The most comprehensively used model of IT adoption and its use is the technology acceptance

model (TAM) and has been shown to be highly insightful of IT adoption

(Davis,Bagozzi,&Warshaw,1989). TAM was developed to help predict adoption and use of new
IT systems and technologies on individual basis (Ventakesh and Bala, 2008). There are two
external variables of the TAM, perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU)
(Davis, 1989). Perceived usefulness is described as a user’s degree to believe how effective a
particular system is going to be in improving an individual’s job performance and Perceived
Ease of Use refers to the extent to which the potential user expects the target system to be
interactive and effortless (Davis, 1989).
The development of the TAM Model- TAM 2 was proposed by Ventakesh and Davis (2000)
which categorized the determinants of Perceived Usefulness. The determinants are- subjective
norm, job relevance, image, result demonstrability and output quality- two moderators are also a
part namely, experience and voluntariness. The definitions for determinants of perceived
usefulness are described in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Determinants of Perceived Usefulness

Determinants Definitions
Perceived Ease of Use The extent to which a person believes that using
technology will be hassle free (Davis et al.,1989)
Subjective Norm The extent to which an individual internalizes how
most important people around him/her think
whether to use or not use the system (Fishbein
1975)
Job Relevance The degree to which an individual believes that the
system is relevant to his job (Venkatesh 2000)

Image The degree to which an individual thinks that his

status will elevate in society due to use of
innovation (Moore & BenBasat,1991)
Result Demonstrability The degree to which the results of innovation are
tangible (Moore 1991)

Output Quality The extent to which an individual believes that the

system performs the tasks efficiently (Ventakesh &
Davis, 2000)

The TAM 2 model has two theoretical processes- social influence and cognitive instrumental
processes to explain the effects of various determinants on perceived usefulness (Ventakesh and
Bala, 2008). TAM 2 posits that perceived ease of use and result demonstrability have a positive
and direct effect on perceived usefulness whereas, job relevance and output quality have a
moderating effect on perceived usefulness (Ventakesh and Davis, 2000).
Ventakesh also developed a model of the determinants of perceived ease of use
(Ventakesh,2000). The author talked about how individuals are likely to form perceptions based
on individual beliefs regarding computers and their use. Table 2 defines the determinants of
perceived ease of use.

Table 2 Determinants of perceived ease of use.

Determinants
Computer Self-Efficacy
Perception of External Control
Computer Anxiety
Computer Playfulness
Perceived Enjoyment
Objective usability
Definitions
The extent to which an individual believes that
they can carry out a specific task using the
computer (Compeau and Higgins 1995)
The extent wo which the user believes that the
existence of organizational and practical
resources (Venkatesh, Morris et al. 2003)
The degree of an individual’s uneasiness when
she/he is faced with the probability of using a
computer (Venkatesh and & Davis 2000)
The degree of creativity and spontaneity in
microcomputer interactions (Webster and &
Martocchio 1992)
The extent to which the activity of using a specific
system is perceived to be enjoyable in its own
capacity, keeping aside any performance
consequences resulting from the system
(Venkatesh 2000)
A comparison of systems based on the actual
efforts required to complete a specific task
(Ventakesh, 2000)

Amalgamating TAM 2 (Ventakesh & Davis 2000) and perceived ease of use (Ventakesh, 2000)
we get a more extensive technology acceptance model – TAM 3 (Ventakesh and Bala, 2008).
The model TAM 3 does not have any cross over effects since, Ventakesh suggests that the
determinants of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness will not affect each other.
Moreover, the relationships in Ventakesh and Davis (2000) and Ventakesh (2000) hold too
hence, TAM 3 does not have cross over effects.

1
Moreover, TAM3 posits three new relationships that were not experimentally tested in
Venkatesh
(2000) and Venkatesh and Davis (2000). The authors Ventakesh and Bala suggest that
experience should moderate the relationships between a) perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness b)
computer anxiety and perceived ease of use; and c) perceived ease of use and
behavioral intention (Ventakesh & Bala, 2008).

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer
skills. Information Systems Research, 6, 118–143.

Fishbein, M. &. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An in-.

Koch. (2004 b). Nike rebounds: How (and why) Nike recovered from its supply. CIO Magazine.

Koch. (2004a). When bad things happen to good projects. CIO Magazine.

Moore, G. C. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an

information technology innovation. Information Systems Research , 2, 192–222.

Venkatesh, V. &. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal
field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204.

Venkatesh, V., & & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four
longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204.

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on
Interventions. Decision Sciences Institute.

2
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–428.

Webster, J., & & Martocchio, J. J. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with
workplace implications. MIS Quarterly, 16, 201–226.