2010) Analysis of online social networks: a cross-national study. Online Inf Rev 34(3):473–495

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shroff RH, Deneen CC, Ng EM (2011) Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students’ behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Austral J Educ Technol 27(4):600–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel J, Soley RM (2008) Open source and open standards: working together for effective software development and distribution. open source business resource. http://timreview.ca/article/207. Accessed 25 Aug 2018

  • Spinellis D (2006) Code quality: the open source perspective. Addison-Wesley, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Šumak B, Heričko M, Pušnik M, Polančič G (2011) Factors affecting acceptance and use of Moodle: an empirical study based on TAM. Informatica 35(1):91–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden H (2004) User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q 28(4):695–704

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Loon A, Toshkov D (2015) Adopting open source software in public administration: the importance of boundary spanners and political commitment. Gov Inf Q 32(2):207–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Hall M, Davis GB, Davis FD, Walton SM (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker W (2005) The strengths and weaknesses of research designs involving quantitative measures. J Res Nurs 10(5):571–582

    Google Scholar 

  • Walli S, Gynn D, Rotz V (2007) The growth of open source software in organizations [Online]. http://www.optaros.com/news/white-papers-reports#growth-open-source-softwareorganizations. Accessed 20 Aug 2018

  • West J, Gallagher S (2006) Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&d Manag 36(3):319–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams J, Dabirsiaghi A (2012) The unfortunate reality of insecure libraries. Aspect Security. https://www.aspectsecurity.com/news/press/the-unfortunate-reality-of-insecure-libraries. Accessed 12 Sep 2018

  • Wilson W (1994) Compatibility, Interoperability, and Integration of Command, Control, Communications, and Computer (C4) Systems (No. AFI33-108). SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a404898.pdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2018

  • Wurster LF, Igou B, Babat Z (2011) Survey analysis: overview of preferences and practices in the adoption and usage of open-source software. G00210068, Gartner Group, pp 1–28

  • Yenisey MM, Ozok AA, Salvendy G (2005) Perceived security determinants in e-commerce among Turkish university students. Behav Inf Technol 24(4):259–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S, Zhao J, Tan W (2008) Extending TAM for online learning systems: an intrinsic motivation perspective. Tsinghua Sci Technol 13(1):312–317

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Software Engineering, Alzaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

    Thamer A. Alrawashdeh & Abdelfatah Tamimi

  2. Department of Computer Science, Alzaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

    Mohammad W. Elbes

  3. IT-Department, Al-Huson University College, Al-Balqa Applied University, Irbid, Jordan

    Ammar Almomani

  4. Department of Multimedia, Alzaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

    Fuad ElQirem

Authors
  1. Thamer A. Alrawashdeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad W. Elbes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ammar Almomani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fuad ElQirem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abdelfatah Tamimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thamer A. Alrawashdeh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Items of survey instrument

Appendix: Items of survey instrument

Variables

Items

Source

Cronbach’s alpha

Performance expectancy (PE)

 PE1: Using OSS would enable me to accomplish my work (learning) tasks more quickly

 PE2: I would find OSS useful in my work (learning)

 PE3: Using OSS would increase my productivity

 PE4: Using OSS would increase my chances of getting a raise

Venkatesh et al. (2003)

0.87

Effort expectancy (EE)

 EE1: Learning how to use OSS would be easy for me

 EE2: My interaction with OSS would be clear and understandable

 EE3: It would be easy for me to become skilful at using OSS

 EE4: I would find OSS easy to use

Venkatesh et al. (2003)

0.87

Software quality (SQ)

 SQ1: use of OSS would enhance the functionality of applications that I use

 SQ2: use of OSS would decrease the number of errors in use my computer

 SQ3: use of OSS requires less maintenance

 SQ4: I have not had any limitations or problems with using OSS

SQ5: OSS fully meet my needs

Park and Del Pobil (2013)

0.91

Security (Sec)

 Sec1: I believe that my privacy is protected at OSS

 Sec2: I’m confident that the operation at OSS is secure

 Sec3: I believe nobody can access my private data saved at OSS without my agreement

 Sec4: OSS does not share my personal information with Others

Shin (2010); Yenisey et al. (2005).

0.98

Social influence (SI)

 SI1: I will use OSS, if the people who are important to me think I should use it

 SI2: I will use OSS, if the people who influence my behaviour think I should use it

 SI3: I will use OSS, if the instructors of my learning helpful in the use of such systems

 SI4: People in my organization who use OSS have more prestige than those do not

 SI5: In general, I would find my organizations has supported using OSS

Venkatesh et al. (2003)

0.80

Facilitating conditions (FC)

 FC1: I have the resources necessary to use OSS.

 FC2: I have the knowledge necessary to use OSS

 FC3: The OSS is compatible with other systems I use

 FC4: A specific person (group) is available for assistance with OSS difficulties

Venkatesh et al. (2003)

0.92

Self-efficacy (SE)

 SE1: I am confident to use the OSS if I have just built-in help facility for assistance

 SE2: I am confident to use the OSS If I have a lot of time to accomplish the tasks for which a system is provided

 SE3: I am confident to use the OSS if there is no one around to show me how to do it

 SE4: I am confident to use the OSS as long as someone shows me how to do it

Ong et al. (2004)

0.94

Cost

 Cos1: The implementation cost of OSS will be free or low

 Cos2: effort cost of moving to OSS will be free or low

 Cos3: Switching to OSS might not lead to monetary problems

 Cos4: OSS are reasonably priced comparing with proprietary software

 Cos5: In general, OSS are a good value for the money

Chan et al. (2008)

0.86

Interoperability (Int)

 Int1: OSS can provide services to and accept services from other systems

 Int2: OSS can receive and process intelligible information of mutual interest transmitted by another service’s system

 Int3: Using OSS would enable me to save my documents in many formats

 Int4: Using OSS would enable me to receive information with any formats

 Int5: In general, OSS can interact with other systems and exchange data with it

Almeida et al. (2011); Gortney (2016); Wilson (1994)

0.74

Behavioural Intention (BI)

 BI1: I intend to use OSS to improve my work or learning

 BI2: I predict to use the OSS when it implemented

 BI3: I plan to use the OSS when it implemented

 BI4: I expect to use the OSS when it implemented

 BI5: I would strongly recommend my colleagues to use OSS

Šumak et al. (2011); Zhang et al. (2008)

0.82

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alrawashdeh, T.A., Elbes, M.W., Almomani, A. et al. User acceptance model of open source software: an integrated model of OSS characteristics and UTAUT. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 11, 3315–3327 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01524-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01524-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation