Technology Acceptance Model (Tam) and Information Systems Success Model

Technology Acceptance Model

Using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to Assess User Intentions and Satisfaction on Software as a Service (SaaS):

The Value of SaaS

Software as a Service (SaaS) was researched by Benlian and Hess (2011) in an effort to determine its value to companies. Among the arguments was that SaaS is already declining in popularity even though it is very new. The majority of the arguments that lean in that direction have been made by individuals who believe that SaaS is not offering the level of value that was originally expected of it (Benlian & Hess, 2011).

The main reason they feel that SaaS is lacking in value is because there were many problems with the deployment of it in the beginning (Benlian & Hess, 2011). At that point, there was a concern that the application would not work well because it was not ready when it was first made available. Many people who have trouble with a software application in the beginning will not return to the application later to see if it has improved (Benlian & Hess, 2011).

The goal of the Benlian and Hess (2011) study was to examine the value that was being offered to people who chose to use SaaS, as that would help them to determine the future potential of SaaS as it related to the IT industry. In order to do this, a research model was created (Benlian & Hess, 2011). This model was grounded as a part of the theory of reasoned action, and an opportunity-risk framework was created (Benlian & Hess, 2011).

Then, data was collected from nearly 350 IT executives in Germany who were surveyed regarding their use of SaaS and their feelings about the application (Benlian & Hess, 2011). Even though the sample size was small, the study design was grounded carefully in theory in order to make it more viable on a larger scale.

The theory of reasoned action is related to the idea that anything that is done has to be done after looking carefully at both the cost and benefit of the action (Benlian & Hess, 2011). There were opportunities provided by SaaS, but those had to be greater than the risks that were involved with it. These risks included buying the application, implementing it for a business, and using it properly in order to see what kind of value it really had for companies that chose it for their IT needs (Benlian & Hess, 2011). With no value found for SaaS, it would die out quickly all throughout the marketplace. However, there are ways that SaaS can be adapted to provide a great deal of value for many different kinds of companies, and that was something that was also explored in the study.

There was a solid framework used for the study, so that there would not be any threat to validity. The only case that could be made against validity was that the size of the sample was relatively small (Benlian & Hess, 2011). However, the researchers understood and acknowledged that, as well as ensuring they chose the type of framework that would normally be used in a study of that particular size and type (Benlian & Hess, 2011).

Even though the researchers acknowledged the small sample size, though, it was still agreed that the outcome might have been very different for a much larger group of people (Benlian & Hess, 2011). In order to cover any concerns that had to do with the study, the lack of a larger sample size had to be pointed out by the researchers (Benlian & Hess, 2011).

Study findings indicated that the biggest barrier to using SaaS was the lack of security -- or at least the perception that there would be security threats -- and that made companies reluctant to switch over to SaaS (Benlian & Hess, 2011). That was true of the people who did decide to use SaaS and the people who weighed the risks and benefits and decided that it was too much risk to consider using it (Benlian & Hess, 2011).

Of course, there are many valid reasons to use SaaS. One of them is the cost, since it is much less expensive to use SaaS once it has been deployed and implemented by the company (Benlian & Hess, 2011). That is generally true of cloud based applications, but they are not always the right choice for a particular company's needs (Benlian & Hess, 2011).

Many companies were happy with the lower cost and decided that SaaS was the best choice, but there were other risks and benefits that also had to be considered (Benlian & Hess, 2011). When examining those benefits and risks, there were big differences between companies that had adopted SaaS and companies that chose not to do so (Benlian & Hess, 2011). The main differences were not in the security risk or the cost, but in the performance of the software and the economic risks the company was taking (Benlian & Hess, 2011). Getting access to specialized resources was also a part of the equation when companies were deciding whether to use SaaS (Benlian & Hess, 2011).

Companies that are offering or planning on offering SaaS to other companies can gain a lot of information from this study, because there are important implications that have to be acknowledged. For example, specific factors must have priority over other factors that are not deemed as significant by companies that are considering purchasing SaaS for use as part of their IT plans (Benlian & Hess, 2011).

SaaS companies may also want to consider how they can downplay factors that need to be avoided so that the company considering SaaS can see how it will fit into the adoption lifecycle their company has for technology (Benlian & Hess, 2011). When a company provides SaaS to other companies, it must do so in such a way as to provide the largest and most significant benefit for the lowest cost.

The Technology Acceptance Model

Because SaaS is a cloud based application, it is far different than other types of software applications that would be purchased and used by a company on its own servers (Benlian & Hess, 2011). In order to better understand why some studies seem to indicate that SaaS will be wildly successful while others show that to be highly unlikely, it is important to discuss the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). This model relates to how users (in this case companies) come to use and accept a new or different type of technology (Workman, 2007). It is suggested that there are a significant number of factors that are used when people are deciding if they want to adopt and use a new type of technology (Workman, 2007).

However, the two most significant factors that are considered by end users are whether the technology is easy to use and whether it will be useful (Bagozzi, 2007; Chuttur, 2009; King & He, 2006). Both of those are, understandably, important considerations that must be carefully addressed. Perceived usefulness is vital to a business when considering whether to adopt a new technology (King & He, 2006; Venkatesh, 2000). If it is not believed that using the new technology will enhance job performance, the person will not find the technology useful enough to adopt it (Workman, 2007). There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but that is generally the case with most people and most companies.

The ease of use of the new technology also matters. A person does not want to go from using something he or she is used to working with to something that is complex, complicated, or difficult to deal with (Bagozzi, 2007; King & He, 2006; Venkatesh, 2000). There would be no real point to doing that unless there was a large benefit, and most people do not or cannot see a benefit if they are going to have to learn a lot of new information and spend a lot of time determining how to work new technology (Workman, 2007; Bagozzi, 2007). The new technology should make their lives (and jobs) easier right from the start, or it has a low chance of getting adopted (Workman, 2007).

That is unfortunate, because there are many technological advances that do have a learning curve. Once something has been learned it will improve a person's life, but there has to be a process of learning it that can take some time and effort (Chuttur, 2009; King & He, 2006). Through the use of the TAM, however, those types of technology would not get used and would likely die out in the marketplace because they have little to offer to people who want ease of use from the very first day (Workman, 2007; King & He, 2006). The TAM is always being upgraded and studied, however, because people's perceptions about technology change quite frequently (Workman, 2007). The TAM 2 is an upgrade, and there has also been a TAM 3 that has been discussed (Chuttur, 2009).

TAM was created based on the aforementioned theory of reasoned action. While the theory of reasoned action had many measures of attitude, the TAM replaces these with measures of technology acceptance (Workman, 2007; Bagozzi, 2007; Venkatesh, 2000). Namely, these are usefulness and ease of use (Workman, 2007). There are certainly other issues that are important when it comes to technology, but making something easy to use and useful are two of the most important things a company can do when it wants to ensure that people are interested in its product or service.

There are very strong behavioral elements in the TAM and in the theory of reasoned action (Bagozzi, 2007; Chuttur, 2009; Venkatesh, 2000). However, both assume that a person who wants to act on something and has made a decision to act will be able to do so (Workman, 2007). In reality, though, there may be many reasons why the person will not be able to act on his or her desires, plans, or goals.

This could be due to a lack of money, time, or approval from others (Venkatesh, 2000). There are also other reasons why a decision cannot be acted upon, especially in a business environment. The freedom to act is often limited, which can lead to frustration and also cause the person who intended to act and was stopped to avoid the action in the future, even if he or she is able to act at that point in time.

When looking at the TAM it is important to realize that people form ideas about technology rather quickly, and some of those ideas are not going to be accurate (Workman, 2007; Bagozzi, 2007). They may be ill-advised, or they may come from some type of misunderstanding about the value the technology actually has to them or to their company (King & He, 2006). They have, in other words, a "gut reaction" to what the technology really is and what it will offer them.

They then take that gut reaction and use it to determine their actions, instead of taking the time to discover other important information about the particular piece of technology they are considering (Workman, 2007). That is worth noting for companies that are focused on creating SaaS and making it available to other companies (Workman, 2007; Bagozzi, 2007).

Also worth noting is that many people who have these initial reactions to technology spend more time with the issue at a later date and change their mind in light of more information (Workman, 2007; Venkatesh, 2000). By doing that, they are able to help their company be more successful. When they change how they feel, they also skew the numbers of people who were originally against a particular type of technology and then became for it -- or at least neutral about it and willing to explore further information (Workman, 2007). SaaS has likely fallen into that area, because people were initially skeptical of it and what it could offer them. They were also skeptical of the safety and security of SaaS, with good reason (Bagozzi, 2007; King & He, 2006; Venkatesh, 2000).

Anytime a company puts information into the cloud instead of storing it on their servers, they are entrusting another company with that information (Venkatesh, 2000). If there is sensitive information provided there, it is possible that they would be putting both employees and customers at risk of someone getting hold of their information and using it for nefarious purposes (Workman, 2007; Chuttur, 2009).

Many companies are concerned about this, and it is one of the biggest reasons that they balk at the use of SaaS and the cloud (Chuttur, 2009). However, over time they often come around and are more receptive to it. The TAM indicates that people have to see something proven to be useful to them and have ease of use before they are generally interested in it (Workman, 2007).

That means that every kind of new technology will have some "lag time" between when it is offered to the marketplace and when it is actually successful in that marketplace (Workman, 2007; Bagozzi, 2007). Especially for companies that are large or that have many different operations taking place, ease of use and a good fit with the company are going to be the major reasons that SaaS is or is not adopted (Venkatesh, 2000).

Ease of use and usefulness are not just surface concerns. They are much deeper and more significant than that for the vast majority of companies (Bagozzi, 2007; Chuttur, 2009). In short, they have to work across a number of job profiles and tasks, or they will not be effective at providing value to the company and the employees who work there (Workman, 2007).

By using the TAM a company can make a determination about SaaS and whether it will be a good fit or something that would be better left alone (Bagozzi, 2007; Venkatesh, 2000). Having information in the cloud is not for everyone. It is difficult to argue that there is ease of use there, because there is no need to store anything on the company's servers. That uses less space, and the data retrieval is very easy (Chuttur, 2009; King & He, 2006). However, the usefulness is a serious question because of the security concerns and the cost of implementation and deployment (Workman, 2007).

Once SaaS is up and running for a company it is generally not too costly, but until that takes place there are many costs involved (Workman, 2007; Bagozzi, 2007). The benefits that will be received by the company must outweigh those costs before SaaS will be useful (Bagozzi, 2007; Venkatesh, 2000). Additionally, the security concerns are very important for many companies, especially those that have sensitive data stored (Chuttur, 2009). When they keep it on their servers they are able to carefully control who has access to it. They also know the security measures that are being taken and the programs that are being run (Workman, 2007; Bagozzi, 2007).

If they release that information to the a cloud based application through SaaS, they are giving up some control and some understanding of how their information is being protected (Workman, 2007). For a number of companies, that simply might be too much risk to take. Once the company sees other companies using SaaS successfully for a period of time, that company could then be more likely to start using SaaS as well (Workman, 2007; King & He, 2006). Of course, there are also criticisms of the TAM and whether it has any real value for companies today.

Those who criticize it say that it is trivial and impractical, mostly because it appears to be largely common sense (i.e. people will adopt what is useful to them and ease to use, and disregard that which is not) (Workman, 2007; Bagozzi, 2007). While this may be a true statement for technology, it is also something that makes a high degree of sense for a lot of other applications in business and personal life. Since that is the case, there are arguments that the TAM does not really apply to technology and that it does not provide any good information that will be helpful to people who need to take their technology plans to the next level (King & He, 2006; Venkatesh, 2000).

For those who are able to look past the simplicity, though, the TAM can be very useful. Simplicity does not always imply a lack of value, and sometimes the simplest of things are the best. Planning for the right type and amount of technology does not have to be a complicated issue with which a company must struggle. Every company will have different opinions that have to be addressed when it comes to the value of the model they are using and how it relates to them. If it works well for the company, it would seem unlikely that someone would need to change it and try out something else. Most companies will be interested in and focused on what truly works for them.

The Information Systems Success Model

The Information Systems Success Model proposed by DeLone and McLean (1992) is very different from the TAM in that it is much more complex. The definitions of success in information systems were thoroughly reviewed, and then there were six major categories into which the definitions were classified (DeLone & McLean, 1992). That allowed for the model to provide interdependencies between the categories of success (DeLone & McLean, 1992). However, one of the problems that was soon discovered by other researchers who attempted to implement or adjust the model was that it could quickly become very confusing (Rai, Lang, & Welker, 2002; Zaied, 2012).

Unlike the simplicity of the TAM, the IS Success Model was convoluted in nature and required much more effort to use (Zaied, 2012). A new and updated model was created by the original authors ten years after the first model was offered to the public, but it did little to clear up the confusion DeLone & McLean, 2002). As can be seen by the diagram below, the model looks at system quality and information quality, and then focuses those on the way the system is used and the satisfaction of the user (DeLone & McLean, 1992; DeLone & McLean, 2002). From that point, the impact on both the individual and the organization is addressed (DeLone & McLean, 1992).

This is very important, because this model takes both information and system quality as being the most important things to consider (DeLone & McLean, 1992; DeLone & McLean, 2002). Then, the information and the system are both used and the user can determine how much satisfaction he or she takes from the information and the system with which he or she is working (Rai, Lang, & Welker, 2002). That, naturally, has an individual impact (DeLone & McLean, 2002; Zaied, 2012). Each person who works with this particular model as it relates to technology may feel differently about the information and the system with which he or she works, which can affect the end result.

The individual who is impacted and affected by the use of the system and the information also has an impact on the organization, because he or she acts and reacts differently based on what he or she is given to work with (Rai, Lang, & Welker, 2002; Zaied, 2012). The model makes perfect sense, but yet can also seem confusing when compared with the TAM. This likely comes about based on the TAM's simplicity, which makes the other model appear more complex than it really is.

However, both models can provide a great deal of benefit for companies that are attempting to determine whether they want to use SaaS and whether it is right for them. Since each company has different needs, goals, and desires when it comes to technology, each company must also use the model that works best for them in an effort to extract the most value from what they are using. For many companies, this is the IS Success Model, because it offers a more direct thought process that requires the company to examine significant information when determining whether it wants to adopt a new type of technology or whether it would prefer to remain with the technology it currently has.