|
TAM has been widely criticised, despite its frequent use, leading the original proposers to attempt to redefine it several times. Criticisms of TAM as a "theory" include its questionable heuristic value, limited explanatory and predictive power, triviality, and lack of any practical value. (Chuttur 2009) Benbasat and Barki suggest that TAM "has diverted researchers’ attention away from other important research issues and has created an illusion of progress in knowledge accumulation. Furthermore, the independent attempts by several researchers to expand TAM in order to adapt it to the constantly changing IT environments has lead [sic] to a state of theoretical chaos and confusion" (Benbasat & Barki 2007). In general TAM focuses on the individual 'user' of a computer, with the concept of 'perceived usefulness', with extension to bring in more and more factors to explain how a user 'perceives' 'usefulness', and ignores the essentially social processes of IS development and implementation, without question where more technology is actually better, and the social consequences of IS use. For a recent analysis and critique of TAM see Bagozzi (Bagozzi 2007). <ref.>Legris et al. 2003, p. 191.</ref> claim that, together, TAM and TAM2 account for only 40% of a technologicsl system's use. Perceived ease of use is less likely to be a determinant of attitude and usage intention according to studies of telemedicine (Hu et al. 1999, mobile commerce (Wu & Wang 2005, and online banking (Pikkarainen 2004. |
About us|Jobs|Help|Disclaimer|Advertising services|Contact us|Sign in|Website map|Search|
GMT+8, 2015-9-11 21:57 , Processed in 0.129474 second(s), 16 queries .
