Explaining Software Development tool Use with the Technology Acceptance Model

The increasing demand for information systems has driven the need for software developers to become more efficient and productive. In response, a wide variety of software development aids, such as new tools and techniques, have been introduced in an attempt to assist the development process. Unfortunately, the use of these software development innovations is not widespread, further exacerbating the problems in industry. Why are software development innovations, specifically software development tools, not used? To help answer the question, this study utilizes the popular Technology Acceptance Model (11). Consistent with prior studies, an exogenous variable, training, is added to the original TAM. Results from a study of one organization's early use of a custom-built software development tool (SDT) produced the following significant relationships: training → ease of use; ease of use → usefulness; and ease of use → usage. The insights provided from this study help to understand a software developer's use of SDTs.

[1]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[2]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[3]  E. Carmines,et al.  Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures , 1981 .

[4]  R. Zmud Diffusion of Modern Software Practices: Influence of Centralization and Formalization , 1982 .

[5]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  The Effectiveness of External Information Channels in Facilitating Innovation Within Software Development Groups , 1983, MIS Q..

[6]  Carl L. Gordon,et al.  Systems Analysis and Design: Current Practices , 1987, MIS Q..

[7]  Dorothy Leonard-Barton,et al.  Implementing Structured Software Methodologies: A Case of Innovation in Process Technology , 1987 .

[8]  J. Hollenbeck,et al.  Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. , 1987 .

[9]  I. Ajzen Attitudes, Personality and Behavior , 1988 .

[10]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[11]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[12]  John C. Henderson,et al.  Dimensions of I/S Planning and Design Aids: A Functional Model of CASE Technology , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[13]  R. J. Norman,et al.  CASE implementation: accounting for the human element , 1991 .

[14]  Donald L. Amoroso,et al.  Testing a Causal Model of End-User Application Effectiveness , 1991, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Jane M. Howell,et al.  Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization , 1991, MIS Q..

[16]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication , 1992, MIS Q..

[17]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  Now the learning curve affects CASE tool adoption , 1992, IEEE Software.

[18]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development , 1993, MIS Q..

[19]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of beliefs , 1995, DATB.

[20]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  Michael Potter,et al.  Adoption of computer aided software engineering (CASE) technology: an innovation adoption perspective , 1995, DATB.

[22]  Mark Keil,et al.  Usefulness and ease of use: field study evidence regarding task considerations , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[23]  Bill C. Hardgrave When to prototype: decision variables used in industry , 1995, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[24]  Arun Rai,et al.  A Structural Model for CASE Adoption Behavior , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Patrick Y. K. Chau,et al.  An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of CASE by systems developers , 1996, Inf. Manag..

[26]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Why are CASE tools not used? , 1996, CACM.

[27]  Diane B. Walz,et al.  The failure of SDT diffusion: a case for mass customization , 1997 .

[28]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  The assimilation of software process innovations: an organizational learning perspective , 1997 .

[29]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies , 1997 .

[30]  Magid Igbaria,et al.  Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model , 1997, MIS Q..

[31]  R. Kelly Rainer,et al.  Factors that Impact Implementing a System Development Methodology , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[32]  M. L. Gibson,et al.  System development methodology implementation: perceived aspects of importance , 1999 .

[33]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[34]  Arun Rai,et al.  CASE deployment in IS organizations , 2000, CACM.