Technology acceptance Theory
Research, Information Systems as well as other fields find Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as coined by (Davis, 1989), to be the most used acceptance theory. Based on its perception of Ease of Use (POEU) and perceived Usefulness (PU) TAM kind of predicts individuals inclination to like and use technology. Seeking to understand individuals acceptance to using mobile inventions in the past, past researchers have used Technology Acceptance Theory (Bouwman et al., 2012; Ha et al., 2007; Hong et al., 2006; Hong et al., 2006; López-Nicolás et al., 2008; Lu et al., 2005; Luarn and Lin, 2005; Mao et al., 2005; Nysveen et al., 2005; Pedersen, 2003, 2005; Wang et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2006;Wu and Wang, 2005; and many more). As it is widely evident in their researches, they were driven to fathom why users would want to adopt and use mobile inventions employing TAM Proponents (PEOU and PU).
Some of other researchers however tend to bring out the aspect that the proponents of TAM (PEOU and PU) as brought out only are not as sufficient enough to foretell users intentions to embracing mobile inventions thus leaving sufficient grounds for lack of a considerate understanding of the subject matter, (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Kulviwat et al., 2007; Nysveen et al., 2005; Stern et al., 2007). In their argument they bring forth the idea that in seeking to understand a person’s IT adoption and acceptance, we should as well look at other predictable variables to mention critical mass, Perceived enjoyment, social influence, subjective Norm, Social influence among others They argue that other predictive variables such as Subjective Norm, Social Influence, Perceived Enjoyment, and Critical Mass (Markus, 1987). It thus becomes a challenge to collectively tell they key collective reason as to why people adopt and use given tech and mobile services inventions as widely suggested. Just as the product_Consumer adoption cycle might indicate, to the last cadre there exists the luggards who unlike the early adopters chose to start to embrace a product long after the rest of the population has tried and tested it. It might pass for reservationism but they might have different adoption reasons to those embrace it in the early stages.
As a way of wrapping up the theory, we can summarily conclude that in as much as the proponents in Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), (PEOU and PU) are just as useful and key in IT adoption and use prediction, we can not solely rely on them for predicting individual IT acceptance. Just as many scholars suggest, it’s a great recommendation that over time and for clarity on the subject matter, other variables should be embraced alongside those constructs (PEOU and PU) such that any blanket recommendation in the said field has a fair ground of acceptance.