This innovation theory can be supported and expanded by

the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

( UTAUT). This theory is a technology acceptance

model formulated by Venkatesh and others in "User acceptance of

Information Technology: Toward a Unified View". The UTAUT aims

to explain user intentions to use an information system and

subsequent usage behavior. The theory holds that there are four

key constructs: 1) performance expectancy, 2) effort expectancy,

3) social influence, and 4) facilitating conditions.

The first three are direct determinants of usage intention and

behavior, and the fourth is a direct determinant of user behavior.

The theory was developed through a review and consolidation of

the constructs of eight models that earlier research had employed

to explain information systems usage behaviour (theory of

reasoned action, technology acceptance model, motivational

model, theory of planned behavior, a combined theory of planned

behavior/technology acceptance model, model of personal

computer use, diffusion of innovations theory, and social cognitive

theory).

Thus, the UTAUT merely influences the individual’s

perspective and way of thinking with regards to the various things

that a man would plan to invent and experiment. Through this, the

innovation of things, such us the E-car would be more versatile

since they are driven with factors that are being plan ahead of time

and consolidated among the “ifs and maybes”.

Also, the innovation theory could be guided by the

Automobility theory. Automobility holds that, on a cultural or social

level, automobiles exist as part of a complex, one that involves

hardware and infrastructure—a hybridity between drivers and

machines—along with patterns of identity and attitudes about

driving pleasure. This is a system that coerces people into an

intense flexi-bility. It forces people to juggle fragments of time so

as to deal with the temporal and spatial constraints that it itself

generates. Automobility is a Frankenstein-created monster,

extending the individual into realms of freedom and flexibility

whereby inhabiting the car can be positively viewed and

energetically campaigned and fought for, but also constraining

car‘users’ to live their lives in spatially stretched and time-

compressed ways.The car is the literal ‘iron cage’ of modernity,

motorized, moving and domestic. Automobility develops

‘instantaneous’ time to be managed in complex,heterogeneous

and uncertain ways.. Automobility coerces people to juggle

fragments of time to assemble complex, fragile and contingent

patterns of social life, patterns that constitute self-created

narratives of the reflexive self. Automobility thus produces desires

for flexibility that so far only the car is able to satisfy.

(Giddens,1991: 6)