Nowadays, technology has become a vital capability for the organizations. It plays an
essential role for all business operations and performances consequently it is crucial
to uncover technological influence with respect to project performance.
OBJECTIVES:
This study examines the linkage of technological alignment (TAL) and technological
advancement (TAD) on organizational project performance (OPP) with mediating influence
of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) considering two TAM attributes—perceived ease of
use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) —.
METHODS:
Data were collected using a convenience sampling approach from the respondents
associated with different business projects in China and analyzed using structural
equation modeling and factor analysis.
RESULTS:
The findings affirmed the positive relationships of TAL and TAD on OPP. The study
revealed the mediating influence of PEOU between TAL and OPP. The study further affirmed
a positive mediation of PU between TAD and OPP, respectively.
CONCLUSION:
This study provides insights into how incorporation of technological and TAM tools—TAL,
TAD, PEOU, and PU—may improve OPP of the organizations in today’s digital era. In
addition, the study provides implications for the management and future opportunities
for the researchers.
MemonA, AnZY,
MemonMQ, YanB.
IT capability, capital availability and firm performance.
Human Systems Management.
2019;38(3):221–33.
2.
WaheedA, JianhuaY.
Achieving consumers’ attention through emerging technologies: The linkage
between e-marketing and consumers’ exploratory buying behavior
tendencies. Baltic Journal of Management.
2018;13(2):209–35.
3.
Ivars-BaidalJA,
Celdrán-BernabeuMA,
MazónJ-N, Perles-IvarsÁF.
Smart destinations and the evolution of ICTs: a new scenario for
destination management?Current Issues in Tourism.
2019;22(13):1581–600.
4.
SrinivasanC, RajeshB, SaikalyanP, PremsagarK, YadavES. A
review on the different types of Internet of Things (IoT).
Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems.
2019;11(1):154–8.
5.
PowellTC, Dent-MicallefA.
Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human,
business, and technology resources. Strategic Management
Journal.
1997;18(5):375–405.
6.
RonauRN, RakesCR, BushSB,
DriskellSO, NiessML, PugaleeDK. A
survey of mathematics education technology dissertation scope and quality:
1968–2009. American Educational Research Journal.
2014;51(5):974–1006.
7.
McKecnieS, GanguliS, RoySK.
Generic technology-based service quality dimensions in
banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing.
2011.
8.
BalochMA, MengF,
BariMW.
Moderated mediation between IT capability and organizational
agility. Human Systems Management.
2018;37(2):195–206.
9.
KhanNU, ShuangjieL, KhanSZ,
AnwarM.
Entrepreneurial orientation, intellectual capital, IT capability, and
performance. Human Systems Management.
2019;38(3):297–312.
10.
MabulaJB, DongpingH, MwakapalaLY.
SME’s use of ICT and financial services on innovation performance: The
mediating role of managers’ experience. Human Systems
Management. (Preprint):1–13.
11.
Gërguri-RashitiS,
RamadaniV, Abazi-AliliH, DanaLP,
RattenV.
ICT, innovation and firm performance: the transition economies
context. Thunderbird International Business Review.
2017;59(1):93–102.
12.
CainelliG, EvangelistaR, SavonaM.
Innovation and economic performance in services: a firm-level
analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics.
2005;30(3):435–58.
13.
BaruaA, MukhopadhyayT.
Information technology and business performance: Past, present, and
future. Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the
future through the past.
2000:65–84.
14.
MelvilleN, KraemerK, GurbaxaniV.
Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative
model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly.
2004;28(2):283–322.
15.
LiY, Marier-BienvenueT,
Perron-BraultA,
WangX, ParéG,
editors. Blockchain technology in business organizations: A scoping review. Proceedings of
the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences;
2018.
16.
KirkmanBL, RosenB,
TeslukPE, GibsonCB.
The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The
moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of
Management Journal.
2004;47(2):175–92.
17.
KamssuAJ, ReithelBJ, ZiegelmayerJL.
Information technology and financial performance: The impact of being an
Internet-dependent firm on stock returns. Information Systems
Frontiers.
2003;5(3):279–88.
18.
McAfeeA. The
impact of enterprise information technology adoption on operational performance: An
empirical investigation. Production and Operations
Management.
2002;11(1):33–53.
19.
OverbyE, BharadwajA, SambamurthyV.
Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information
technology. European Journal of Information Systems.
2006;15(2):120–31.
20.
Martín-BlasT,
Serrano-FernándezA.
The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a
teaching tool in Physics. Computers & Education.
2009;52(1):35–44.
21.
SchneiderR.
Using Moodle: Teaching With the Popular Open Source Course Management
System. Software Quality Professional.
2009;11(3):48.
22.
KaraawiA, HamoodMI, ZuwenAAAK, AlkaraawiAAI.
KM embodied in IT for capable product design.
Human Systems Management.
2019;38(2):125–39.
23.
TippinsMJ, SohiRS.
IT competency and firm performance: is organizational learning a missing
link?Strategic Management Journal.
2003;24(8):745–61.
24.
ChenY, WangY,
NevoS, JinJ,
WangL, ChowWS.
IT capability and organizational performance: the roles of business
process agility and environmental factors. European Journal of
Information Systems.
2014;23(3):326–42.
25.
RogersEM.
Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive
Behaviors.
2002;27(6):989–93.
26.
DavisFD. A
technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems:
Theory and results: Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
1985.
27.
VenkateshV, MorrisMG, DavisGB, DavisFD. User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS
quarterly.
2003:425–78.
28.
KhanIU, YuY,
HameedZ, KhanSU,
WaheedA.
Assessing the Physicians’ Acceptance of E-Prescribing in a Developing
Country: An Extension of the UTAUT Model With Moderating Effect of Perceived
Organizational Support. Journal of Global Information Management
(JGIM).
2018;26(3):121–42.
29.
Al-EmranM, MezhuyevV, KamaludinA.
Technology Acceptance Model in M-learning context: A systematic
review. Computers & Education.
2018;125:389–412.
30.
YalcinalpS.
Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through
open technology, open content, and open knowledge–By Toru Liyoshi & MS Vijay
Kumar. British Journal of Educational Technology.
2010;41(6):970–1.
31.
CohenG, SalomonI, NijkampP.
Information–communications technologies (ICT) and transport: does
knowledge underpin policy?Telecommunications Policy.
2002;26(1-2):31–52.
32.
ThompsonB, RosenbergG, OlshavskyRM, KobashikawaB.
User interface for integrating diverse methods of
communication. Google Patents;2010.
33.
WuF, YeniyurtS, KimD,
CavusgilST.
The impact of information technology on supply chain capabilities and
firm performance: A resource-based view. Industrial Marketing
Management.
2006;35(4):493–504.
34.
CroteauA-M, SolomonS, RaymondL, BergeronF, editors.
Organizational and technological infrastructures
alignment. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences; 2001: IEEE.
35.
AcurN, KandemirD, BoerH.
Strategic alignment and new product development: Drivers and performance
effects. Journal of Product Innovation Management.
2012;29(2):304–18.
36.
ThuemmlerC, MivalO,
LimAK, HolanecI, FrickerS, editors.
A social-technological alignment matrix. 2014
IEEE 16th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services
(Healthcom); 2014: IEEE.
37.
AversanoL, GrassoC, TortorellaM.
A literature review of Business/IT Alignment Strategies.
Procedia Technology.
2012;5:462–74.
38.
SinghA, PrasadS.
Remediation of heavy metal contaminated ecosystem: an overview on
technology advancement. International Journal of Environmental
Science and Technology.
2015;12(1):353–66.
39.
KhanMK.
Technological advancements and 2020.
Springer; 2020.
40.
GagnonY, DragonJ. The
impact of technology on organizational performance.
Optimum.
1998;28:19–31.
41.
SethiV, HwangK,
PegelsC.
Information technology and organizational performance: a critical
evaluation of Computerworld’s index of information systems
effectiveness. Information & Management.
1993;25(4):193–205.
42.
KellerRT.
Technology-information processing fit and the performance of R&D
project groups: A test of contingency theory. Academy of
Management Journal.
1994;37(1):167–79.
43.
ShinD-H, KimW-Y.
Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to cyworld user
behavior: implication of the web2.0 user acceptance.
CyberPsychology & Behavior.
2008;11(3):378–82.
44.
Oly
NdubisiN, JantanM.
Evaluating IS usage in Malaysian small and medium-sized firms using the
technology acceptance model. Logistics Information
Management.
2003;16(6):440–50.
45.
VenkateshV, DavisFD. A
theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field
studies. Management Science.
2000;46(2):186–204.
46.
IsaacO, AbdullahZ, RamayahT, MutaharAM.
Internet usage within government institutions in Yemen: An extended
technology acceptance model (TAM) with internet self-efficacy and performance
impact. Science International.
2017;29(4):737–47.
47.
LiuL, MaQ.
Perceived system performance: a test of an extended technology acceptance
model. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in
Information Systems.
2006;37(2-3):51–9.
48.
IsaacO, AbdullahZ, RamayahT, MutaharAM, AlrajawyI.
Integrating user satisfaction and performance impact with technology
acceptance model (TAM) to examine the internet usage within organizations in
Yemen. Asian Journal of Information Technology.
2018;17(1):60–78.
49.
Burton-JonesA,
HubonaGS.
The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance
model. Information & Management.
2006;43(6):706–17.
50.
ChiuC-M, LinH-Y,
SunS-Y, HsuM-H.
Understanding customers’ loyalty intentions towards online shopping: an
integration of technology acceptance model and fairness theory.
Behaviour & Information Technology.
2009;28(4):347–60.
51.
KingN, CassellC, SymonG.
Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical
guide. The Qualitative Research Interview.
1994;17.
52.
WaheedA, YangJ.
The effect of mobile marketing and email marketing on exploratory
information seeking (EIS) behavior of the consumers: Communication through wireless
technologies. International Journal of Enterprise Information
Systems (IJEIS).
2017;13(4):76–89.
53.
Van
TeijlingenER, RennieAM, HundleyV, GrahamW. The
importance of conducting and reporting pilot studies: the example of the Scottish Births
Survey. Journal of Advanced Nursing.
2001;34(3):289–95.
54.
DeVellisRF.
Scale development: Theory and applications:
Sage publications; 2016.
55.
DaimTU, HaA,
ReutimanS, HughesB, PathakU, BynumW,
et al. Exploring the communication breakdown in global
virtual teams. International Journal of Project
Management.
2012;30(2):199–212.
56.
YongL, WeiL,
YinC, BoY.
Choice of alliance structures when allying with competitors: Matching
structures to alliance resources and risks. Human Systems
Management.
2014;33(3):79–89.
57.
FornellC, LarckerDF.
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error: Algebra and statistics. SAGE Publications Sage
CA: Los Angeles, CA;
1981.
58.
HairJFJr,
HultGTM, RingleC, SarstedtM. A primer on
partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage
publications; 2016.
59.
KlineRB. Principles and
practice of structural equation modeling: Guilford
publications; 2015.
60.
TaylorR.
Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic
review. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography.
1990;6(1):35–9.
61.
DengZ, MoX,
LiuS.
Comparison of the middle-aged and older users’ adoption of mobile health
services in China. International Journal of Medical
Informatics.
2014;83(3):210–24.
62.
HuLt, BentlerPM.
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal.
1999;6(1):1–55.
63.
EfronB, TibshiraniR.
An introduction to the bootstrap. New
York. NYChapman & Hall. 1993.
64.
HairJFJr,
SarstedtM, RingleCM, GuderganSP. Advanced issues
in partial least squares structural equation modeling: Sage
Publications; 2017.
65.
HairJF, BlackWC, BabinBJ, AndersonRE, TathamRL.
Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall; 2006.
