Acceptance and use of a system is known as a major measure of success from an information systems (IS) perspective. However, within organizations where most system use is mandatory, intention-to-use or usage by and large does not provide a full picture of how such use came to be or if it is truly representative of how end-users really feel about using the system. This study summarizes the theories and models on technology acceptance in the mandatory environment in the IS literature and identifies the critical research based on broader research perspectives. The paper provides an important insight into IS acceptance in the mandatory environment. Theoretical and practical implications and future research directions are discussed in the paper.
AdamsonIShineJ (2003) Extending the new technology acceptance model to measure the end user information systems satisfaction in a mandatory environment: A bank’s treasury. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management15(4): 441–455.
2.
AgarwalR (2000) Individual acceptance of information technologies. In Framing the Domains of IT management. ZmudR.W (ed.) pp. 85–104. Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex, Inc.
3.
AgarwalRKarahannaE (2000) Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly24(4): 665–699.
4.
AgarwalRPrasadJ (1999) Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?Decision Sciences30(2): 361–391.
5.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50, 179–211.
6.
AjzenI (2002) Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology32, 665–683.
7.
AjzenIFishbeinM (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8.
AkkermansHVan HeldenK (2002) Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: A case study of interrelations between critical success factors. European Journal of Information Systems (11): 35–46.
9.
AladwaniAM (2001) Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation. Business Process Management7(3): 266–275.
10.
AlvessonM (1996) Leadership studies: From procedure and abstraction to reflexivity and situation. Leadership Quarterly7(4): 455–485.
11.
Amoako-GyampahKSalamAF (2004) An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Information and Management41(6): 731–745.
12.
ArboreASosciaIBagozziR (2014) The role of signaling identity in the adoption of personal technologies. Journal of AIS15(2): 86–110.
13.
ArmitageCJConnerM (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.
14.
BagozziRP (2007).The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems8(4): 244–254.
15.
BanduraA (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist37, 122–147.
16.
BenbasatIBarkiH (2007) Quo Vadis, TAM?Journal of the Association for Information Systems8(4): 211–218.
17.
BhattacherjeeAPremkumarG (2004) Understanding changes in belief and attitude towards information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly28(2): 229–254.
18.
BrownSVenkateshVGoyalS (2015) Expectation confirmation in information systems research: A test of six competing models. MIS Quarterly38(3): 729–766.
19.
BrownSAMasseyAPMontoya-WeissMMBurkmanJR (2002) Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of Information Systems11, 283–295.
20.
Burton-JonesAHubonaGS (2005) Individual differences and usage behavior: Revisiting a technology acceptance model assumption. ACM SIGMIS Database36(2): 58–77.
21.
Burton-JonesAHubonaGS (2006) The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model. Information & Management43(6): 706–717.
22.
ChaeBPooleMS (2005) The surface of emergence in systems development: Agency, institutions and large-scale information systems. European Journal of Information Systems14, 19–36.
23.
ChauPYKHuPJ-H (2002) Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: An empirical test of competing theories. Information & Management39(4): 297–311.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13, 318–339.
26.
DavisFDBagozziRPWarshawPR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35(8): 982–1003.
27.
DeLoneWHMcLeanER (1992) Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research3, 60–95.
28.
DeLoneWHMcLeanER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten year update. Journal of Management Information Systems19(4): 60–95.
29.
FarimaFLapointeLBassellierG (2014) Enhanced use of IT: A new perspective on post-adoption. Journal of AIS15(7): 361–387.
30.
FichmanRG (1992) Information technology diffusion: A review of empirical research. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, (1992): 195–206.
31.
FrambachRSchillewaertN (2002) Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research55(2):163–176.
32.
GallivanM (2001) Organizational adoption and assimilation of complex technological innovations: Development and application of a new framework. Data Base32(3): 51–85.
33.
GefenDStraubDW (1997) Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly21, 389–400.
34.
GefenDKarahannaEStraubDW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly27, 51–90.
35.
GiddensA (1984) The Constitution of Society. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press.
36.
HessTMcNabABasogluA (2015) Reliability generation of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intention. MIS Quarterly38(1): 1–58.
37.
HirschheimR (2007) Introduction to the special issue on ‘Quo Vadis TAM - Issues and reflections on technology acceptance research’. Journal of the Association for Information Systems8: 203–205.
38.
HsuCLuH (2004) Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management41(7): 853–868.
39.
JeyarajARottmanJWLacityMC (2006) A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research. Journal of Information Technology21(1): 1–23.
40.
JianG (2007) ‘‘Omega is a four-letter word’’: Toward a tension-centered model of resistance to information and communication technologies. Communication Monographs74(4): 517–540.
41.
KarahannaE (1999) Symbolic adoption of information technology. Proceedings from the International Decision Sciences Institute Conference, Athens, Greece. July, 121–144.
42.
KarahannaEStraubDW (1999) The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use. Information & Management35, 237–250.
43.
KarahannaEStraubDWChervanyNL (1999) Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly23(2): 183–213.
44.
KelmanHC (1958) Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution2, 51–60.
45.
KingWRHeJ (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management43, 740–755.
46.
KleinKJSorraJS (1996) The challenge of innovation implementation. The Academy of Management Review21(4): 1055–1080.
47.
KlonglanGECowardEW (1970) The concept of symbolic adoption: A suggested interpretation. Rural Sociology (35:1): 77–83.
48.
KozlowskiSWDohertyML (1989) Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology74(4): 546–553.
49.
KwonTHZmudRW (1987) Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. In BolandRHirscheimR (Eds.) Critical Issues in Information Systems Research. Chichester: Wiley, 88–97.
50.
LeeYKozarKALarsenK (2003) The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems12(50): 752–780.
51.
LegrisPInghamJColleretteP (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management40, 191–204.
52.
Leonard-BartonD (1987) Implementing structured software methodologies: A case of innovation in process technology. Interfaces17(3): 6–17.
53.
LewisWAgarwalRSambamurthyV (2003) Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly27(4): 657–678.
54.
LouHLuoWStrongD (2000) Perceived critical mass effect on groupware acceptance. European Journal of Information Systems9(2): 91–103.
55.
MalhotraYGalletaDF (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Hawaii, 1999, 1–14.
56.
MathiesonK (1991) Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research2(3): 173–191.
57.
MooreGCBenbasatI (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perception of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research2(3): 192–223.
58.
NahFFLauJKuangJ (2001) Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal7 (3): 285–293.
59.
NahFFTanXTehSH (2004) An empirical investigation on end-users’ acceptance of enterprise systems. Information Resource Management Journal17(3): 32–53.
60.
NeufeldDJDongLHigginsC (2007) Charismatic leadership and user acceptance of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems16(4): 494–510.
61.
OrlikowskiWJIaconoCS (2001) Research Commentary: Desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research-A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research12(2): 121–134.
62.
ParkISharmanRRaoR, (2015) Disaster experience and hospital information systems: An examination of perceived information assurance, risk, resilience, and usefulness. MIS Quarterly39(2): 317–354.
63.
PlouffeCRHullandJSVandenboschM (2001) Research Report: Richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decisions –Understanding merchant adoption of a smart card-based payment system. Information Systems Research12, 208–222.
64.
RawstornePJayasuriyaRCaputiP (1998) An integrative model of information systems use in mandatory environments. Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland, December, 325–330.
65.
RiceREAydinC (1991) Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly36, 219–244.
66.
SchepersJWetzelsM (2007) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management44(1): 90–103.
67.
SharmaRYettonP (2003) The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS Quarterly27, 533–556.
68.
SharmaSRaiA (2015) Adopting IS process innovation in organizations: The role of IS leaders’ individual factors and technology perceptions in decision making. European Journal of Information Systems24(1): 23–37.
69.
SpeierCVenkateshV (2002) The hidden minefields in the adoption of sales force automation technologies. Journal of Marketing66(3): 98–111.
70.
StogdillRM (1948) Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology25, 335–71.
71.
StraubDWBurton-JonesA (2007) Veni, Vidi, Vici: Breaking the TAM logjam. Journal of the Association for Information Systems8(4): 223–229.
72.
SzanjaB (1996) Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science42(1): 85–92.
73.
TaylorSToddPA (1995) Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research6(2): 144–176.
74.
ThompsonRLCompeauDHigginsCA (2006) Intentions to use information technologies: An integrative model. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing18(3): 25–46.
75.
TornatzkyLGKleinKJ (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions of Engineering and Management2928–45.
76.
TsaiHBagozziR (2014) Contribution behavior in virtual communities: Cognitive, emotional, and social influences. MIS Quarterly38(1): 143–167.
77.
VeigaJKeuppMFloydSKellermannsF (2014) The longitudinal impact of enterprise system users’ pre-adoption expectations and organizational support on post-adoption proficient usage. European Journal of Information Systems23(6): 691–707.
78.
VenkateshVBalaH (2008) Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Journal of Information Technology39, 273–315.
79.
VenkateshVDavisFD (1996) A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Sciences27(3): 451–481.
80.
VenkateshVDavisFD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science46(2): 186–204.
81.
VenkateshVDavisFDMorrisMG (2007) Dead or alive? The development, trajectory and future of technology adoption research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems8, 267–286.
82.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGBDavisFD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27, 425–478.
83.
VenkateshVThongJXuX (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly36(1) pp. 157–178.
84.
VroomV (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
85.
WixomBHToddPA (2005) A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research16, 85–102.
86.
XiaWLeeG (2000) The influence of persuasion, training, and experience on user perceptions and acceptance of IT innovation. Proceedings of the Twenty First International Conference on Information Systems, 371–384.
87.
YangHDYooY (2004) It’s all about attitude: Revisiting the technology acceptance model. Decision Support Systems38(1): 19–31.
88.
YettonPSharmaRSouthonG (1999) Successful IS innovation: The contingent contributions of innovation characteristics and implementation process. Journal of Information Technology14(1): 53–68.
