| Knowledge Management and the Technology | | | | nature and its limited number of variables, the |
| Acceptance Model: TAM helping in the adoption of | | | | adoption of the model requires extensions depending |
| KM Initiatives Braulio J. Cabral Walden University | | | | on the field of technology it will be applied, examples |
| February 22, 2009 | | | | of such extensions are found in (Horton, 2001), (Liaw |
| Abstract | | | | 2003), (Peacok, 2001), (Van der Heijden 2004), |
| The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) explains | | | | (Vassilios 2009), (Bueno Salvador 2008), (Zhou 2008) |
| the determinants to the acceptance of information | | | | among many others researchers and developers. |
| technology in general terms from a theoretical | | | | Technology Acceptance Model |
| approach (Money & Turner, 2004, p. 1). The model is | | | | Critically speaking, TAM can be considered as a road |
| derived from Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of | | | | map to the solution of acceptability issues for |
| Reasoned Action (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992, p. 3) | | | | information technologies. The extensions found in |
| which explains behavioral intention as a function of | | | | many of its implementations are based on variables |
| information of beliefs about the performance of an | | | | not originally found in TAM and required for the |
| action and the desired outcome. This paper provides | | | | particular field of research. For example, (Scott 2008) |
| a description of the Technology Acceptance Model | | | | acknowledges the limitations of the original model in |
| and how the principles and elements of such model | | | | terms of acceptance and usability research. Scott |
| can be utilized to help in the implementation and | | | | bases her study in the differences between system |
| acceptance of Knowledge Management initiative. The | | | | usage in TAM and the many other variables that |
| author adopts a general approach to knowledge | | | | affect usability. Usability is in its own an entity of |
| management drawing on researches conducted in the | | | | research in information technology (Al-Gohbiri 2003). |
| information technology field as well as in the | | | | Scott proposes a unification approach to TAM and |
| knowledge management field using the technology | | | | Usability testing methodologies, her research applies |
| acceptance model. Finally the author introduces two | | | | to ERP documentation usability and uses components |
| other models, theory of constrains and the Disruptive | | | | of TAM adding variables such as support, learning |
| Innovation model as possible enhancement elements | | | | ability, navigation, and presentation. Her findings show |
| of TAM to facilitate KM adoption. | | | | the effectiveness of incorporating TAM with other |
| Introduction | | | | models such as Usability testing methodologies. |
| The success or failure of a Knowledge Management | | | | (Scott, 2008, p. 121) See Appendix A for a graph of |
| initiative depends on the understanding of KM as a | | | | Scott’s TAM applied to usability of ERP |
| system comprised of multiple interdependent | | | | documentation. Maholtra et. tal (Maholtra & Galletta, |
| elements. These elements must be balanced | | | | 1999) expands TAM to account for social influence. |
| correctly in order to maximize the chances of | | | | Maholtra finds the Technology Acceptance model as |
| success. The elements of knowledge management | | | | incomplete because of its failure to account for the |
| include people, processes and technology (Dalkir, | | | | influence of social factors in the acceptance of |
| 2005). Regularly the tendency is to give too much | | | | information technology. His research adopts |
| attention to either people or the technological aspect | | | | Kelman’s processes of social influence (Kelman, |
| of the implementation. Ericsson and Avdic (2003), | | | | 1974). The research model used by Maholtra is based |
| describes the two views as a technocratic view and | | | | on TAM and its extension to social influence, and the |
| the anthropocentric view. The technocratic view sees | | | | findings confirmed his theory that there is a direct |
| KM as the implementation of a knowledge | | | | influence to the adaptation of technology and social |
| management system (database, knowledge | | | | factors. Vassilios modifies TAM to apply the model to |
| repository, data warehouse) and has the false | | | | the acceptance of information technologies in |
| expectation that people will automatically see the | | | | hospitals. Exogenous variables were added to the |
| system as a tool that adds value to their day-to-day | | | | original model to account for social influence, attitude, |
| tasks. The anthropocentric view, considers the | | | | and facilitating conditions and self-efficacy. The results |
| human aspect of the system and how the solution | | | | showed that these variables have an effect on the |
| will help the workers. Both approaches are needed in | | | | outcome of technology adaptation in hospitals studied |
| balanced and both represent many challenges to be | | | | through the technology acceptance model (Aggelidis |
| addressed. One of the challenges to KM initiative is | | | | & Chatzoglou, 2009). Bueno (2008) Adapts TAM and |
| acceptance; this challenge can be the determinant on | | | | expands it to include variables such as top |
| the success or failure of the initiative and is it | | | | management support, communication, cooperation, |
| overlooked more than it could be imagined. There are | | | | training, and technological complexity and uses it as a |
| many cases where the initiative is implemented with | | | | research model to the acceptance of ERP systems |
| state of the art technology, effort and money is put | | | | (Bueno & Salmeron, 2008). Lastly, (Zhou, 2008) |
| into the project to later get institutionalized and | | | | integrates diffusion of innovation theory (DIT) |
| shelved. In this paper the author studies Davis F. D | | | | (Rogers, 2003) and the technology acceptance model |
| Technology Acceptance Model as a tool to help | | | | (TAM), to explore the adoption of the Internet by |
| overcome the challenge of accepting Knowledge | | | | Chinese journalists, including variables such as |
| Management Initiative in the organization, how the | | | | voluntary adopters, forced adopters, resistant |
| model adapts to different industries and scenarios | | | | non-adopters and dormant non-adopters, the results |
| and how it could be expanded to use other models | | | | demonstrate that the integration of DIT and TAM |
| elements to improve its effectiveness. | | | | are effective in determining the outcome of |
| Literature Review The purpose of this paper is to | | | | information technology (Internet) for both voluntary |
| research the use of the Technology Acceptance | | | | adopters and forced adopters in the field of |
| Model (TAM) and how this model can be applied to | | | | journalism. |
| KM initiatives. The following literatures were used to | | | | Incorporating Elements of Disruptive Innovation and |
| support the research which includes, describing the | | | | Theory of Constrains to TAM The first question that |
| Technology Acceptance model, briefly describing | | | | rises when we mention Christensen’s Disruptive |
| knowledge management, and demonstrating the | | | | Innovation theory in the context of KM is. How does |
| flexibility of TAM to adapt to different industries. This | | | | it apply to KM? Disruptive Innovation Theory is based |
| paper also presents an enhanced TAM that could be | | | | on two business paradigms, sustain innovation and |
| used in the adoption of KM initiatives. In Knowledge | | | | disruptive innovation, the theory addresses the |
| Management in Theory and Practice New York: | | | | strategies necessary to maintain a balance between |
| Elsevier (2005). Dalkir describes attributes such as | | | | both paradigms. The theory has been applied to |
| generating new knowledge, accessing valuable | | | | businesses to promote innovation to meet the |
| knowledge from outside sources, using accessible | | | | demands of a rapid changing market and consumers. |
| knowledge in decision making, embedding knowledge | | | | Later, this theory has proven to be an important tool |
| in documents, databases and software, facilitating | | | | in managing innovation in ever aspects of the |
| knowledge growth through culture and incentives and | | | | organization where new solutions and products are |
| transferring existing knowledge into different parts of | | | | necessary in order to maintaining a competitive edge |
| the organization. The adoption of systems and tools | | | | (Katz et. al, 2004), (Christensen, 2003). The theory |
| to incorporate Dalkir’s ideas and concepts of KM | | | | of disruptive innovation has been applied to |
| into the organization is not an easy task, and is | | | | manufacturing, medical industry as well as the |
| almost certain to be welcome with resentments and | | | | education sector. Christensen views this theory as a |
| push back. Hahn, J., & Subramani, M. R. (2000) | | | | tool to bringing innovation into the classroom and to |
| describes the issues and challenges found in the | | | | changing the learning process in our education system |
| implementation of a KM framework. | | | | (Christensen, 2008). If the theory can be applied to |
| Davis, F. D. presented a model to empirically analyze | | | | the health industry, manufacturing, and education, it |
| how people behave when introduced to changes in | | | | can definitely be used as a tool in addressing |
| technology and what are the variables to be | | | | acceptance of KM as a disruptive innovation based |
| considered in order to interpret the behavior. Davis | | | | Dalkir statement of KM as “the deliberate and |
| believes that the adoption of new technology | | | | systematic coordination of an organization’s |
| depends on variables such as perceived usefulness, | | | | people, technology, processes, and organizational |
| perceived ease of use leading to a behavioral | | | | structure in order to add value through reuse and |
| intention to use the system and finally using the | | | | innovation” (Dalkir, 2005, pg 3). |
| system. Davis, F. D. (1989). In order to understand | | | | Introducing KM as a Disruptive Innovation Paradigm |
| TAM, it is necessary to understand it roots and have | | | | The use of disruptive innovation applied to KM is |
| an idea of how other similar models work. The model | | | | based on viewing KM as a disruptive paradigm or |
| is derived from Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of | | | | technology itself for those organizations that do not |
| Reasoned Action (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992, p. 3) | | | | have already a KM initiative in place. From this |
| which explains behavioral intention as a function of | | | | context KM is viewed in the same way a new |
| information of beliefs about the performance of an | | | | technology is introduced and phases the same |
| action and the desired outcome. Madden takes us | | | | challenges of acceptance as any new technology. |
| through a description of the Theory of Reasoned | | | | The model below, adapted from Christensen’s |
| Acton (TRA) and compares and contrasts the model | | | | model and Lettice (2003) shows KM as a disruptive |
| with similar models such as the Theory of Planned | | | | change to the sustaining way of managing knowledge |
| Behavior (TPB). The second part of this research | | | | in an organization. As in the case of industry services |
| concentrates on demonstrating the flexibility of TAM | | | | and products the purpose is to exploit the gap (D) |
| and how researchers expanded the model to adapt it | | | | between A and C until the new disruptive initiative |
| to their own situations. Folorunson, O., & Ogunsey, S. | | | | overcomes the old paradigm. In the case of |
| O. (2008) expands TAM to adapt it to a KM initiative | | | | knowledge management the speed of filling up the |
| in an agricultural environment while Aggelidis, V. P., & | | | | gap will depend on the carefully observation of |
| Chatzoglou, P. D. (2009) modifies the model to be | | | | acceptance elements such as perceived usefulness, |
| applied to a hospital environment. Bueno, S., & | | | | ease of use, and management support. Other |
| Salmeron, J. L. (2008) developed a modified TAM for | | | | elements representing a challenge to disruptive |
| ERP systems and shows how the model can be | | | | innovation are lack of understanding of the |
| implemented to help in the adoption of computer | | | | importance of the gap (D), inability to present the |
| systems. Money, W., & Turner, A. (2004) specifically | | | | new technology or services with a disruptive |
| applies TAM to a Knowledge Management system, | | | | approach, inappropriate funding and inappropriate |
| explaining best practices and demonstrating the | | | | development process (Lettice 2003), in this case |
| results of their implementation. Maholtra, Y., & | | | | inappropriate design and implementation process of |
| Galletta, D. F. (1999) presents a critical approach to | | | | the KM initiative. |
| some weaknesses fond in TAM and expand the | | | | The Theory of Constrains We can use Goldratt’s |
| model to account for social elements. Maholtra shows | | | | theory of constrains learn more about how to |
| how social influences can affect the adoption of | | | | effectively manage the constrains or resistance we |
| technologies and theoretically explains his model | | | | face when implementing the KM initiative, the |
| followed by empirical results. In the final session of | | | | strategies found in the theory of constrains fit the |
| the research the author summarizes the findings and | | | | acceptance model and can be used to enhance it. |
| presents Goldratt’s theory of constrains as | | | | Goldratt explains this theory in five fundamental |
| another tool to aid in the adoption of KM initiative and | | | | steps; identify the system’s constrains |
| how this theory can enhance certain elements of | | | | (resistance to acceptance), decide how to exploit the |
| TAM, and how a more recent model called Disruptive | | | | constrain, and subordinate everything else to these |
| Innovation can be incorporated into TAM when used | | | | two premises, elevate the system constrains (work |
| in KM initiatives. Goldratt, E. M. (1990) provides a | | | | on this constrain until it is overcome), and go back to |
| model called Theory of Constraints that can be | | | | step one to identify any new constrains. Goldratt |
| adopted and applied to TAM to help in the analysis of | | | | understands the difficulties presented in introducing |
| challenges and constrains imposed to the | | | | changes in the organization including improvement, in |
| implementation of new technology and Neusa Hirota | | | | the following sequence; a) any improvement is a |
| (2009) explains Havard’s professor Clayton | | | | change, b) any change is a perceived threat to |
| Christensen Disruptive Innovation theory. | | | | security and c) any threat to security gives rise to |
| Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) | | | | emotional resistance (Goldratt, 1990). |
| The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was | | | | Conclusion Introducing any changes in the |
| developed by Fred Davis in 1989 (Davis, 1989). The | | | | organization, will be most likely received with |
| purpose was to explain the determinants to the | | | | resistance due to the perceived threat to the |
| acceptance of information technology in general | | | | security and this threat to security generates |
| terms from a theoretical approach (Money & Turner, | | | | emotional reactions as explained by Goldratt. The |
| 2004, p. 1). The model is derived from Fishbein and | | | | Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) provides a |
| Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (Madden, | | | | framework that can be used to help us overcome |
| Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992, p. 3) which explains behavioral | | | | this resistance. As a framework, TAM is flexible |
| intention as a function of information of beliefs about | | | | enough to allow the introduction of elements from |
| the performance of an action and the desired | | | | other models to enhance it and to adapt it to |
| outcome. The technology acceptance model adapts | | | | different industries and fields. Many researchers had |
| such model to the acceptance of technological | | | | enhanced TAM to fit into fields such as health, |
| innovations. (See appendix A for a graph of both | | | | information technologies, and education. This research |
| theory and model). In the technology acceptance | | | | presents KM as a new innovative solution in the |
| model, Davis groups’ system design, user | | | | organization using knowledge as the catalyst to a |
| characteristics, tasks and organizational structure | | | | leading edge in today’s corporate environment. |
| among other elements into the external variables | | | | The author recognizes the challenges presented by |
| realm, these variables gives the user a perception | | | | the implementation of a knowledge management |
| about how useful the system is in helping with the | | | | initiative, especially that or acceptance, and proposes |
| present task and also a perception of easy of used. | | | | an enhanced TAM model that incorporates elements |
| Combined, these characteristics develop an attitude in | | | | from Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory |
| the user toward using the system followed by a | | | | and strategies and techniques from Goldratt’s |
| behavioral action or intention to use the system, the | | | | theory of constrains. The paper is limited and the |
| culminating point is the voluntary use of the system | | | | research can be enhanced to include empirical data |
| and the understanding of it as a valuable tool. (Money | | | | using the enhanced model. The researcher presents |
| & Turner, 2004). TAM as a tool to aiding Knowledge | | | | the ideas and concepts and encourages the reader |
| Management Initiatives | | | | to further develop a framework for implementing this |
| Since 1989 the Technology of Acceptance Model | | | | model. |
| have undergone many extension, due to its general | | | | |