2.

Problem Identification and Problem solving

Due to the varied customer group present around the world. It becomes imperative to
understand the expectation, motivation, perception and various others factors that will
influence the purchase decision and post purchase behaviour of the consumers.

Problem Identification

With the introduction of electronic devices such as smartwatches and wristbands, fitness
technology has evolved dramatically. For new products such as smart shoes, smart clothing,
headbands and more, adaptive wellness technology has moved beyond just smartwatches and
wristbands. This rise is driven largely by the emergence of wrist-wears like wristbands and
smartwatches. The trends affecting the market for wearable technology include large player
participation, compact and easy use, and increased awareness of health care, rising
manufacturing costs and technological advances. Such major factors have accelerated the
popularity of wearable devices through different industries, such as education, defence,
sports, manufacturing and enterprises, and others. Consumers prefer wearable devices such as
smartwatches, exercise trackers and smart garments due to their numerous advantages
including easy use and the latest technological advances.

Thus, it’s important the highly competitive market surrounded by well-aware, tech-savvy
consumers to analyse the pain-points of the consumers involving the factors impacting the
adoption and rejection of wearables, factors impacting the purchase and post purchase
behaviour of consumer towards smart technology and wearables.

Problem Solving

Technology Adoption Models

Nan, Xunhua & Guoqing (2008) published a report on the validity of the IDT (Innovation
Diffusion Theory) and TAM (Application Acceptance Process) as a combined paradigm in
the implementation of information technology. The factors examined in the paper were
perceived utility and perceived user-friendliness and indirect factors such as relative benefit,
picture, usability, demonstrability of performance, voluntariness, popularity and triability.
The findings showed that the expected ease of usage for the integrated IDT-TAM model has
a greater impact on the real usage of technology which is considered to be of value.

Adoption and rejection Factors

Kalantari & Rauschnabel (2018) developed a model of adoption through involving different
patterns of technology recognition, such as TAM and UTAUT. The research was carried out
on the smart wearable technology which uses AR (Augmented Reality), i.e. ARSG
(Augmented Reality Smart Glasses). The proposed model established that the advantages of
utilizing technology compromised to privacy, technology characteristics, descriptive social
norms and injunctive social norms are variables that affect the decision to follow. The study's
most significant conclusion is that businesses can rely on the creation of promotional
activities by interpretation of specific social standards.
Dehghani (2018) conducted a nentography research on understanding the motivating factors
for the continuous adoption of especially smart watches for the mobile technology
applications. Eight factors which contribute the most were established. They were perceived
utility, perceived ease of usage, technology enhancing, accessibility, usability, design ology,
complementary products and health technologies. For the first time, some of the variables
such as complementary products and supporting technologies have been examined and have
been seen to affect the introduction and continued usage of smart watches.

Dehgani, Kim & Dangelico (2018) have been researching the factors that influence the
decision to use popular smart wearable technology devices continuously. The study was
carried out on the individual consumers of the smart wearable technology and the
investigators find that the reasons leading to the continuing usage of smart wearable
technology products are hedonic incentive, aesthetic attractiveness, complimentary goods and
healthology.

Kalantari (2017) has put light on the wearable devices as a rapidly emerging technology that
can influence the user’s lifestyle and behaviour. Through the study, a few factors such as
perceived Benefits, technology characteristics, individual characteristics, social factors and
perceived risks have major influence on the adoption of SWT (Smart Wearable Technology)
devices

Study Mani & Chouk (2017) is focused on identifying the reasons that are responsible for
consumer aversion to smart and relevant goods. This study is important as the Internet of
Things ( IoT) industry is increasing at a very rapid rate and provides different possibilities
and emerging problems that have to be tackled to best support the consumer. The
experimental research was performed, and simulation of structural equations was used to
evaluate the conceptual model (Technology Adoption Process). The results indicate that
perceived utility, perceived price, intrusiveness, perceived novelty and auto-efficacy have a
significant effect on customer resistance.

Pfeiffer et al (2016) studied usage and function of wearable self-tracking systems. The
authors have established a self-tracking system acceptance model focused on the standard
acceptance paradigm of the technology. The study recognizes requirements for adoption such
as perceived utility, perceived satisfaction, social impact, confidence, professional creativity
and perceived well-being help as the most significant drivers.

Wu, Wu & Chang (2016) have done their research to figure out the adoption criteria for
smartwatch to learn what the consumer wants and how businesses may boost the user-
qualified functionality of their app. The considerations defined for the research were relative
benefit, simplicity of usage, reliability, demonstrability of performance, pleasure and social
behavior, taken from a customer viewpoint including the theory of diffusion of creativity,
paradigm of adoption of technology, and cohesive theory of adoption and usage of
technology and perceived pleasure. Attitude was the factor which was found to be important.

The research by Motti & Caine (2016) offers an overview of the customer acceptance of
smart wearables with regard to different dimensions of user interface. Through integrating
qualitative research with quantitative methodology the authors evaluated the answers. The
areas of concern found in smartwatches is limited screen size that restricts the input and
output possibilities, impedes human contact with tactile GUIs, restricts battery life,
unintended user movements that trigger smartwatch action and incorporation with mobile
device. The results were divided into three main areas of concern: climate, consumer, and
network.

Lee & Coughlin (2014) published a review to understand the causes of adaptation and the
obstacles to technological acceptance in comparison to older generations. The comprehensive
analysis was carried out as it is clarified that the implementation of technology for older
adults is not a easy nor complicated matter as it is influenced by many variables. Results
showed that the most critical responsible variables are value for money, flexibility,
availability, efficiency, technological support, social support, attitude, confidence, expertise
and trust. Therefore, more refinement may be achieved to consider older generations'
acceptance of technology by taking into account considerations such as interoperability,
service confidence, system reliability, conceptual consistency and the service aspect of
technology.
References:

1. Dehghani, M. (2016, March). An assessment towards adoption and diffusion of smart

wearable technologies by consumers: the cases of smart watch and fitness wristband
products. In HT (Extended Proceedings).
2. Dehghani, M., Kim, K. J., & Dangelico, R. M. (2018). Will smartwatches last?
Factors contributing to intention to keep using smart wearable technology. Telematics
and Informatics, 35(2), 480-490.
3. Kalantari, M. (2017). Consumers' adoption of wearable technologies: literature
review, synthesis, and future research agenda. International Journal of Technology
Marketing, 12(3), 274-307.
4. Lee, C., & Coughlin, J. F. (2015). PERSPECTIVE: Older adults' adoption of
technology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 32(5), 747-759.
5. Mani, Z., & Chouk, I. (2017). Drivers of consumers’ resistance to smart
products. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(1-2), 76-97.
6. Motti, V. G., & Caine, K. (2016, September). Smart wearables or dumb wearables?:
Understanding how context impacts the UX in wrist worn interaction. In Proceedings
of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication (p. 10).
ACM.
7. Pfeiffer, J., von Entress-Fuersteneck, M., Urbach, N., & Buchwald, A. (2016).
Quantify-me: consumer acceptance of wearable self-tracking devices.
8. Wu, L. H., Wu, L. C., & Chang, S. C. (2016). Exploring consumers’ intention to
accept smartwatch. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 383-392.