Accès libre

AutoCAD: examination of factors influencing user adoption

À propos de cet article

Citez

Fig. 1

Proposed research model
Proposed research model

Fig. 2

Extended model TAM of the user attitude towards AutoCAD software with the path structure estimation
Extended model TAM of the user attitude towards AutoCAD software with the path structure estimation

Previous TAM research

AUTHORSCONSTRUCTSAPPLICATIONSFINDINGS
Rice and Shook (1988)Accessibility, USE, Value, Job Type, Appropriate, OutcomesElectronic Messaging System (EMS)Accessibility→USE, Job Type→USE, Value→USE, USE→ Outcomes
Davis (1989)PU, PEOU, USE*PROFS - electronic mail, the XEDIT file editor, and IBM PC- systems: Chart-Master, PendrawPEOU→USE, PU→USE
Davis et al. (1989)PU, PEOU, ATT, BI, USEWriteOnePEOU→PU, PU→ATT, PEOU→ATT, ATT→BI, BI→USE, PU→BI
Teo et al. (1999)PU, PEOU, USE, PEInternetPEOU→PU, PU→USE, PEOU→USE, PE→USE, PEOU→PE
Thong et al. (2002)PU, PEOU, BI, System Accessibility (SA), Terminology, Screen Design, Navigation, Relevance, System Visibility, Computer Self-Efficacy (CsE), Computer Experience (CEx), Domain Knowledge (DK),digital libraryTerminology→PEOU, Screen Design→PEOU, Navigation→PEOU, Relevance→PU, System Visibility→PU, CsE→PEOU, CEx→PEOU, DK→PEOU, PEOU→PU, PEOU→BI, PU→BI
Park (2009)PU, PEOU, ATT, BI, SN System Accessibility (SA)e-learningATT→BI, SE→BI, SN→BI, PU →ATT, PEOU→ATT, SN→ATT, PEOU→ PU, SE, SN→PU, SE→PEOU, SA→PEOU
Liébana- Cabanillas et al. (2015)PC, PU, ATT, BI, PEOU, Personal Innovativeness (PI),QR mobile payment systemPC→PU, ATT→BI, PU→ATT, PEOU→ PU, PI→ PEOU, PI→BI, SN→BI
Chintalapati et al. (2016)PU, PEOU, ATT, BIYouTubePEOU→PU, PU→ATT, ATT→BI, PEOU→ATT
Bazelais et al. (2017)PU, PEOU, USE, ATT, BIonline learning technologies for college studentsPEOU→PU, PU→ATT, ATT→BI, PEOU→ATT
Park et al. (2017)Technology Acceptance (TA), PE, ATT, BI, PU, PEOU, Perceived connectedness (PCON), PC, Perceived control (PCO), Perceived cost (PCOST)Internet of Things (IoT)ATT→ BI, PU→ BI, PU→ ATT, PEOU→ATT, PEOU→ PU, PCOST→BI PCON→PU, PC→PEOU, PCON→PEOU, PC→PU, PCO→PEOU
Ahmad et al. (2017)PU, PEOU, Trust (TR), Cost, Social Influence (SI), Variety of services (VOS), User intention to adopt eGovernment (eG), control variables: Gender, Age and Household incomem-government serviceTR→eG, SI→eG, Gender→eG, Age→eG, Household income→eG
Ul Hassan et al. (2018)COST, BI, PU, PEOU, Securuty&Privacy (S&P), ATT, SN, Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC), Self-Efficacy (SE)Internet bankingPU→ATT, PEOU →ATT, ATT→BI, SE→PBC, PBC→BI, SN →BI, S&P →ATT, TS→PBC, COST→ BI
Changchit and Chuchuen (2018)PU, PEOU, Perceived Security (PS), Perceived Speed of Access (PSA), Perceived Cost of Usage (PCU)Cloud ComputingPU→BI, PEOU→BI, PS→BI, PCU→BI
Sangi et al. (2018)PU, Communication (C), Cost-effectiveness (CE), Smartphones usage (SU), Facebook Usage (FbU)FacebookPU→FbU, C→FbU, SU→FbU
Groß (2018)PU, PEOU, USE, PE, ATT, Trust (TR), Social influence (SI), Satisfaction (SAT)mobile shoppingPU→ATT, PE→ATT, PEOU→ATT, SI→BI, PEOU→PU, PEOU→PE, ATT→BI, TR→BI, BIUSE, SATUSE →→

Parameter estimates for causal paths

STRUCTURAL PATHBETAt-valuep-valueTEST RESULT
H1. PEOU → PU0.548.690.001Supported
H2. PU → BI0.315.540.001Supported
H3. PEOU → BI0.517.910.001Supported
H4. PPA → BI0.152.560.010Supported
H5. BI→ USE0.404.610.001Supported
H6. PPA → USE-0.40-3.770.001Supported

Main characteristics of the sample structure

SURVEY SAMPLE N = 347
59.2% women40.8% men
THE DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS AMONG THE RESPONDENTS:
37.6%not employed, not looking for a job (full-time students)
25.4%employed, working 40 or more hours a week
19.7%employed, working 1 – 39 hours a week
17.3%self-employment etc.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS’ EXPERIENCE IN WORK WITH AUTOCAD:
50%using the software for six months
30.5%more than six months, up to a year
15.8%more than a year, up to five years
3.7%more than five years

Construct measurement and scale items

VARIABLECONSTRUCTSSOURCE/REFERENCE
PEOUPERCEIVED EASE OF USE
PEOU1Learning to use AutoCAD is easy for meIgbaria (2006); et Venkatesh al. (1997); et Karahanna al. (2003) et al.
PEOU2I can easily do what I want and need in AutoCADDavis (1989)
PEOU3My interaction with AutoCAD is clear and understandableKarahanna Davis (2000et ) al. (2006); Venkatesh and
PEOU4I can easily use AutoCAD efficientlyF. D. Davis (1989); Karahanna et al. (2006)
PEOU5AutoCAD is an intuitive programAuthor
PUPERCEIVED USEFULNESS
PU1Using AutoCAD enables me to accomplish tasks more quicklyDavis (1989); Venkatesh et al. (2003)
PU2Using AutoCAD increases my productivityDavis (1989); Venkatesh et al. (2003)
PU3Using AutoCAD enhances my work effectivenessDavis (1989); Igbaria et al. (1997); Venkatesh and Davis (2000)
PU4Using AutoCAD makes it easier to do my jobKarahanna et al. (2006)
PU5I find AutoCAD useful in my jobDavis, Venkatesh 1989; and Igbaria Davis et (2000al. (1997) )
BIBEHAVIOURAL INTENTION
BI1I intend to use AutoCAD in the next six monthsVenkatesh et al. (2003)
BI2Given that I have access to AutoCAD, I predict that I would use itVenkatesh and Davis (2000)
BI3I will use AutoCAD on a regular basis in the futureLai and Li (2005)
BI4I will strongly recommend others to use AutoCADLai and Li (2005)
BI5I intend to increase my use of AutoCAD in the futureAgarwal (2005) and Prasad (1998); Lai and Li
PPAPERCEIVED PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY
PPA1(distance/place) I can use AutoCAD installed1Author
PPA2(difficulty of access) I can access AutoCAD2Author
PPA3(cost) Obtaining AutoCAD was3Author
PPA4(time) I can use AutoCAD4Author
USEACTUAL USE
USE1I use AutoCAD less than once a weekDavis et al. (1989)
USE2I always use AutoCAD whenever I have a project to doAuthor
USE3I have used AutoCAD in the last six monthsGroß (2018)
USE4I use AutoCAD more than once a dayDavis et al. (1989)
USE5I use AutoCAD regularly four to six times per weekDavis et al. (1989)

Evaluation of the measurement model

FACTORALPHACRAVEPEOUPUBIPPAUSE
PEOU0.870.870.580.76
PU0.950.950.790.540.89
BI0.880.880,590.670.570.77
PPA0.840.800.51-0.16-0.26-0.030.71
USE0.860.860.550.330.350.31-0.360.74