This paper considers the application of the technology acceptance model (TAM) in explaining intranet usage in two organizations. The TAM was originally developed for explaining technology acceptance and has since been successfully applied to a number of technologies. Its suitability for modelling intranet use is considered here. The model is tested in two UK companies from the banking and engineering sectors. Study 1 finds that the TAM may be valuable as a tool for helping with analysing and understanding intranet usage. The second study indicates that its applicability may be variable between intranets and demonstrates that self-report and actual measures of usage are not interchangeable when applying such a model. The findings have implications for previous and current research employing the TAM and for intranet research in general.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI. (1988). Attitudes, Personality, and Behaviour (Open University Press, Milton Keynes).
2.
AnandarajanM., SimmersC., and IgbariaM. (2000). An exploratory investigation of the antecedents and impact of internet usage: an individual perspective. Behaviour and Information Technology, 19, 69–85.
3.
ArmitageC.J., and ConnerM. (1999). Predictive validity of the theory of planned behaviour: the role of questionnaire format and social desirability. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 261–72.
4.
BaronR.M., and KennyD.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–82.
5.
DavisF.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–40.
6.
DavisF.D. (1993). User acceptance of computer technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioural impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475–87.
7.
DavisF.D., BagozziR.P., and WarshawP.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.
8.
DavisF., BagozziR.P., and WarshawP.R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1111–32.
9.
DeltorB. (1998). Facilitating organizational information access in global network environments: towards a new framework for intranet design. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 35, 190–201.
10.
DishawM.T., and StrongD.M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information and Management, 36, 9–21.
11.
FishbeinM., and AjzenI. (1975). Belief Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research (Addison-Wesley, Reading MA).
12.
HarrisonD.A., McLaughlinM.E., and CoalterT.M. (1996). Context, cognition, and common method variance: psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decisions Processes, 68, 246–61.
13.
HinrichsR.J. (1997). Intranets. What's the Bottom Line? (Sun Microsystems Press).
14.
IgbariaM. (1993). User acceptance of microcomputer technology: an empirical test. OMEGA International Journal of Management Science, 21, 73–90.
15.
IgbariaM., SchiffmanS.J., and WeickowskiT.J. (1994). The respective roles of perceived usefulness and perceived fun in the acceptance of microcomputer technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 13, 349–61.
16.
LaveJ., and WagnerE. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge University Press).
17.
LedererA.L., MaupinD.J., SenaM.P., and ZhuangY. (1998). The role of ease of use, usefulness and attitude in the prediction of World Wide Web usage. In Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on Computer Personnel Research, pp. 195–204.
18.
McKeenJ.D., GuimeraesT., and WetherbeJ.C. (1994). The relationship between user participation and user satisfaction: an investigation of four contingency factors. MIS Quarterly, 18, 427–51.
19.
MarchioniniG. (1995). Information Seeking in Electronic Environments (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
20.
MillerJ., and DoyleB.A. (1987). Measuring the effectiveness of computer-based information systems in the financial services sector. MIS Quarterly, 11, 107–24.
21.
MitchellT.R. (1985). An evaluation of the validity of correlation research conducted in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 10, 192–205.
22.
MowdayR.T., PorterL.W., and SteersR.M. (1982). Employee Organisation Linkages (Academic Press, San Francisco).
23.
PhelpsR., and MokM. (1999). Managing the risks of intranet implementation: an empirical study of user satisfaction. Journal of Information Technology, 14, 39–52.
24.
RogersE. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (Free Press, New York).
ScarbroughH. (1999). Feature knowledge management: system error. People Management, April, 68–74.
27.
ScottJ.E. (1998). Organisational knowledge and the intranet. Decision Support Systems, 23, 3–17.
28.
SharmaR., and YettonP. (2001). An evaluation of a major validity threat to the technology acceptance model. In Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Information Systems.
29.
StraubD., KeilM., and BrennerW. (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: a three country study. Information and Management, 33, 1–11.
30.
SuchmanL.A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
31.
SzajnaB. (1993). Determining information system usage. Information and Management, 25, 147–54.
32.
SzajnaB. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science, 42, 85–92.
33.
WarrP.B. (1980). The springs of action. In Models of Man, ChapmanA.J., and JonesD.M. (eds) (British Psychological Society), p. 303.
