The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in my learning experience. “Do or do not there is no try.” – Master Yoda

 

 Social Influence when Accepting New Technology:

To be on the cutting edge, businesses must constantly be reviewing and adopting new ways of performing the same tasks using faster and more efficient methods. Most of these changes involve a new type of technology. But how can we make these changes and keep them moving forward? By comparing eight separate models of technology acceptance Venkatesh et. al (2003) found “conceptual and empirical similarities” to use in formulating the Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. UTAUT has four key constructs: Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions. Although all four of these constructs are important, I have witnessed the importance of social influence when introducing new technology in the workplace. “Yet, for technologies to improve productivity, they must be accepted and used by employees in organizations” (Venkatesh, et al. 2003).

 In 2021 my organization made the decision to move to a brand-new core financial system. We had just gotten over the changes that were made during the pandemic and now all our associates were expected to learn a new system and a new way of doing their everyday job. In Rogers (1962), Diffusion of Innovation Theory posits that the adoption of a new behavior, technology, or idea does not happen simultaneously for a group of people (social system). Rogers (1962) describes the first adopters of a change as making full use of an innovation as the best course of action available.” Those who reject the change or have trouble adopting have made the decision to not adopt an innovation or change (Rogers 1962). Venkatesh et. al (2003), “defines social influence as the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use a new system.”  For the UTAUT model (Venkatesh et. al, 2003) social influence would be what Rogers (1962) calls the diffusion of innovation or the process in which an innovation or change is communicated through certain channels over time among those that need to adopt the change. In my example, our administrators started by presenting the benefits of why the decision was made to make the change or the “innovation” (Rogers 1962). In knowing the why and working directly with early adopters of the system our adult education administrators had a positive effect on the other associate's feelings on the new system. The early adopters were critical of getting the buy-in of those who did not want to accept the change. Without their buy-in or choice to accept innovation (Rogers 1962) moving forward on the conversation would have been harder.

We used those early adopters to encourage the associates that were still on the fence. They mentioned the new processes that made our jobs easier. As an organization, we also provided extrinsic motivation through bonuses given out at the end of the process of our conversion.  The learning and development department kept the chain of communication going by providing daily tips and tricks that could be utilized in the new system. For those who sent us screenshots of their practice, we offered prizes like money, paid time off, and other items. Without the positive social influence, we had at the beginning of our conversion we would never have been able to complete the project by its intended due date.

Have you seen the power of social influence in your classrooms? If so how did it affect the overall acceptance of new technology or even your lesson plan?

 

References:

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations (1^st ed.). New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://k-state.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01KSU_INST/1260r8r/cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A108912880Links to an external site.