Thesis by Pedro Vecchi

Mobile Internet Acceptance 1

Running Head: MOBILE INTERNET ACCEPTANCE IN HONOLULU.

The Acceptance of Mobile Internet Connectivity Among Financial Planners and

Administrative Managers from Three Large Financial Organizations in Honolulu: An

Empirical Analysis Based on Intention to Use, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of

Use, Attitude Towards Use Perceived Accessibility, System Support, Social Presence,

Security, Interface, and Perceived User Control.

Pedro Luiz Vecchi

Hawaii Pacific University

Fall 2000


Certification Page

The professional paper submitted by this student has been reviewed and deemed

to have met the Professional Paper (IS 7200) requirements for Hawaii Pacific

University’s Graduate Program.

Student Name: Pedro Luiz Vecchi

Title of Professional Paper: The Acceptance of Mobile Internet Connectivity Among

Financial Planners and Administrative Managers from Three Large Financial

Organizations in Honolulu: An Empirical Analysis Based on Intention to Use, Perceived

Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, Attitude Towards Use Perceived Accessibility,

System Support, Social Presence, Security, Interface, and Perceived User Control.

______________________________________ _______________

Kenneth G. Rossi, Ed.D.

Assistant Professor of Information Systems


Abstract

This study investigated the acceptance of using the Internet on handheld devices.

A survey was distributed to employees of three life and health insurance companies in

Honolulu. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in conjunction with perceived

accessibility, assistance, system support, security, and perceived user control served as

the theoretical framework for the study. The TAM addresses respondent’s intentions,

attitude towards use, perceived usefulness and ease of use of the technology. The findings

revealed the viability of the methodology applied to predict the usage and acceptance of

the Internet on handheld devices. The relationships between attitude towards use and

perceived usefulness, and attitude towards use and perceived user control posed the

strongest positive correlation among all variables studied in this project.


Table of Contents

Abstract ...............................................................................................................................3

List of Tables.......................................................................................................................7

Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................................11Background ....................................................................................................................11Purpose...........................................................................................................................12Importance .....................................................................................................................12Statement of Problem.....................................................................................................13Research Questions ........................................................................................................14Alternatives ....................................................................................................................16Methods of Inquiry.........................................................................................................16Assumptions...................................................................................................................17Limitations .....................................................................................................................17Delimitation ...................................................................................................................17Paper Organization.........................................................................................................18Definitions......................................................................................................................19

Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................21Introduction....................................................................................................................21

Purpose of paper......................................................................................................21Purpose of chapter ...................................................................................................22Chapter organization ...............................................................................................22

Technology.....................................................................................................................22Wireless Internet and IT managers ................................................................................23Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).........................................................................25Wireless Internet acceptance..........................................................................................26

Intention to use ........................................................................................................27Perceived usefulness................................................................................................28Perceived ease of use...............................................................................................28Attitude towards use................................................................................................30Perceived accessibility ............................................................................................30System Support .......................................................................................................32Social Presence........................................................................................................32Security....................................................................................................................33Interface...................................................................................................................34Perceived User Control ...........................................................................................35

Wireless communication................................................................................................36Wireless Networking Environment .........................................................................37Scalability................................................................................................................37Handheld Devices Shortcomings ............................................................................38Limited Capacity .....................................................................................................39The WAP.................................................................................................................39

Summary ........................................................................................................................41


Chapter 3: Methodology....................................................................................................42Introduction....................................................................................................................42

Purpose of Paper......................................................................................................42Purpose of Chapter ..................................................................................................42Chapter Organization ..............................................................................................42

Method of Inquiry ..........................................................................................................43Sampling and Population ........................................................................................43

Measurements and Instrumentation ...............................................................................431. System usage .......................................................................................................442. Personal Background...........................................................................................443. Intention to use ....................................................................................................454. Perceived Usefulness...........................................................................................455. Perceived ease of use...........................................................................................456. Attitude towards use............................................................................................467. Perceived Accessibility .......................................................................................468. System Support ...................................................................................................469. Security................................................................................................................4710. Interface.............................................................................................................4711. Perceived User Control .....................................................................................48

Research Hypothesis ......................................................................................................48Data collection ...............................................................................................................54Data processing and analysis .........................................................................................54Strengths and Weaknesses .............................................................................................55Summary ........................................................................................................................55

Chapter 4: Analysis ...........................................................................................................57Purpose of Paper......................................................................................................57Purpose of Chapter ..................................................................................................57Chapter Organization ..............................................................................................58

Preliminary Analysis......................................................................................................59Reliability ..............................................................................................................114

System Acceptance Analysis .......................................................................................114Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................128

Chapter 5: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations.............................................129Introduction..................................................................................................................129

Purpose of Paper....................................................................................................129Purpose of Chapter ................................................................................................129Findings .................................................................................................................130Conclusions ...........................................................................................................134Recommendations .................................................................................................135

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................137

References .......................................................................................................................138

Appendix 1 ......................................................................................................................147


Questionnaire ...............................................................................................................148

Appendix 2 ......................................................................................................................151

Appendix 3 ......................................................................................................................152

Appendix 4 ......................................................................................................................153

Appendix 5 ......................................................................................................................154

Appendix 6 ......................................................................................................................155

Appendix 7 ......................................................................................................................156

Appendix 8 ......................................................................................................................157

Appendix 9 ......................................................................................................................158


List of Tables

Mean Scores and Frequencies of Gender ..........................................................................59Mean Scores and Frequencies of Age ...............................................................................60Mean Score and Frequencies of Educational Background................................................60Mean Score and Frequencies of Occupation.....................................................................60Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage (Amount of

Time) ..........................................................................................................................61Mean Score and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage (Frequency of

Usage) .........................................................................................................................61Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Predictability of Use by

Dependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................62Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Performance Improvement on

the Job by Dependent Variable System Usage...........................................................63Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Productivity on the Job by

Dependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................64Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Ease to Use by Dependent

Variable System Usage...............................................................................................65Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Ease to Become Skillful by

Dependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................66Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Enjoyment by Dependent

Variable System Usage...............................................................................................67Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Benefits by Dependent

Variable System Usage...............................................................................................68Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Good Idea by Dependent

Variable System Usage...............................................................................................69Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Accessibility by Dependent

Variable System Usage...............................................................................................70Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Real-Time Information by

Dependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................71Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Download Time by

Dependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................72Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Assistance by Dependent

Variable System Usage...............................................................................................73Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Fear of Hackers by Dependent

Variable System Usage...............................................................................................74Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Fear of Virus by Dependent

Variable System Usage...............................................................................................75Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Privacy by Dependent

Variable System Usage...............................................................................................76Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Security by Dependent

Variable System Usage...............................................................................................77Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Keyboard Limitation by

Dependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................78


Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Size of the Screen byDependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................79

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Menu Limitation byDependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................80

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Software Installation byDependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................81

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Hardware Installation byDependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................82

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Choose Operating System byDependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................83

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Choose Browser byDependent Variable System Usage ............................................................................84

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage and Gender ....84Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage and Age..........85Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage and Educational

Background.................................................................................................................85Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage and Occupation

....................................................................................................................................86Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Intention to Use and

Gender.........................................................................................................................86Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Intention to Use and

Age..............................................................................................................................87Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Intention to Use and

Educational Background.............................................................................................87Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Intention to Use and

Occupation..................................................................................................................88Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Usefulness

and Gender..................................................................................................................88Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Usefulness

and Age.......................................................................................................................89Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Usefulness

and Educational Background......................................................................................89Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Usefulness

and Occupation ...........................................................................................................90Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Ease of Use

and Gender..................................................................................................................90Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Ease of Use

and Age.......................................................................................................................91Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Ease of Use

and Educational Background......................................................................................91Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Ease of Use

and Occupation ...........................................................................................................92Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Attitude Towards Use

and Gender..................................................................................................................92Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Attitude Towards Use

and Age.......................................................................................................................93


Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Attitude Towards Useand Educational Background......................................................................................94

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Attitude Towards Useand Occupation ...........................................................................................................95

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Accessibilityand Gender..................................................................................................................96

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Accessibilityand Age.......................................................................................................................97

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Accessibilityand Educational Background......................................................................................98

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Accessibilityand Occupation ...........................................................................................................99

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable System Support andGender.......................................................................................................................100

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable System Support andAge............................................................................................................................100

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable System Support andPersonal Background................................................................................................101

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable System Support andOccupation................................................................................................................101

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Security and Gender..................................................................................................................................102

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Security and Age...103Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Security and Personal

Background...............................................................................................................104Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Security and

Occupation................................................................................................................105Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Interface and Gender

..................................................................................................................................106Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Interface and Age ..107Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Interface and

Educational Background...........................................................................................108Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Interface and

Occupation................................................................................................................109Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived User Control

and Gender................................................................................................................110Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived User Control

and Age.....................................................................................................................111Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived User Control

and Educational Background....................................................................................112Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived User Control

and Occupation .........................................................................................................113Correlation between intention to use and system usage..................................................115Correlation between perceived usefulness and system usage .........................................116Correlation between perceived ease of use and system usage ........................................117Correlation between perceived usefulness and system usage .........................................118


Correlation between attitude towards use and system usage ..........................................119Correlation between attitude towards use and perceived usefulness ..............................120Correlation between attitude towards use and perceived ease of use..............................121Correlation between perceived ease of use and accessibility..........................................122Correlation between system support and perceived usefulness ......................................123Correlation between interface and perceived ease of use................................................124Correlation between perceived user control and attitude towards use ............................125Correlation between perceived user control and perceived ease of use ..........................126t-test between gender and system usage..........................................................................127


Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

Driven by the increasing emergence of mobile technologies, information can be

available to anyone, at any time, and anywhere. Today’s latest generation of handheld

devices, such as cellular phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and palm tops are

infused with Internet capability (Nelson, 2000). As this new technology emerges, users’

technology acceptance becomes a pivotal part of the success of the usage of mobile

Internet access on handheld devices. Individuals’ acceptance to use a system is

hypothesized to be his or her intention to use this system (Davis, 1989). Individuals’

social behavior or intention has direct effects on system usage. This intention relates to

the attitude of the users towards the system usage in regard to ease of use and usefulness

(Szajna, 1996).

The technology acceptance model (TAM) is a model created to analyze and/or

predict users’ acceptance of technology. This model emerged from the theory of reasoned

action (TRA) (Fisher & Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen,

1985), and was first theorized by Davis (1989). Since then, many researchers have used

the TAM as a theoretical basis to empirically analyze user technology acceptance

(Dishaw, & Strong, 1999; Igbaria, Zinatelli, Cragg, & Cavaye, 1997; Lederer, Maupin,

Sena, & Zhuang, 1998; Hu, Chau, Lui Sheng, & Tam, 1999). The TAM consists of

different variables that can have an effect on system usage. The main variables of this

model are perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude towards use. This

model supports external variables that may have or not have, depending on the


technology analyzed, an impact on user acceptance. The external variables that will be

utilized in this study are security, system support, perceived accessibility, social presence,

and user control, which was considered key aspects of sending or receiving real-time

information over handheld devices.

Purpose

The purpose of this research was to test the acceptance of using handheld devices

to connect to the Internet. This study contributed to studies of information technology

(IT) acceptance, increasing knowledge of both system usage and the technology

acceptance model (TAM). It was combined the TAM, theorized by Davis (1989), with

external variables that could have an impact on the acceptance of using handheld devices

to access the Internet. In this way, the analysis of this research will provide knowledge

about social factors that involve the acceptance of delivering real-time information.

This study could provide wireless device companies and Internet content

providers, as well as IT managers and end-users a better understanding of wireless

Internet communication in relation to end-user acceptability. In addition, this study will

provide introductory knowledge and replicable methodology to other researchers

regarding mobile communication acceptance and the TAM.

Importance

Recent research suggests that there is a relationship between acceptance in using

personal computers and perceived usefulness (Igbaria, Zinatelli, Cragg, & Cavaye, 1997).

This research was based in a model developed by Davis (1998) when researchers tested


and proved a relationship between personal computer (PC) usage with both, perceived

usefulness and perceived ease of use. Since PC acceptance varies among different users

(Igbaria, Zinatelli, Cragg, & Cavaye), and today’s handheld devices are infused with

more PC capabilities (Allen, 1998), there is a significant need to relate the theoretical

basis of TAM within the acceptance of delivering web-content to handheld devices.

Therefore, since technology plays an important role for IT mangers, there is also a need

to test IT managers’ acceptance of receiving real-time information on handheld devices.

Wireless Internet technology has been used successfully in Europe and has been

introduced to the United States in the past two years (Guyon, 2000; Wallace, 2000).

Because wireless Internet is a new technology, little research has been done about its

acceptance. For this reason, this research attempted to extend the knowledge of mobile

wireless communication. The results of this research provided knowledge for further

replication of this study. The product of this research could benefit current and also future

wireless communication developers and web sites, as well as end users.

Statement of Problem

The problem studied in this project was to determine if financial planners from

large organizations in Honolulu would accept the usage of handheld devices to access the

Internet and what social factors could have an impact on their acceptance.


Research Questions

Research question one: Does attitude towards use have a direct effect on mobile

Internet acceptance? This research question suggests that there is a correlation between

attitude towards use the Internet on handheld devices and user acceptance.

Research question two: Does intention to use have a direct effect on attitude

towards using handheld devices to access the Internet? This research question suggests

that there is a correlation between intention to use the Internet on handheld devices and

the attitude towards use.

Research question three: Does perceived usefulness have a direct effect on

intention to use handheld devices to access the Internet? This research question suggests

that there is a correlation between perceived usefulness of the Internet on handheld

devices and intention to use.

Research question four: Does perceived ease of use have a direct effect on the

intention to use handheld devices to access the Internet? This research question suggests

that there is a correlation between perceived ease of use and the intention to use.

Research question five: Does perceived ease of use have a direct effect on the

perceived usefulness of handheld devices to access the Internet? This research question

suggests that there is a correlation between perceived ease of use and perceived

usefulness.

Research question six: Does social presence have a direct effect on the perceived

usefulness of handheld devices to access the Internet? This research question suggests

that there is a correlation between social presence and perceived usefulness.


Research question seven: Does perceived security have a direct effect on the


suggests that there is a correlation between security and perceived usefulness.

Research question eight: Does perceived user control have a direct effect on the


suggests that there is a correlation between user control and perceived usefulness.

Research question nine: Does perceived user control have a direct effect on the

perceived ease of use of handheld devices to access the Internet? This research question

suggests that there is a correlation between user control and perceived ease of use.

Research question ten: Does system support have an effect a direct the perceived

usefulness of handheld devices to access the Internet? This research question suggests

that there is a correlation between system control and perceived usefulness.

Research question eleven: Does system support have a direct effect on the


suggests that there is a correlation between system support and perceived usefulness.

Research question twelve: Does perceived accessibility have a direct effect on the


suggests that there is a correlation between perceived accessibility and perceived ease of

use.

Research question thirteen: Does user internet have a direct effect on the


suggests that there is a correlation between user interface and perceived ease of use.


Alternatives

Several alternatives meet the need of increasing customer’ satisfaction among

mobile handheld device users. This research proposes several variables that might have

an impact on users’ satisfaction with using wireless Internet. For instance, by building

scalable wireless networks, content providers are able to measure more precisely the

amount of data to transmit over the media, addressing more effectively their customers’

needs (Perkins, 1998). Seamlessly, increasing security content providers will have more

confidence to implement wireless Internet access for its customers (Imelinsky &

Badrinath, 1994; Perkins).

Other alternatives would be that content providers, by implementing wireless

Internet technologies, could provide easy access to information at any time and anywhere

(Wallace, 2000). Interaction between businesses and customers would not be restricted to

where the customers are, but rather when they are. In the customers’ perspective, it would

enhance customers’ decision making when booking a flight, making a reservation in a

hotel, getting informed about products on sale offered by a store nearby, or receiving

real-time stock quotes (Sharma & Binigi, 2000; Flaherty, 1999).

Methods of Inquiry

This research was a non-experimental study of mobile Internet acceptance. The

instrument used for gathering data was a survey. These surveys were sent to financial

planners and administrative managers who are employed in three health and life

insurance companies in Honolulu. Therefore, the survey attempted to determine

acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet.


Assumptions

In order to conduct the research process successfully, some assumptions were

made. First of all, it was assumed that every person who will participate on the survey has

knowledge in wireless communication and knows the technology involving wireless

Internet. Second, it was assumed that this paper presents all concerns faced by financial

planers and administrative managers when deciding whether or not to use handheld

devices to access the Internet. Third, it was assumed that the prices on handheld devices

are not a concern faced by IT managers. Finally, it is also important to assume that the

number of responses will be appropriate to successfully execute the research.

Limitations

This research paper will be limited geographically to Hawaii. The sample

analyzed was limited to the number of respondents. The research was limited to the time

constraints applied by the researcher to the execution of this research paper.

Delimitation

The scope of this research paper was restricted to casual issues concerning the

usage of wireless mobile networks and handheld devices in general. These areas related

to the variables presented in previous sections. Most of these variables, however, were

tested for their validity and reliability in previous researches.


Paper Organization

The introduction of this research will be followed by a review of related literature.

This review will consist of three main sections. First, a brief introduction stating the

problem studied in this research will be presented. Second, a detailed discussion of

related literature will be reviewed. Finally, a brief summary of the literature review will

end the chapter.

Following the literature review, chapter 3 will present the methodology used in

this research. The methodology section describes in detail the population and

instrumentation used to conduct the analysis of this research. Then, chapter 4 presents the

analysis of the research. This chapter analyzes the results of the research, following the

methods explained in previous chapter. Finally, chapter 5 describes the findings and

conclusions of the research following by the recommendations for further researches.


Definitions

Attitude towards use – Attitude towards use expresses the behavioral intention,

either positive or negative, when deciding to use certain systems.

Interface – Interface is the way the device interacts with the user.

Limited control – Limited control relates to the fact that handheld devices are

limited in input devices, such as monitors, and keyboards.

Intention of use – Intention of use is described as the attitude towards something

the user wants or will attempt to use, depending on his or her behavior.

Medium – Medium is the physical path that separates the receiver from the sender

Perceived accessibility – Perceived accessibility relates to the fact that users tend

to use a system when the medium connects both ends successfully.

Perceived ease of use – Perceived ease of use relates to the fact that systems are

more accepted when they are simple to use.

Perceived usefulness – Perceived usefulness relates to the fact that people tend to

use information systems that can improve their performance on the job.

Social presence – Social presence is define as “the capacity [of a medium] to

transmit information about facial expressions, direction of looking, posture, dress and

non-verbal cues” (Short, Williams, and Christie, 1976, p.65).

Security – Security relates to the fact that users tend to disapprove the usage of

certain systems if the system is unreliable.

System support – System support stands to the availability of real-time

consultations, or online help when necessary.


TAM – The technology acceptance model is a model created to analyze and/or

predict users acceptance of technology.

TPB – theory of planned behavior is an extension of the TRA with behavior

control as an additional variable.

TRA – theory of reasoned action states that individuals’ behavior depends on their

intention to perform their actions.


Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

Purpose of paper

The purpose of this research paper was to test through the technology acceptance

model (TAM) the acceptance of using mobile handheld devices to access the Internet.

This research presented an extended research process model derived from the TAM. The

extended model presented in this paper includes all variables presented in the original

TAM and variables that according to the literature, would influence the intention to use

or system usage of handheld devices regarding Internet access. These variables, along

with TAM variables, will be reviewed in detail the following section. It is important to

remember that the TAM relates to system usage, perceived usefulness and perceived ease

of use, as well as external factors (Davis, 1989) that are to be described in this project.

This research will combine conceptual models utilized in past analysis of user

acceptance studies of personal computers (Igbaria, Zinatelli, Cragg, & Cavaye 1997) and

electronic mail systems (Karahanna, & Straub, 1999). Here, however, the conceptual

model will be adapted to the analysis of the acceptance to deliver web-content to

handheld devices, measuring Internet wireless technology factors in relation to its end-

users acceptance. The findings of this study will provide a better understanding of users

acceptance to access web-based content on wireless devices.


Purpose of chapter

This chapter provides a review of related literature. Published researches of

technology acceptance and problematic issues of wireless networking will be covered.

This chapter will present the TAM and derived models, as well as variables that might

have an impact on system usage. Moreover, the review will focus on the convergence

between mobile wireless networks and the Internet. More precisely, it will present in the

following sections the predictors studied in previous literature that might relate to

wireless Internet acceptance.

Chapter organization

The review of the literature for this study consists of a number of researches

conducted on the topic of mobile technology and the TAM. This literature review was

decomposed into five sections. These sections are: (a) technology; (b) wireless Internet

and IT managers; (c) Technology Acceptance Model; (d) wireless Internet acceptance;

and (e) wireless communication.

Technology

There is a strong belief that computer-based systems are revolutionizing social

behavior (Harris, 1999). The idea behind using technology to enhance productivity is not

new. Since the invention of personal computers, information technology (IT) has

contributed to some important changes in the business environment. Most types of

businesses are using the advantages of new IT to implement or improve business

strategies. These advantages relate to saving expenses, improving the ability to exchange


information, and enhancing productivity. These changes are usually associated with

developments in the telecommunication industry, guided especially by the Internet (Friz,

Narashimhan & Rhee, 1998; Roach, 1998). However, another way to see this is that

rather than technology transforming society, people within societies are changing the way

they live to accommodate themselves for advances in new technologies (Hakken, 1993).

Many researchers noted that the Internet is a revolutionary technology (Lowe,

Lomax, & Polonkey, 1996; Graves, 1996; Gallanger & McFarland, 1996; Lundberg,

1998). In 1996, the American Internet User Survey found that 53 percent of Internet users

were adults between the ages 30 and 50. They made use of the Internet basically for

email purposes regarding work tasks. The study concluded that they use the Internet less

frequently than users between the ages of 18 and 29 who accounted for 31 percent of the

users. The important findings concerning the research study here is that users in search of

information found that the Internet was a frustrating experience, while those seeking

enjoyment found it a valid tool (Miller, 1996). In conclusion, people are less likely to

adopt a technology when they do not perceive this technology for its usefulness.

Wireless Internet and IT managers

Economic and competitive pressures have focused managers’ attention on

networking, which enables information to be shared quickly, documents to be sent and

received, and meetings to be scheduled. Today, pushed by the advances of data

communication technology, video conferencing, and collaborative software, the Internet

along with Intranet systems are reasonably collaborating to provide prosperity and

growth to companies (DeMarie, Townsend, & Hendrickson, 1998). Fritz, Narashimhan &


Rhee (1998) analyzed in their research employees’ satisfaction in using office

communication systems. They concluded that video conferencing is well accepted among

the respondents. Therefore, most of the companies are upgrading their traditional

structure to network and virtual network implementations. The use of IT to enable

electronic communication replaces face-to-face communication, helping employees

exchange information quickly.

The proliferation of mobile communication brings Web capabilities to handheld

devices, making it possible to access information regardless of location or time (Guyon,

2000; Perkins, 1998). The new generation of cellular phones, palm tops, and personal

digital assistants (PDA) are infused with new technologies that enable mobile user to

access information (Cappelletti, 1997). This mobility could bring a great benefit to

information technology (IT) managers. Mobility, which is the ability to connect to an

information infrastructure regardless of the location of the user, could have great

influence on the process of making good decisions (Vlahos, & Ferrat, 1992). For

instance, Vlahos & Ferrat asserted that IT managers, who have access to information

through the use of technology, strongly believe that they are receiving important support

to execute their managerial tasks. This means that IT managers could empower their

capabilities by accessing information at any time and anywhere. In a research made by

Gerson, Chien and Raval (1992), the authors tested the use of a certain computer

technology in the process of strategic decision making. In this study, it was verified that

information technology is widely used to help IT managers in the process of making

better decisions. Therefore, a handheld computer, which enables access to information,

could be viewed as an important device for IT and administrative managers to access


information regardless of their location. To analyze the acceptance of using mobile

handheld devices to access information, the TAM will be reviewed in this literature.

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

The technology acceptance model has been widely used by many researches to

address aspects of technology acceptance and system usage (Adams, Nelson & Todd,

1992; Chau, 1996; Davis, 1989; Igbaria, Zinatelli, Cragg, & Cavaye 1997; Szajna, 1996;

Taylor & Todd, 1995). This model was suggested by Schultz and Slevin (1975) and

Robey (1979) and improved by Davis (1989). It was designed to study and/or anticipate

user acceptance of computer systems (Hu, Chau, Lui Sheng & Tam, 1999). To develop

this model, Davis based his studies in another two models, known as theory of reasoned

action (TRA) and theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The TRA

model follows a logical process to conclude that beliefs influence attitudes. This model

was created in 1980 and used by Davis (1989) to theorize the TAM. Hu, Chau, Lui Sheng

and Tam note that the TAM can be successfully used to not only test a technology in use,

but also to predict the acceptance of a new technology based on relevant factors (1999).

They stated three determinant factors that influence the TAM. The first factor is the

impact of the characteristics of the user, which in this study will be related to employees

of life and health insurance companies. The second factor is the characteristics of the

technology, which here will be related to the wireless network environment, handheld

devices and the Internet. Finally, the last factor that influences the TAM relates to

organizational factors such as task predictability, IT support, and electronic coordination.


Wireless Internet acceptance

Since TAM has been successfully used to study users acceptance of computer

technologies (Adams, Nelson & Todd, 1992; Chau, 1996; Davis, 1989; Igbaria, Zinatelli,

Cragg, & Cavaye 1997; Szajna, 1996; Taylor & Todd, 1995), and in this project, the

researcher could not find any research regarding the acceptance to deliver web-content to

handheld devices, it was considered appropriate to test the TAM for the usage of mobile

Internet access. Little research has been done to address the acceptance of receiving web-

content on handheld devices. However, many studies were found in regard to the

relationship between information technology usage, and perceived usefulness and

perceived ease of use (Adams, Nelson & Todd, 1992; Bagozzi, Davis & Warshaw, 1992;

Chau, 1996; Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989; Haynes & Thies, 1991;

Hendrickson & Collins, 1996; Igbaria, Guimaraes & Davis, 1995; Mathieson, 1991;

Straub, Limayem & Karahanna-Evaristo, 1995; Taylor & Todd, 1995). For instance,

some researches focus on the acceptance of the usage of personal computers (PC)

(Igbaria, Zinatelli, Cragg, & Cavaye 1997) and or the importance of computerized

information for IT managers (Ferrat, Dunne & Young, 1988; Vlahos & Ferrat, 1992;

Gerson, Chien & Raval, 1992). Szajna (1996) studied the acceptance of using an e-mail

system by graduate students at a business college. Recently, Hu, Chau, Lui Sheng and

Tam examined the acceptance model in using telemedicine technology in the health-care

industry.

Most of these researches concerning technology acceptability were modeled

using the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness concepts. Davis (1989)

theorized both variables to be determinant factors of system usage. These concepts are


part of the TAM that uses perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness to anticipate

system usage. According to Davis’s research, there is a relationship between system

usage and perceived usefulness, as well as between perceived usefulness and future

usage. In the same research, the author concluded that perceived ease of use is

significantly correlated to future usage. It goes further by saying that the correlation

between perceived ease of use and future usage is greater than perceived usefulness and

future usage. This logical framework could be adapted to test the correlation between

future usage and the acceptance of using the Internet on handheld devices.

Intention to use

Intention to use is a variable originated from the TAM. This variable is used as a

predictor for technology usage. Intention to use has been used by many researchers to

address individuals’ behavior and the usage of a particular system (Dishaw, & Strong,

1999; Lederer, Maupin, Sena, & Zhuang, 1998; Henderson, Rickwood, & Roberts, 1997;

Hu, Chau, Lui Sheng, & Tam, 1999). Intention to use is described as the attitude towards

something the user wants or will attempt to use, depending on his or her behavior

(Dishaw, & Strong). For instance, Hu, Chau, Lui Sheng, & Tam use this variable to test

the acceptance physicians would have when using telemedicine technology. In their

findings, it was concluded that perceived usefulness has a significant correlation with the

intention to use. Henderson, Rickwood, & Roberts designed a method, which uses the

TAM as theoretical basis, to analyze intention to use an electronic supermarket system. In

their findings, after surveying 57 customers, the results indicated that users of electronic

supermarket intend to use the system in the future. Here, the same model was applied to

analyze the relationship between intention to use and mobile Internet access.


Perceived usefulness

Various researchers concluded that perceived usefulness is a variable that can be

successfully used to study the degree of users’ acceptance of computer systems (Davis,

1989; Adams, Nelson & Todd, 1992; Straub, Limayem & Karahanna-Evaristo, 1995;

Szanjna, 1996). Perceived usefulness relates to the fact that people tend to use

information systems to improve their performance when doing their job (Davis, 1989).

Perceived usefulness is a variable that relates to performance of the user, improvements

in productivity, and the effectiveness in accomplishing certain tasks (Igbaria, Zinatelli,

Cragg, & Cavaye 1997). Other researchers asserted that perceived usefulness accounts

for a great part of computer systems usage (see also Adams, Nelson & Todd, 1992;

Straub, Limayem & Karahanna-Evaristo, 1995; Szanjna, 1996). This probably is related

to the characteristics of this variable. Taylor and Todd (1995) noted, for instance, that

there is a relationship between experience and the TAM. They go further by saying that

inexperienced users of IT tend to rely on perceived usefulness as a predictor of system

usage. Therefore, since delivering Internet content on handheld devices is a new

technology, and consequently, most users have not experienced it yet, perceived

usefulness might have an impact on using handheld devices to access the Internet.

Perceived ease of use

Clark & Pasquale (1996) stated that the convergence between the Internet and

mobile communication would challenge handheld users. The authors asserted that the

success of a new technology is directly related to the effective usage of its product.

Kanter (2000), goes further by explaining that technical people design computer

interfaces for technical users. By increasing the capability of cellular phones, the


complexity to operate them will increase as well. Therefore, it is important to consider

that people with no experience with PCs are using cellular phones and handheld devices.

These people will be not only using their phones, but also executing other tasks,

demanding more experience to manipulate the device (Wireless Internet Today, 1999).

In the same way, perceived ease of use has been used as a valuable tool in a

variety of researches (Igbaria, Zinatelli, Cragg, & Cavaye 1997; Hu, Chau, Lui Shemg &

Tam, 1999; Lederer, Maupin, Sena & Zhuang, 1998; Taylor and Todd, 1995; Zanino,

Agarwal & Prasad; 1994). Perceived ease of use extends to the fact that users are more

likely to effectively use a system that they believe they can learn without effort (Davis,

1989). Goodwin (1987) asserts that the functionality of a system, i.e. perceived

usefulness, depends directly on usability, i.e. perceived ease of use. Taylor and Todd,

used perceived ease of use to test information systems usage among experienced and

inexperienced users. By having inexperienced users as part of the sample population, the

authors were able to address issues of future usage. Therefore, the same model will be

used here to predict future usage of handheld devices to connect the Internet. In another

research, Lederer, Maupin, Sena & Zhuang concluded that the acceptance in using web

sites depends on perceived ease of use. Also, by reviewing the literature, was found the

results of a survey conducted by the Graphic Visualization, and Usability (GVU) Center

at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The authors identified speed to download a file as

a key problem affecting the ease of use (Pitkow & Kehoe, 1996). Zanino, Agarwal &

Prasad tested the ease of use of graphical user interface (GUI) of Microsoft Corporation’s

Windows. Interestingly, the results concluded that certain groups of individuals think the

Windows interface is difficult to use.


Attitude towards use

Attitude towards use is defined as the actual desire users have of using certain

systems (Lederer, Maupin, Sena & Zhuang, 1998). This desire could have, depending on

the way it is expressed, a positive or negative impact on individuals’ behavior (Fishbein

& Ajzen, 1975). Many researchers modeled “attitude towards use” as being predicted

only by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Hu, Chau, Lui Shemg & Tam,

1999; Dishaw, & Strong, 1999). For example, Hu, Chau, Lui Shemg & Tam, after

analyzing data from 64 users, concluded that there is a significant relationship between

perceived usefulness and attitude towards to use.

Perceived accessibility

Several studies suggested that accessibility affects users’ acceptance of a system

(Culnan, 1985; Karahanna, & Straub, 1998). Perceived accessibility relates to the fact

that users tend to accept and use more frequently a system that is efficiently connected.

This means that the medium has to provide a sound communication between both ends

(Karahanna, & Straub). Medium is the physical path that separates the receiver from the

sender (Shelly, Cashman, & Serwatka, 1998). When the medium provides an effective

integration, the communication between nodes is accomplished successfully (Kerr, &

Hiltz, 1982). Karahanna and Straub used perceived accessibility as a variable to test the

acceptance of using an electronic mail system. They suggested that there is a positive

relationship between accessibility and IT usage. The researchers note that, different from

Davis’s (1989) study, which did not find a relationship between accessibility and system

usage, their study suggested that both variables are significantly correlated. They go


further by explaining that perceived accessibility could indirectly influence in the system

usage.

Accessibility is an important issue regarding information technology, and it could

be viewed as a predictor of system usage (Culnan, 1985; Karahanna, & Straub, 1999).

Accessibility is the primary characteristic of the integration of computer systems. Many

researchers consider limited bandwidth an important predictor of wireless communication

device usage (Billsus, Pazzani & Chen, 2000; Housel & Lindquist, 1996; Imilienky &

Badrinath, 1994; Perkins, 1998; Xylomenos, 1999). The reason is that the wireless links

are shared among all the users within range of the link provider (Perkins). Hence, the

capacity of the wireless media varies according to the number of users connecting the

same wireless base station.

According to Perkins (1998), accessing a wireless network on a high rate basis is

the key to the development of a mobile information highway. For this reason, the low

bandwidth capacity provided by mobile communication could influence the decision of

implementing a wireless web-based information provider. The restricted bandwidth

supplied by wireless handheld devices (Billsus, Pazzani & Chen, 2000; Kleinrock, 1996)

limits the amount and the type of information to be sent over wireless media. While PC

home users are able to access the Internet at speeds up to 1.5 Megabits per second

(Mbps), handheld devices are limited to only 19.2 Kilobits per second (Kbps) (Imielinsky

& Badrinath, 1994). This rate, comparing to wired media, is considered a low rate,

especially when transmitting web-based information. Therefore, low bandwidth limits the

transmission speed of handheld devices to text content only (Guyon, 2000).


System Support

Various researchers stated the importance of systems support services to achieve

users’ satisfaction (Amoroso, & Cheney, 1991; Buyukkurt, & Vass, 1993; Igbaria,

Zinatelli, Cragg, & Cavaye, 1997; Karahanna, & Straub, 1998). System support stands to

the availability of having online help or real-time consultations for users in need

(Karahanna, & Straub). After collecting data from 358 user of personal computers,

researchers concluded that systems support has a direct effect on the user acceptance of

the system (Igbaria, Zinatelli, Cragg, & Cavaye). On the contrary, Karahanna and Straub,

after analyzing data collected from 100 users of an electronic mail system, concluded that

system support services have no impact on systems usage.

Social Presence

Karahanna and Straub (1998) explain that the medium used in face-to-face

communication have a high rate of social presence. Short, Williams, and Christie (1976)

define social presence as “the capacity [of a medium] to transmit information about facial

expression, direction of looking, posture, dress and non-verbal cues” (p.65). Social

presence relates to the fact that social expressions of senders are not hidden by the

medium when using the system to transmit messages or information. Karahanna and

Straub argued that electronic mail and regular mail have a low rate of social presence.

The theory of social presence states that if senders and receivers are separated between a

medium with high social presence, the performance and acceptance in using the system

will improve. This theory suggests that social presence have a effect of human behavior.


Security

Security is another variable utilized in this study to analyze the acceptance of

using wireless Internet. This study used privacy among other security issues of the TAM

to test the acceptance of using handheld devices to connect to the Internet. Wireless

networking security is an important issue that most analysts have pointed out (Clark &

Pasquale, 1996; Imelinsky & Badrinath, 1994; Perkins, 1998). Wireless media is

probably more susceptible to security problems because of the untrustworthy nature of its

structure. Different from wired media, wireless media can be tapped from anywhere by

anyone with the right equipment and some experience. For instance, low security on

online transaction over the web could have an effect on the future growth of online

investments (Sharma & Bingi, 2000). IT experts have found that one way to avoid

security problems would be to use encryption when transmitting data over wireless links

(Clark & Pasquale, 1996; Imelinsky & Badrinath, 1994; Perkins). In this way, possible

intruders would not be able to understand or read the encrypted data. This would enable

both, users of wireless devices as well as content providers to safely communicate with

each other in a friendly way.

However, things are not as simple as that. Recently, in Europe there has been a

“virus attack” to digital cellular phones connected to the Internet (Fonseca, 2000). Shawn

Herman, CERT Coordination Center team leader for Vulnerability Handling in

Pittsburgh, said that mobile devices are vulnerable to virus. Herman reveled that the

security would depend on how much power and how much integrated computers and

mobile devices can be built. According to Perkins, Senior Staff Engineer at Sun

Microsystems, infusing technological features in the media that is used to transmit


information could solve the security problem (1998). However, this solution leads to

more consumption of power, which consequently decreases bandwidth. In this literature,

the researcher did not find qualitative researches correlating security issues and users

acceptability. Therefore, this research analyzed if there is a positive relationship between

security and the acceptance of connecting the Internet on handheld devices.

Interface

The screen display of handheld devices could influence on the usage of the

Internet on wireless portable devices (Sanches, 1999; Wireless Internet Today, 1999).

Studies have being made to correlate the users’ ability to interact with the computer and

the interface on display screens (Woodland & Szul, 1999). In a recent study, Woodland

& Szul attempted to find a relationship between proofreading ability and visualization

ability. After analyzing data collected from 85 respondents, they recommend that more

studies have to be done in regard to human interaction with computers. In their findings,

it was not found a significant relationship among the variables. However, the authors

have stated that because of the small number of respondents, the research should be

replicated in order to generate a more precise analysis. Nonetheless, it was found that

there is a relationship between learning success and “visualization ability” (Woodland &

Szul). The authors citing Casey and Wolf (1989) define visualization ability as “the

ability to understand and communicate using visual images” (16). This study expresses

the intention to prove the relationship between perceived ease of use, which could be

viewed as proofreading ability, and system usage, which relates to the visualization

ability. Therefore, the display size of handheld device screens could limit the

visualization ability of users when accessing the Internet.


Perceived User Control

Limited control is the last variable this project used to test the acceptance of

wireless Internet. This variable relates to the fact that handheld devices are limited in

input devices, such as monitor, mouse, and keyboard (Shirk, 2000). These limitations

could influence in the perceived usefulness as well as perceived ease of use of wireless

Internet.

The major problem when transmitting web-based information to handheld devices

is that both technologies were not built under the same model (Perkins, 1998). Therefore,

the convergence between the Internet and the mobile telephone industry face some

challenges. Personal computer technology and mobile telephone technology operate

under different philosophies (Shirk, 2000). Unlike the mobile telephone industry, PC

manufactures have built computers as freely as possible. Users are able to install any

software compatible with their operating system as needed. Additionally, customers are

also able to choose and install different operating systems without permission.

Different from PCs, mobile devices are dictated by manufactures (Perkins, 1998).

The telephone industry has control of the operating system under which mobile devices

are operating (Shirk, 2000). Therefore, phone users cannot install or uninstall any

application into their phones. In other words, while the PC’s mentality is to put as much

control as possible in the hands of the consumer, the telephone industry’s mentality is to

take as much control as possible from the customers and still making the device usable

(Perkins, 1998; Shirk). These challenges could be viewed as negative factors for both,

developers and users when deploying data over wireless medium.


Wireless communication

By reviewing the collected literature for this research, it was noted that different

issues could have an impact on the acceptance of using information technology. Today,

networking is more than connecting one computer to another as visualized by Bob

Metcalfe (Metcalfe, 1999). Rather, it is a way of providing a variety of services to

different users (Clark & Pasquale, 1996). Studies have shown that the number of wireless

subscribers had increased tremendously in the past year (Survey says wait on wireless

initiatives, 1999; McGinity, 1999). According to the Trade Organization Cellular

Industry Association (CTIA), there were 70 million mobile phone users in 1998,

representing an increase of 20% in comparison with the previous year. More than that,

there is another study that predicts that 10% to 15% of the cellular sold in the year 2000

will interface with the Internet (Walter & Hamed, 2000). Today, there are more than two

million wireless subscribers in the world (Wireless Internet Today, 1999). And, the

Internet was counted to have 35 million dial-up subscribers. These figures show that the

integration between both technologies could add a tremendous value to the wireless

Internet business. Moreover, these studies represent that both, the Internet and the mobile

industry, are converging in a fast pace to form a robust information infrastructure

accessible at anytime and anywhere (Clark & Pasquale, 1996). However, studies have

concluded that the interest on mobile Internet will increase as bandwidth increases,

following the same pattern as the growth of the Internet (Imielinsky & Badrinath, 1994;

Perkins, 1998).


Wireless Networking Environment

Nonetheless, the convergence between the Internet and mobile telephone devices

is challenged by shortcomings of the wireless networking environment and mobile

devices (Billsus, Pazzani & Chen, 2000; Imielinsky & Badrinath, 1994; Kleinrock, 1996;

Perkins, 1998; Wireless Internet Today, 1999; Woodland & Szul, 1999; Hjelm, Martim &

King; 1998).

Scalability

Many researchers point out scalability to be a important challenges in wireless

technology (Bowman, Danzing, Manber & Schwartz, 1994; Clark & Pasquale, 1996;

Imielinsky & Badrinath, 1994; Perkins, 1998). Scalability deals to the fact that systems

were built to accommodate certain number of simultaneous users. When this number

exceeds the maximum, the system tends to perform improperly (Clark & Pasquale). In

other words, as the number of the users grows, they will experience more latency in the

transmission. However, some solutions have been designed to avoid scalable problems.

One example reviewed in this literature is the new Internet Protocol (IP). The

IPv4 will be upgraded to a newer version, known as IPv6, to accommodate the growth of

the Internet. This new protocol, when implemented, will increase from 32-bit to 128-bit

the address space available on the Internet (Perkins, 1998). This approach shows that the

Internet will be able to continue to grow. More than that, Perkins has pointed out that the

new IPv6 not only has increased the number of addresses, but also has far more

capabilities than the previous one. One of these advantages is that the IPv6 was built to

support mobile networking.


Handheld Devices Shortcomings

To give a more comprehensive understanding of mobile communication, this

section will review handheld device problems in a more detail matter. Collecting

researches from the literature it was found three important factors that influence

connecting the Internet on handheld devices. Limited power supply, limited random

access memory (RAM) and central processing unit (CPU) capacity, size of the display,

and limited user control are the factors that this literature will review in detail. Many

researchers have asserted that these factors are recognized as a threat when connecting to

the Internet using handheld devices (Imelinsky & Badrinath, 1994; Perkins, 1998;

Wireless Internet Today, 1999). Therefore, this paper will review the importance and

level of concern of each of these aspects when delivering web content to mobile devices.

Today the new generations of cellular phone are infused with new technologies,

which increase the efficiency of the device. Xylomanos (1999) note that this efficiency

depends strictly on the surroundings. For example, an unpredictable outside environment,

such as skyscrapers, mountains and even bad weather, could influence in the transmission

of signal to cellular phones. Researchers have tested and compared two different cellular

systems (Alanko, Kojo, Laamanen, Liljeberg, Moilanan & Raatikainen, 1994). On one

side, researchres tested the digital Global System for Mobile communication (GSM),

which is widely used in Europe. And, on the other side, it was tested the analog Nordic

Mobile Telephone (NMT) system. The researchers measured and compared the

performance of data transmission over these two cellular systems. They concluded that

the most important fact found was that when operating in areas with “low field strength”

the GMS system is more reliable than the NMT system (p.43).


Limited Capacity

Another difference between handsets and PCs is in terms of CPU power and

RAM capacity (Wireless Internet Today, 1999). As stated previously in this paper,

mobile devices are restricted to limited power supply (Kleinrock, 1996; Perkins, 1998).

This restriction causes several problems to wireless handheld technology, reflecting on

the uses’ interface. Therefore, the users interface on a wireless handset device is totally

different from the one on desktop computer (Shirk, 2000). In truth, unlike desktop

computers, handheld device lack on sophisticate input devices. Not only the RAM and

CPU power are very limited, but also the phone keypad is restricted in size (Imielinsky &

Badrinath, 1994; Perkins, 1998; Wireless Internet Today, 1999). This could be a

determinant aspect regarding the utilization of wireless Internet. On the consumer side,

they want lightweight and last longer batteries in their handset (Flaherty (1999). When

using the Internet on desktop computers, users are likely to query and or manipulate

database. This requires more bandwidth, consequently leading to problems with the

consumption of battery power (Imielinsky & Badrinath, 1994). This could also increase

complexity when using handheld devices and; thus, could be viewed as a disadvantage

when delivering web-content to wireless devices.

The WAP

Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) is a technology that was meant to ease and

extend the access to the Internet through the use of mobile telephones (Alvi, 1999). As

mentioned in the previous sections, network capabilities as well as mobile device

problems could slow down the growth of mobile network applications. For this reason,

with the intent to help WAP developers, the WAP Forum was created (Hjelm, Martim, &


King, 1998; Wireless Internet Today, 1999). The idea of building an information

infrastructure that even people from remote areas could access and manage information

started at the Center of Nuclear Physics Research (CERN) (Berners-Lee, Cailliau,

Luotonen, Nielsen, & Secret, 1994). In 1990, Breners-Lee invented the World Wide Web

(WWW) addressing researchers for sharing information among their peers. Remarkably,

since its first day of operation the WWW had grown at a tremendous pace (Leiner, 1994).

Initially, members of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which is an

organization founded in 1994 by Tim Berners-Lee, visualized the need to access the web

via mobile devices (Hjelm, Martim & King; 1998). Therefore, with efforts to improve

mobile and wireless communication the WAP Forum started its operations. WAP was

created in 1997 by a consortium among Unwired Planet, Motorola, Nokia, and Ericsson.

The Forum was created with the intent to extend the capabilities of the Internet,

producing a gateway that transmits wireless information to mobile handheld devices,

such as personal digital assistants (PDA), mobile telephones, and pagers (Walters &

Hamed, 2000; Alvi, 1999). With these capabilities, WAP can be considered a wireless

browser (Crowe, 2000). However, because of the limitations with mobile devices to

transfer wireless information, the WAP model browser had to be adapted to a new but

similar language, the wireless markup language (WML). In this way, the WAP model,

instead of using the Internet’s hypertext markup language (HTML) uses a simple and

easy to built language called WML (Walters & Hamed, 2000). This new language,

facilitates the transmission of web content data over wireless medium.


Summary

This chapter reviews published literature regarding the technology acceptance

model (TAM) and problematic issues of the wireless network environment. The literature

shows that problems in each of these areas could be viewed as a threat to the industry of

wireless communication and information providers who intent to use the wireless media.

All these aspects could influence IT managers when deciding to implement an

information infrastructure to deliver web content through wireless media. The literature

suggests that the TAM can be used effectively to predict the usage of certain

technologies. This model has been widely used by many researchers to test a variety of IT

issues. However, no empirical analysis was found on wireless Internet acceptance.

Therefore, it was found of significant importance to test the mobile Internet acceptance

with the technology acceptance model.

The next chapter of this project is the methodology section of the study. The

methodology describes in detail sampling, subjects, instrumentation, and procedures used

for the completion of the study.


Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

Purpose of Paper

The purpose of this research project is to use the technology acceptance model

(TAM) to test the acceptance of using handheld devices to connect to the Internet. This

project narrows the research by surveying only employees from three large companies in

the life and health insurance industry in Honolulu.

Purpose of Chapter

This chapter describes the methodology used to conduct the research. The chapter

defines the research method adopted, the population, the sampling subjects for this

research, the instrumentation, and research hypothesis.

Chapter Organization

The chapter begins with methods inquired to do the research process. Following,

the chapter describes the population adopted for this study. This section is followed by

the instrumentation the researcher used to collect the data. In this section, it is explained

the independent and dependent variables of the research. Then, the chapter describes the

survey used to collect the data. Finally, in the summary section, the chapter is

summarized and the strengths and weaknesses of the research are identified. In the very

last section, appendix 1 shows the cover letter and survey to be delivered to participants.

This section will be followed by a brief description of following chapter (Chapter 4).


Method of Inquiry

This is a non-experimental research project. The instrument used to gather the

data for this research is a survey (Appendix 1). The survey was designed to test the

acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet. Employees from three large

life and health insurance companies in Honolulu are invited to answer the survey. The

survey is composed of 31 questions regarding the personal background of the respondent

and variables that might have an effect on the acceptance of using the Internet on

handheld devices.

Sampling and Population

The population for this research is composed of employees of three large life and

health insurance companies in Honolulu. More precisely, the population for this research

is composed of general managers, insurance agents, and managers. The sample for this

research is confined to all the respondents who participate in the survey. This research

samples this population to gather information to conclude the research project. The

survey will be sent to administrative managers of each company and returned to the

researcher’s address. It was determined a one-month period to receive the surveys.

Measurements and Instrumentation

There is one dependent variable and ten independent variables. The development

and identification of the independent variables came as a result of published literature

regarding the technology acceptance model (TAM).


The acceptance of using the Internet on handheld devices is a dependent variable.

In this paper, this variable was named system usage. It was instrumented with three

parameters, amount of time using the system, frequency of usage, and tasks performed.

The independent variables that are based on the TAM included attitude towards

use, intention to use, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. Other independent

variables are system support, perceived accessibility, interface, security, perceived

control, age, gender, educational background, and type of device.

1. System usage

Three questions of the survey are related to the acceptance of using handheld

devices to access the Internet or system usage. This section presents three dependent

variables. Amount of time using the system, frequency of usage, tasks performed are used

as instruments in this section of the survey.

1.1 Amount of time using the system. This variable is measured using a scale of

almost never coded 1, less than ½ hour coded 2, from ½ hour to 1 hour coded 3, 1 to 2

hours coded 4, 2 to 3 hours coded 5, and more than 3 hours coded 6. This is a categorical

(nominal) variable.

1.2 Frequency of usage. This variable is measured through a scale of less than

once a month coded 1, once a month coded 2, a few times a month coded 3, a few times a

day code 4, several times a day coded 5. This is a categorical (nominal) variable.

2. Personal Background

2.1 Gender. Gender uses a scale of male coded 0 and female coded 1. This is a

categorical (nominal/true dichotomy) variable.


2.2 Age. Age uses a scale of 20 or less coded 1, 21 to 30 coded 2, 31 to 40 coded

3, 41 to 50 coded 4, and 51 or more coded 5. This is a continuous (interval) variable.

2.3 Educational background. Educational background uses a scale of high school

coded 1, bachelors coded 2, masters coded 3, and doctoral coded 4. This is a categorical

(nominal) variable.

2.4 Occupation. Occupation uses an open scale of measurement. This is a

continuous (scale) variable.

3. Intention to use

3.1 Likelihood of using the Internet on handheld devices. This variable use a scale

of strongly disagree coded 1, disagree coded 2, agree coded 3, strongly agree coded 4.

This is a continuous (internal) variable.

4. Perceived Usefulness

4.1 Performance on the job. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1,

disagree coded 2, agree coded 3, strongly agree coded 4. This is a continuous (internal)

variable.

4.2 Productivity on the job. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1,


variable.

5. Perceived ease of use

5.1 Ease of use. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1, disagree

coded 2, agree coded 3, strongly agree coded 4. This is a continuous (internal) variable.

5.2 Experience. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1, disagree



6. Attitude towards use

6.1 Enjoyment. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1, disagree


6.2 Benefit from using. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1,


variable.

6.3 Good idea. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1, disagree


7. Perceived Accessibility

7.1 Access. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1, disagree coded

2, agree coded 3, strongly agree coded 4. This is a continuous (internal) variable.

7.2 Receiving real-time information. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree

coded 1, disagree coded 2, agree coded 3, strongly agree coded 4. This is a continuous

(internal) variable.

7.3 Download time. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1,


variable.

8. System Support

8.1 Handheld device assistance. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree




9. Security

9.1 Fear of hackers. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1,


variable.

9.2 Fear of virus. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1, disagree


9.3 Privacy. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1, disagree coded

2, agree coded 3, strongly agree coded 4. This is a continuous (internal) variable.

9.4 Security. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1, disagree


10. Interface

10.1 Keyboard limitation. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1,


variable.

10.2 Size of the screen. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1,


variable.

10.3 Menu limitation. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1,


variable.


11. Perceived User Control

11.1 Install software. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1,


variable.

11.2 Upgrade hardware. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1,


variable.

11.3 Choose operation system. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree



11.4 Browser option. This variable use a scale of strongly disagree coded 1,


variable.

Research Hypothesis

Research question number one is: is there a relationship between intention to use

and the acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet? The research

indicates that there is a strong correlation between these factors. Therefore, the

hypothesis to be tested in question number one is, there is positive relationship between

intention to use: likelihood of using the Internet and the acceptance of using handheld

devices to access the Internet. Intention to use uses one continuos (interval) variable. The

acceptance of using handheld devices to connect to the Internet is a continuous (interval)


variable. Therefore, this hypothesis will be investigated using a correlation analysis

(PPMC). The .05 level of significance will be used for this procedure.

Research question number two is: is there a relationship between perceived

usefulness and the acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet? The

research indicates that there is a strong correlation between these factors. Therefore, the

hypothesis to be tested in question number two is, there is positive relationship between

perceived usefulness: performance, productivity and the acceptance of using handheld

devices to access the Internet. Perceived usefulness uses two continuos (interval)

variables. The acceptance of using handheld devices to connect to the Internet is a

continuous (interval) variable. Therefore, this hypothesis will be investigated using a

correlation analysis (PPMC). The .05 level of significance will be used for this procedure.

Research question number three is: is there a relationship between perceived ease

of use and the acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet? The research


hypothesis to be tested in question number three is, there is positive relationship between

perceived ease of use: ease of use, and experience and the acceptance of using handheld

devices to access the Internet. Perceived ease of use uses two continuos (interval)

variables. The acceptance of using handheld devices to connect to the Internet is a

continuous (interval) variable. Therefore, this hypothesis will be investigated using a

correlation analysis (PPMC). The .05 level of significance will be used for this procedure.

Research question number four is: is there a relationship between perceived ease

of use and perceived usefulness? The research indicates that there is a strong correlation

between these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in question number four is,


there is positive relationship between perceived ease of use: ease of use, and experience

and perceived usefulness: performance, and productivity. Perceived ease of use uses two

continuos (interval) variables. Perceived usefulness uses two continuos (interval)

variables. Therefore, this hypothesis will be investigated using a correlation analysis


Research question number five is: is there a relationship between attitude towards

use and the acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet? The research


hypothesis to be tested in question number five is, there is positive relationship between

attitude towards use: enjoyment, benefits, and likelihood of a good idea and the

acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet. Attitude towards use uses

three continuos (interval) variables. The acceptance of using handheld devices to connect

to the Internet is a continuous (interval) variable. Therefore, this hypothesis will be

investigated using a correlation analysis (PPMC). The .05 level of significance will be

used for this procedure.

Research question number six is: is there a relationship between perceived

usefulness on the attitude towards using handheld devices to access the Internet? The


hypothesis to be tested in question number six is, there is positive relationship between

perceived usefulness: performance, and productivity and the attitude towards using

handheld devices to access the Internet. Perceived usefulness uses two continuos

(interval) variables. Attitude towards use uses three continuos (interval) variables.


Therefore, this hypothesis will be investigated using a correlation analysis (PPMC). The

.05 level of significance will be used for this procedure.

Research question number seven is: is there a relationship between perceived ease

of use and the attitude towards using handheld devices to access the Internet? The


hypothesis to be tested in question number seven is, there is positive relationship between

perceived ease of use: ease of use, and experience and the attitude towards using

handheld devices to access the Internet. Perceived ease of use uses two continuos

(interval) variables. Attitude towards use uses three continuos (interval) variables.



Research question number eight is: is there a relationship perceived accessibility

on perceived ease of use of handheld devices to access the Internet? The research


hypothesis to be tested in question number eight is, there is positive relationship between

perceived accessibility: access, receiving real-time information, and download time and

perceived ease of use: ease of use, and experience. Perceived accessibility uses three

continuos (interval) variables. Perceived ease of use uses two continuos (interval)

variables. Therefore, this hypothesis will be investigated using basic correlation. The .05

level of significance will be used for this procedure.

Research question number nine is: is there a relationship between system support

and perceived usefulness? The research indicates that there is a strong correlation

between these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in question number nine is,


there is positive relationship between system support: assistance and perceived

usefulness: performance, and productivity. System support uses one continuos (interval)

variable. Perceived ease of use uses two continuos (interval) variables. Therefore, this

hypothesis will be investigated using a correlation analysis (PPMC). The .05 level of

significance will be used for this procedure.

Research question number ten is: is there a relationship between system support

and perceived ease of use? The research indicates that there is a strong correlation

between these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in question number ten is,

there is positive relationship between system support: assistance and perceived ease of

use: ease of use, and experience. System support uses one continuos (interval) variable.

Perceived ease of use uses two continuos (interval) variables. Therefore, this hypothesis

will be investigated using a correlation analysis (PPMC). The .05 level of significance

will be used for this procedure.

Research question number eleven is: is there a relationship between security and

perceived ease of use? The research indicates that there is a strong correlation between

these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in question number eleven is, there is

positive relationship between security: fear of hackers, fear of virus, privacy, and security

and perceived ease of use: ease of use, and experience. Security uses four continuous

(interval) variables. Perceived ease of use uses two continuos (interval) variables.



Research question number twelve is: is there a relationship between interface and

perceived ease of use? The research indicates that there is a strong correlation between


these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in question number twelve is, there is

positive relationship between interface: keyboard limitation, size of the screen, menu

limitation and perceived ease of use: ease of use, and experience. Interface uses three

continuous (interval) variables. Perceived ease of use uses two continuos (interval)



Research question number thirteen is: is there a relationship between perceived

user control and the attitude towards using handheld devices to access the Internet? The


hypothesis to be tested in question number thirteen is, there is positive relationship

between perceived user control: install software, upgrade, operation system, and browser

option and the attitude towards using handheld devices to access the Internet. Perceived

user control four continuos (interval) variables. Attitude towards use uses three continuos

(interval) variables. Therefore, this hypothesis will be investigated using a correlation

analysis (PPMC). The .05 level of significance will be used for this procedure.

Research question number fourteen is: is there a relationship between perceived

user control and perceived ease of use handheld devices to access the Internet? The


hypothesis to be tested in question number fourteen is, there is positive relationship

between perceived user control: install software, upgrade, operation system, and browser

option and perceived ease of use: ease of use, and experience. Perceived user control four

continuos (interval) variables. Perceived ease of use uses two continuos (interval)




Research question number fifteen is: is there a relationship between personal

background and system usage? The research indicates that there is a strong correlation

between these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in question number fifteen

is, there is positive relationship between personal background: gender, age, educational

background, and occupation, and system usage. Personal background uses four continuos

(interval) variables. System usage uses three continuos (interval) variables. Therefore,

this hypothesis will be investigated using a t-test and the ANOVA test. The .05 level of

significance will be used for this procedure.

Data collection

Data collection for this research paper will be done using a survey. Employees,

who are working as financial planners, financial managers and administrative managers

in three large life and health insurance companies in Honolulu, will be asked to answer

the survey.

Data processing and analysis

The results after collecting the data for this research will be analyzed and

correlated with each other. Descriptive and statistical analysis will be performed. The

analysis of the results will be calculated using SPSS version 9 for Windows.


Strengths and Weaknesses

The implementations of a new technology raise questions of whether or not this

technology will be accepted. Content providers, and handheld manufacturer would

understand whether or not employees of life and health insurance companies accept the

usage of handheld devices to access the Internet

The weakness of the research is that the population is confined in Honolulu. The

population is restricted to employees of three large life and health insurance companies.

Therefore, limiting the validity of this research to a small population.

Summary

This chapter starts with a brief explanation of the purpose of the research, purpose

of the chapter and chapter organization. Then, the chapter goes along with the methods of

inquiry. This is a non-experimental research, which uses a survey as an instrument to

gather data to test the acceptance of using the Internet to access the Internet. A

questionnaire is designed to gather data from a population. The population is confined

among financial planners, financial managers and administrative managers who are

employed in three large companies in the life and health insurance industry. Still on the

methods of inquiry section, the actual instrument is presented. Then, the chapter presents

all the variables used to test mobile Internet acceptance along with the type of variable,

scale and the way it is coded. The next section is the research hypothesis. In this section

the research question are reviewed and hypothesized. The first section of the

questionnaire relates to the background of the respondents. These questions are all

independent variables. The next sections of the questionnaire will gather information


regarding the acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet. These

questions relate to the dependent variables of the research. The strength of this research is

that studying users’ acceptance of mobile Internet access could increase knowledge about

the development of a new technology and its acceptance. The weakness is that the

respondents are from Hawaii and cannot represent a greater population.

In the following chapter, it will be presented the analysis section of the research.

This section will use the methodology presented in this chapter to analyze the data

collected from the survey. Statistical analysis will be used in this section to analyze in

detail the data collected.


Chapter 4: Analysis

Introduction

Purpose of Paper

The purpose of this research project was to use the technology acceptance model


project narrows the research by surveying only employees from three large companies in

the life and health insurance industry in Honolulu.

Purpose of Chapter

The results of the statistical analysis are presented in this chapter. Fifteen primary

questions were investigated and analyzed during the study. The first was, is there a

relationship between intention to use and the acceptance of using handheld devices to

access the Internet? The second was, is there a relationship between perceived usefulness

and the acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet? The third was, is

there a relationship between perceived ease of use and the acceptance of using handheld

devices to access the Internet? The fourth was, is there a relationship between perceived

ease of use and perceived usefulness? The Fifth was, is there a relationship between

attitude towards use and the acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet?

The sixth was, is there a relationship between perceived usefulness on the attitude

towards using handheld devices to access the Internet? The seventh was, is there a

relationship between perceived ease of use and the attitude towards using handheld

devices to access the Internet? The eighth was, is there a relationship perceived

accessibility on perceived ease of use of handheld devices to access the Internet? The


ninth was, is there a relationship between system support and perceived usefulness? The

tenth was, is there a relationship between system support and perceived ease of use? The

eleventh was, is there a relationship between security and perceived ease of use? The

twelfth was, is there a relationship between interface and perceived ease of use? The

thirteenth was, is there a relationship between perceived user control and the attitude

towards using handheld devices to access the Internet? The fourteenth was, is there a

relationship between perceived user control and perceived ease of use handheld devices

to access the Internet? And the fifteenth was, is there a relationship between personal

background and system usage? The population for this study consisted of financial

planners, managers, and administrative managers who are employed in three large

insurance and health insurance companies in Honolulu.

Chapter Organization

This chapter is organized into four main sections. The first section is a

preliminary look at the overall descriptive statistics of the data obtained, the frequency

information for each of the categorical variables employed in the study, and a reliability

analysis of the scores of the measurement instrument used to collect the data. The second

section addresses the fifteen individual analysis research questions. The third section

addresses the organizational level of analysis research questions. The chapter concludes

with a brief summary.


Preliminary Analysis

The preliminary statistical procedures were performed in two phases. First, the

descriptive statistics and the frequency data were computed for the sample data. Second,

the reliability of the measure used to collect the data was computed and examined.

Descriptive Statistics.

It was sent 138 surveys to three companies in the life and health industry in

Hawaii. It was received 42 responses. Therefore, the response rate of the participants was

30.4%.

The means, standard deviations, and frequencies of the measured dependent

variables, preparedness, by each of the independent variable are presented in Tables 1

through 8. The measure of the dependent variable was calculated by summing the 4 item

which indicate system usage.

Table 1

Mean Scores and Frequencies of Gender

30 71.4 71.4 71.4

12 28.6 28.6 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

male

female

Total

Valid

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent


Table 2

Mean Scores and Frequencies of Age

Table 3

Mean Score and Frequencies of Educational Background

Table 4

Mean Score and Frequencies of Occupation

6 14.3 14.3 14.3

15 35.7 35.7 50.0

12 28.6 28.6 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

Valid


Percent

3 7.1 7.1 7.1

27 64.3 64.3 71.4

12 28.6 28.6 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

Valid


Percent

36 85.7 85.7 85.7

3 7.1 7.1 92.9

3 7.1 7.1 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 5

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage (Amount of

Time)

Table 6

Mean Score and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage (Frequency of

Usage)

18 42.9 42.9 42.9

3 7.1 7.1 50.0

9 21.4 21.4 71.4

3 7.1 7.1 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Almost never

Less than 1/2 hour

1 to 2 hours

2 to 3 hours

More than 3 hours

Total

Valid


Percent

18 42.9 42.9 42.9

3 7.1 7.1 50.0

9 21.4 21.4 71.4

12 28.6 28.6 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

< once a month

Few time a week

About once a day

Several times a day

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 7

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Predictability of Use by

Dependent Variable System Usage

Frequencies

Predictability of use

42

0

2.36

.19

1.25

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

15 35.7 35.7 35.7

9 21.4 21.4 57.1

6 14.3 14.3 71.4

12 28.6 28.6 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 8

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Performance Improvement on

the Job by Dependent Variable System Usage

Frequencies

Performance improvement on the job

42

0

2.29

.16

1.04

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

9 21.4 21.4 21.4

21 50.0 50.0 71.4

3 7.1 7.1 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 9

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Productivity on the Job by


Frequencies

Productivity on the job

42

0

2.29

.16

1.04

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

9 21.4 21.4 21.4

21 50.0 50.0 71.4

3 7.1 7.1 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 10

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Ease to Use by Dependent

Variable System Usage

Frequencies

Easy to use

42

0

2.50

.14

.92

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

6 14.3 14.3 14.3

15 35.7 35.7 50.0

15 35.7 35.7 85.7

6 14.3 14.3 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 11

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Ease to Become Skillful by


Frequencies

Easy to become skillful

42

0

2.57

.17

1.13

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

12 28.6 28.6 28.6

3 7.1 7.1 35.7

18 42.9 42.9 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 12

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Enjoyment by Dependent


Frequencies

Enjoy using the Intrnet

42

0

2.07

.16

1.05

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

15 35.7 35.7 35.7

15 35.7 35.7 71.4

6 14.3 14.3 85.7

6 14.3 14.3 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 13

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Benefits by Dependent


Frequencies

Benefits when accomplishing my job

42

0

2.43

.16

1.06

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

9 21.4 21.4 21.4

15 35.7 35.7 57.1

9 21.4 21.4 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 14

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Good Idea by Dependent


Frequencies

Likelihood of good idea

42

0

2.07

.18

1.18

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

18 42.9 42.9 42.9

12 28.6 28.6 71.4

3 7.1 7.1 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 15

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Accessibility by Dependent


Frequencies

Accessibility

42

0

2.29

.20

1.29

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

18 42.9 42.9 42.9

6 14.3 14.3 57.1

6 14.3 14.3 71.4

12 28.6 28.6 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 16

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Real-Time Information by


Frequencies

Receiving real-time information

42

0

2.21

.19

1.22

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

18 42.9 42.9 42.9

6 14.3 14.3 57.1

9 21.4 21.4 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 17

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Download Time by


Frequencies

Download time

42

0

3.14

.17

1.07

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

6 14.3 14.3 14.3

3 7.1 7.1 21.4

12 28.6 28.6 50.0

21 50.0 50.0 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 18

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Assistance by Dependent


Frequencies

Assistance

42

0

2.29

.18

1.17

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

15 35.7 35.7 35.7

9 21.4 21.4 57.1

9 21.4 21.4 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 19

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Fear of Hackers by Dependent


Frequencies

Fear of hackers

42

0

2.79

.16

1.02

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

6 14.3 14.3 14.3

9 21.4 21.4 35.7

15 35.7 35.7 71.4

12 28.6 28.6 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 20

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Fear of Virus by Dependent


Frequencies

Fear of virus

42

0

3.21

.12

.78

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

9 21.4 21.4 21.4

15 35.7 35.7 57.1

18 42.9 42.9 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 21

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Privacy by Dependent


Frequencies

Privacy

42

0

3.00

.14

.94

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

3 7.1 7.1 7.1

9 21.4 21.4 28.6

15 35.7 35.7 64.3

15 35.7 35.7 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 22

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Security by Dependent


Frequencies

Security

42

0

3.00

.13

.86

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

15 35.7 35.7 35.7

12 28.6 28.6 64.3

15 35.7 35.7 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 23

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Keyboard Limitation by


Frequencies

Keyboard limitation

42

0

2.79

.15

.95

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

3 7.1 7.1 7.1

15 35.7 35.7 42.9

12 28.6 28.6 71.4

12 28.6 28.6 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 24

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Size of the Screen by


Frequencies

Size of the screen

42

0

2.93

.14

.89

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

18 42.9 42.9 42.9

9 21.4 21.4 64.3

15 35.7 35.7 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 25

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Menu Limitation by


Frequencies

Menu limitation

42

0

2.79

.13

.87

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

21 50.0 50.0 50.0

9 21.4 21.4 71.4

12 28.6 28.6 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 26

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Software Installation by


Frequencies

Software installation

42

0

2.43

.15

.99

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

6 14.3 14.3 14.3

21 50.0 50.0 64.3

6 14.3 14.3 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 27

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Hardware Installation by


Frequencies

Hardware installation

42

0

2.07

.17

1.11

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

15 35.7 35.7 35.7

18 42.9 42.9 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 28

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Choose Operating System by


Frequencies

Choose the OS

42

0

2.43

.15

.99

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

6 14.3 14.3 14.3

21 50.0 50.0 64.3

6 14.3 14.3 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 29

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Independent Variable Choose Browser by


Frequencies

Table 30

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage and Gender

30 2.70 2.04 .37

12 4.00 1.95 .56

30 3.10 2.20 .40

12 4.50 2.15 .62

gender

male

female

male

female

Amount of time

Frequency of usage

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Choose brower

42

0

2.21

.17

1.09

Valid

Missing

N

Mean

Std. Error of Mean

Std. Deviation

12 28.6 28.6 28.6

18 42.9 42.9 71.4

3 7.1 7.1 78.6

9 21.4 21.4 100.0

42 100.0 100.0

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

Valid


Percent


Table 31

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage and Age

Table 32

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage and Educational

Background

6 5.00 1.10

15 4.20 1.90

12 2.25 1.71

9 1.00 .00

42 3.07 2.08

6 6.00 .00

15 4.60 1.92

12 2.75 1.86

9 1.00 .00

42 3.50 2.26

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

Amount of time

Frequency of usage

N Mean Std. Deviation

3 1.00 .00

27 3.56 2.21

12 2.50 1.57

42 3.07 2.08

3 1.00 .00

27 3.89 2.17

12 3.25 2.38

42 3.50 2.26

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

Amount of time

Frequency of usage



Table 33

Mean Scores and Frequencies of the Dependent Variable System Usage and Occupation

Table 34

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Intention to Use and

Gender

36 3.08 2.09

3 5.00 .00

3 1.00 .00

42 3.07 2.08

36 3.58 2.29

3 5.00 .00

3 1.00 .00

42 3.50 2.26

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Amount of time

Frequency of usage



30 2.40 1.22 .22

12 2.25 1.36 .39

42 2.36 1.25 .19

male

female

Total

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error


Table 35


Age

Table 36


Educational Background


6 2.00 1.10 .45

15 1.80 1.21 .31

12 2.25 1.14 .33

9 3.67 .50 .17

42 2.36 1.25 .19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total



3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.33 1.18 .23

12 2.00 1.28 .37

42 2.36 1.25 .19

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total



Table 37


Occupation

Table 38

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Usefulness

and Gender


36 2.33 1.20 .20

3 1.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.36 1.25 .19

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total


30 2.20 1.10 .20

12 2.50 .90 .26

42 2.29 1.04 .16

30 2.20 1.10 .20

12 2.50 .90 .26

42 2.29 1.04 .16

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

Performanceimprovement on the job




Table 39


and Age

Table 40


and Educational Background

6 2.00 .00 .00

15 1.80 1.21 .31

12 2.50 .90 .26

9 3.00 .87 .29

42 2.29 1.04 .16

6 2.00 .00 .00

15 1.80 1.21 .31

12 2.50 .90 .26

9 3.00 .87 .29

42 2.29 1.04 .16

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total




3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.44 .97 .19

12 1.50 .52 .15

42 2.29 1.04 .16

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.44 .97 .19

12 1.50 .52 .15

42 2.29 1.04 .16

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total





Table 41


and Occupation

Table 42

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Ease of Use

and Gender

36 2.17 1.00 .17

3 2.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.29 1.04 .16

36 2.17 1.00 .17

3 2.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.29 1.04 .16

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total




30 2.50 .82 .15

12 2.50 1.17 .34

42 2.50 .92 .14

30 2.70 1.02 .19

12 2.25 1.36 .39

42 2.57 1.13 .17

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

Easy to use




Table 43


and Age

Table 44



6 2.50 .55 .22

15 1.80 .41 .11

12 2.75 1.14 .33

9 3.33 .50 .17

42 2.50 .92 .14

6 2.00 1.10 .45

15 2.20 1.21 .31

12 2.75 1.14 .33

9 3.33 .50 .17

42 2.57 1.13 .17

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

Easy to use



3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.44 .85 .16

12 2.25 .87 .25

42 2.50 .92 .14

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.67 1.07 .21

12 2.00 1.04 .30

42 2.57 1.13 .17

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

Easy to use




Table 45


and Occupation

Table 46

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Attitude Towards Use

and Gender

36 2.67 .86 .14

3 1.00 .00 .00

3 2.00 .00 .00

42 2.50 .92 .14

36 2.58 1.05 .18

3 1.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.57 1.13 .17

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Easy to use



30 2.10 .96 .18

12 2.00 1.28 .37

42 2.07 1.05 .16

30 2.30 1.12 .20

12 2.75 .87 .25

42 2.43 1.06 .16

30 2.10 1.16 .21

12 2.00 1.28 .37

42 2.07 1.18 .18

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total


Benefits whenaccomplishing my job




Table 47


and Age

6 1.50 .55 .22

15 1.40 .51 .13

12 2.25 1.14 .33

9 3.33 .50 .17

42 2.07 1.05 .16

6 2.00 .00 .00

15 1.80 1.21 .31

12 2.75 .87 .25

9 3.33 .50 .17

42 2.43 1.06 .16

6 1.50 .55 .22

15 1.60 1.24 .32

12 2.25 1.14 .33

9 3.00 .87 .29

42 2.07 1.18 .18

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total






Table 48



3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.00 .96 .18

12 1.75 .87 .25

42 2.07 1.05 .16

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.56 .97 .19

12 1.75 .87 .25

42 2.43 1.06 .16

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.00 1.18 .23

12 1.75 .87 .25

42 2.07 1.18 .18

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total






Table 49


and Occupation

36 2.17 1.08 .18

3 1.00 .00 .00

3 2.00 .00 .00

42 2.07 1.05 .16

36 2.25 1.02 .17

3 3.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.43 1.06 .16

36 2.00 1.10 .18

3 1.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.07 1.18 .18

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total






Table 50

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived Accessibility

and Gender

30 2.30 1.29 .24

12 2.25 1.36 .39

42 2.29 1.29 .20

30 2.20 1.19 .22

12 2.25 1.36 .39

42 2.21 1.22 .19

30 3.10 .96 .18

12 3.25 1.36 .39

42 3.14 1.07 .17

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

Accessibility


Download time



Table 51


and Age

6 2.00 1.10 .45

15 1.80 1.21 .31

12 2.00 1.28 .37

9 3.67 .50 .17

42 2.29 1.29 .20

6 2.00 1.10 .45

15 1.60 1.24 .32

12 2.25 1.14 .33

9 3.33 .50 .17

42 2.21 1.22 .19

6 2.50 1.64 .67

15 3.00 1.31 .34

12 3.50 .52 .15

9 3.33 .50 .17

42 3.14 1.07 .17

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

Accessibility


Download time



Table 52



3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.22 1.25 .24

12 2.00 1.28 .37

42 2.29 1.29 .20

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.22 1.25 .24

12 1.75 .87 .25

42 2.21 1.22 .19

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 3.22 1.05 .20

12 2.75 1.14 .33

42 3.14 1.07 .17

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

Accessibility


Download time



Table 53


and Occupation

36 2.25 1.25 .21

3 1.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.29 1.29 .20

36 2.17 1.16 .19

3 1.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.21 1.22 .19

36 3.00 1.10 .18

3 4.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 3.14 1.07 .17

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Accessibility


Download time



Table 54

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable System Support and

Gender

Table 55


Age

Assistance

30 2.00 1.20 .22

12 3.00 .74 .21

42 2.29 1.17 .18

male

female

Total


Assistance

6 2.50 .55 .22

15 2.00 1.31 .34

12 2.50 1.17 .34

9 2.33 1.32 .44

42 2.29 1.17 .18

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total



Table 56


Personal Background

Table 57


Occupation

Assistance

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.44 1.19 .23

12 1.50 .52 .15

42 2.29 1.17 .18

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total


Assistance

36 2.08 1.13 .19

3 3.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.29 1.17 .18

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total



Table 58

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Security and Gender

30 2.70 1.12 .20

12 3.00 .74 .21

42 2.79 1.02 .16

30 3.30 .79 .15

12 3.00 .74 .21

42 3.21 .78 .12

30 3.10 .84 .15

12 2.75 1.14 .33

42 3.00 .94 .14

30 2.70 .79 .15

12 3.75 .45 .13

42 3.00 .86 .13

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

Fear of hackers

Fear of virus

Privacy

Security



Table 59

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Security and Age

6 2.50 .55 .22

15 3.00 1.13 .29

12 2.75 1.14 .33

9 2.67 1.00 .33

42 2.79 1.02 .16

6 2.50 .55 .22

15 3.60 .51 .13

12 2.75 .87 .25

9 3.67 .50 .17

42 3.21 .78 .12

6 2.00 1.10 .45

15 3.60 .51 .13

12 3.00 .74 .21

9 2.67 1.00 .33

42 3.00 .94 .14

6 4.00 .00 .00

15 2.60 .83 .21

12 3.00 .74 .21

9 3.00 .87 .29

42 3.00 .86 .13

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

Fear of hackers

Fear of virus

Privacy

Security



Table 60

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Security and Personal

Background

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 3.00 .68 .13

12 2.00 1.28 .37

42 2.79 1.02 .16

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 3.22 .80 .15

12 3.00 .74 .21

42 3.21 .78 .12

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 3.00 .96 .18

12 2.75 .87 .25

42 3.00 .94 .14

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 3.22 .80 .15

12 2.25 .45 .13

42 3.00 .86 .13

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

Fear of hackers

Fear of virus

Privacy

Security

N MeanStd.

Deviation Std. Error


Table 61

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Security and

Occupation

36 2.67 1.04 .17

3 3.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.79 1.02 .16

36 3.17 .81 .14

3 3.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 3.21 .78 .12

36 2.92 .97 .16

3 3.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 3.00 .94 .14

36 2.92 .87 .15

3 3.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 3.00 .86 .13

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Fear of hackers

Fear of virus

Privacy

Security



Table 62

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Interface and Gender

30 2.80 .76 .14

12 2.75 1.36 .39

42 2.79 .95 .15

30 2.90 .84 .15

12 3.00 1.04 .30

42 2.93 .89 .14

30 2.80 .89 .16

12 2.75 .87 .25

42 2.79 .87 .13

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

Keyboard limitation

Size of the screen

Menu limitation



Table 63

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Interface and Age

6 2.50 1.64 .67

15 2.60 .83 .21

12 2.75 .87 .25

9 3.33 .50 .17

42 2.79 .95 .15

6 3.00 1.10 .45

15 2.80 1.01 .26

12 3.00 .74 .21

9 3.00 .87 .29

42 2.93 .89 .14

6 2.50 .55 .22

15 2.80 1.01 .26

12 2.75 .87 .25

9 3.00 .87 .29

42 2.79 .87 .13

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

Keyboard limitation

Size of the screen

Menu limitation



Table 64

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Interface and

Educational Background

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.78 1.05 .20

12 2.50 .52 .15

42 2.79 .95 .15

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.78 .93 .18

12 3.00 .74 .21

42 2.93 .89 .14

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.67 .83 .16

12 2.75 .87 .25

42 2.79 .87 .13

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

Keyboard limitation

Size of the screen

Menu limitation



Table 65

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Interface and

Occupation

36 2.75 .94 .16

3 2.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.79 .95 .15

36 2.92 .87 .15

3 2.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.93 .89 .14

36 2.75 .84 .14

3 2.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.79 .87 .13

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Keyboard limitation

Size of the screen

Menu limitation



Table 66

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Independent Variable Perceived User Control

and Gender

30 2.30 1.02 .19

12 2.75 .87 .25

42 2.43 .99 .15

30 2.10 1.06 .19

12 2.00 1.28 .37

42 2.07 1.11 .17

30 2.40 .93 .17

12 2.50 1.17 .34

42 2.43 .99 .15

30 2.20 1.10 .20

12 2.25 1.14 .33

42 2.21 1.09 .17

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total

male

female

Total



Choose the OS

Choose brower



Table 67


and Age

6 2.50 .55 .22

15 2.00 1.13 .29

12 2.50 .90 .26

9 3.00 .87 .29

42 2.43 .99 .15

6 1.50 .55 .22

15 1.80 1.21 .31

12 2.25 1.14 .33

9 2.67 1.00 .33

42 2.07 1.11 .17

6 2.00 1.10 .45

15 2.20 1.01 .26

12 2.50 .90 .26

9 3.00 .87 .29

42 2.43 .99 .15

6 1.50 .55 .22

15 1.80 1.21 .31

12 2.50 .90 .26

9 3.00 .87 .29

42 2.21 1.09 .17

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 or more

Total



Choose the OS

Choose brower



Table 68



3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.44 .97 .19

12 2.00 .74 .21

42 2.43 .99 .15

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.00 1.18 .23

12 1.75 .45 .13

42 2.07 1.11 .17

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.33 1.07 .21

12 2.25 .45 .13

42 2.43 .99 .15

3 4.00 .00 .00

27 2.11 1.12 .22

12 2.00 .74 .21

42 2.21 1.09 .17

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total

High School

Graduate

Masters

Total



Choose the OS

Choose brower



Table 69


and Occupation

36 2.33 .96 .16

3 2.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.43 .99 .15

36 2.00 1.01 .17

3 1.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.07 1.11 .17

36 2.33 .96 .16

3 2.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.43 .99 .15

36 2.08 1.05 .18

3 2.00 .00 .00

3 4.00 .00 .00

42 2.21 1.09 .17

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total

Insurence agent

Manager

General manager

Total



Choose the OS

Choose brower



Reliability

The reliability of the instrument developed for this research was evaluated. The

system usage instrumentation was tested for internal consistency by computing the

Chronbach’s coefficient alpha for the 2 measures of system usage, amount of time and

frequency of usage of handheld devices to access the Internet. The coefficient alpha for

the system usage is .953 (Appendix 2). This indicates that the system usage data shows

substantial internal consistency.

All questions were tested, and if approved, unified due to the variation of items

within each subtitle. A new variable was created in the data set to reflect each individual

subtopic. The variable was computed in SPSS by using the factor analysis (data

reduction) and saving the results as a new variable (as showed in Appendix 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

7, 8 and 9).

System Acceptance Analysis

Research Question 1

The first question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between intention

to use and the acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet? The research


hypothesis to be tested in question number one is, there is positive relationship between

intention to use: likelihood of using the Internet and the acceptance of using handheld

devices to access the Internet. Question 1 was investigated by analyzing the correlation

between the two variables.


Results. The results of the correlation are presented in the table 70. The

correlation between intention to use and system usage is negative and achieved

significance (r = -.744, p < .01). The results did not support research hypothesis 1 that

there is a positive relationship between intention to use and the acceptance of using the

Internet on handheld devices. This indicates that intention to use has a strong negative

correlation, which was specified at the .05 level of significance, with the acceptance of

using the Internet on handheld devices; thus hypothesis 1 is not supported.

Table 70

Correlation between intention to use and system usage

Research Question 2

The second question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between

perceived usefulness and the acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet?

The research indicates that there is a strong correlation between these factors. Therefore,

the hypothesis to be tested in question number two is, there is positive relationship

Correlations

1.000 -.744**

. .000

42 42

-.744** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

System Usage

Intention to Use

System Usage Intention to Use

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).**.


between perceived usefulness: performance, productivity and the acceptance of using

handheld devices to access the Internet. Question 2 was investigated using a correlation

analysis.


correlation between perceived usefulness and system usage is negative and achieved

significance (r = -.715, p < .01). This indicates that results did not support hypothesis 2

that there is positive relationship between perceived usefulness and system usage.

Perceived usefulness has a strong negative correlation, which was specified at the .05

level of significance, with the acceptance of using the Internet on handheld devices.

Table 71

Correlation between perceived usefulness and system usage

Research Question 3

Correlations

1.000 -.715**

. .000

42 42

-.715** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

System Usage

Perceived Usefulness

System UsagePerceivedUsefulness



The third question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between perceived

ease of use and the acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet? The


hypothesis to be tested in question number three is, there is positive relationship between

perceived ease of use: ease of use, and experience and the acceptance of using handheld

devices to access the Internet.


correlation between perceived ease of use and system usage is negative and achieved


there is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and system usage. This

indicates that perceived ease of use has a strong negative correlation, which was specified

at the .05 level of significance, with the acceptance of using the Internet on handheld

devices.

Table 72

Correlation between perceived ease of use and system usage

Correlations

1.000 -.681**

. .000

42 42

-.681** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

System Usage

Perceived Ease of Use

System UsagePerceived

Ease of Use



Research Question 4

The fourth question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between

perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness? The research indicates that there is a

strong correlation between these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in

question number four is, there is positive relationship between perceived ease of use: ease

of use, and experience and perceived usefulness: performance, and productivity.


correlation between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness is positive and

achieved significance (r = .711, p < .01). The results support research hypothesis 4 that

there is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness in

regard to system usage. This indicates that perceived ease of use has a strong positive

correlation with perceived usefulness.

Table 73

Correlation between perceived usefulness and system usage

Correlations

1.000 .711**

. .000

42 42

.711** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N



PerceivedEase of Use

PerceivedUsefulness



Research Question 5

The fifth question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between attitude

towards use and system usage? The research indicates that there is a strong correlation

between these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in question number five is,

there is positive relationship between attitude towards use: enjoyment, benefits, and

likelihood of a good idea and the acceptance of using handheld devices to access the

Internet.


correlation between attitude towards use and system usage is positive and achieved


there is a positive relationship between attitude towards use and system usage. This

indicates that attitude towards use has a negative correlation, which was specified at the

.05 level of significance, with the acceptance of using the Internet on handheld devices.

Table 74

Correlation between attitude towards use and system usage

Correlations

1.000 -.808**

. .000

42 42

-.808** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

System Usage

Atitude Torwards Use

System UsageAtitude

Torwards Use



Research Question 6

The sixth question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between attitude

towards use and perceived usefulness? The research indicates that there is a strong

correlation between these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in question

number six is, there is positive relationship between perceived usefulness: performance,

and productivity and the attitude towards using handheld devices to access the Internet.


correlation between attitude towards use and perceived usefulness is positive and


there is a positive relationship between attitude towards use and perceived usefulness.

This indicates that attitude towards use has a strong positive correlation with perceived

usefulness. Therefore, the results supported hypothesis 6.

Table 75

Correlation between attitude towards use and perceived usefulness

Correlations

1.000 .929**

. .000

42 42

.929** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Atitude Towards Use


AtitudeTorwards Use

PerceivedUsefulness



Research Question 7

The seventh question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between

attitude towards use and perceived ease of use? The research indicates that there is a


question number seven is, there is positive relationship between perceived ease of use:

ease of use, and experience and the attitude towards using handheld devices to access the

Internet.


correlation between attitude towards use and perceived ease of use is positive and


there is a positive relationship between attitude towards use and perceived ease of use.

This indicates that attitude towards use has a strong positive correlation perceived ease of

use. Therefore, the results supported hypothesis 7.

Table 76

Correlation between attitude towards use and perceived ease of use

Correlations

1.000 .827**

. .000

42 42

.827** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Atitude Towards Use


AtitudeTowards Use




Research Question 8

The eighth question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between

perceived ease of use and accessibility? The research indicates that there is a strong

correlation between these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in question

number eight is, there is positive relationship between perceived accessibility: access,

receiving real-time information, and download time and perceived ease of use: ease of

use, and experience.


correlation between perceived ease of use and accessibility is positive and achieved

significance (.835, p < .01). The results support research hypothesis 8 that there is a

positive relationship between perceived ease of use and accessibility. This indicates that

perceived ease of use has a strong positive correlation with accessibility. Therefore, the

results supported hypothesis 8.

Table 77

Correlation between perceived ease of use and accessibility

Correlations

1.000 .835**

. .000

42 42

.835** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N


Perceived Accessibility


PerceivedAccessibility



Research Question 9

The ninth question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between system

support and perceived usefulness? The research indicates that there is a strong correlation

between these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in question number nine is,

there is positive relationship between system support: assistance and perceived

usefulness: performance, and productivity.


correlation between system support and perceived usefulness is positive and achieved

significance (r = .768, p < .01). The results support research hypothesis 9 that there is a

positive relationship between system support and perceived usefulness. This indicates

that system support has a strong negative correlation with perceived usefulness.

Table 78

Correlation between system support and perceived usefulness

Correlations

1.000 .768**

. .000

42 42

.768** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

System Support


System SupportPerceivedUsefulness



Research Question 12

The six question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between interface

and perceived ease of use? The research indicates that there is a strong correlation

between these factors. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in question number twelve

is, there is positive relationship between interface: keyboard limitation, size of the screen,

menu limitation and perceived ease of use: ease of use, and experience.


correlation between interface and perceived ease of use is positive and achieved

significance (r = .642, p < .01). The results support research hypothesis 12 that there is a

positive relationship between interface and perceived ease of use. This indicates that

interface has a strong positive correlation with perceived ease of use.

Table 79

Correlation between interface and perceived ease of use

Correlations

1.000 .642**

. .000

42 42

.642** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Interface


InterfacePerceived

Ease of Use




The thirteenth question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between

perceived user control and attitude towards use? The research indicates that there is a


question number thirteen is, there is positive relationship between perceived user control:

install software, upgrade, operation system, and browser option and the attitude towards

using handheld devices to access the Internet.


correlation between perceived user control and attitude towards use is positive and


there is a positive relationship between perceived user control and attitude towards use.

This indicates that perceived user control has a strong positive correlation with attitude

towards use.

Table 80

Correlation between perceived user control and attitude towards use

Correlations

1.000 .924**

. .000

42 42

.924** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N


Atitude Towards Use

PerceivedUser Control

AtitudeTowards Use




The fourteenth question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between

perceived user control and perceived ease of use? The research indicates that there is a


question number fourteen is, there is positive relationship between perceived user control:

install software, upgrade, operation system, and browser option and perceived ease of

use: ease of use, and experience.


correlation between perceived user control and perceived ease of use is positive and


there is a positive relationship between perceived user control and perceived ease of use.

This indicates that perceived user control has a strong positive correlation with perceived

ease of use.

Table 81

Correlation between perceived user control and perceived ease of use

Correlations

1.000 .699**

. .000

42 42

.699** 1.000

.000 .

42 42

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (1-tailed)

N



PerceivedUser Control





The question posed by this study is, is there a relationship between system usage

and gender? The research indicates that there is a positive relationship between the

acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet a gender. Therefore, the

hypothesis to be tested in question number fifteen is, there is positive relationship

between gender and system usage.

Results. The result of the t-test is presented in the table 82. Table 82 shows the

comparison between the t-statistics and the significance points from the t-distribution

with 42-2 = 40 degrees of freedom. The results showed that the P is equal to .061, which

is greater than .05 (level of significance). Therefore, the null hypothesis 15 is accepted.

Table 82

t-test between gender and system usage

Independent Samples Test

.874 .356 -1.93 40 .061 -.583 .302 -1.194 .029

-1.95 21 .064 -.583 .298 -1.203 .038

Equal variancesassumed

Equal variancesnot assumed

System Usage

F Sig.

Levene’sTest for

Equality ofVariances

t dfSig.

(2-tailed)MeanDiff.

Std.ErrorDiff. Lower Upper

95%Confidence

Interval of theDifference

t-test for Equality of Means


Chapter Summary

The analyses investigated in this chapter correspond to whether the technology

acceptance model relates to the usage of the Internet on handheld devices. This research

project investigates Davis’s technology acceptance model (TAM) regarding the usage of

handheld devices to access the Internet. The results of the second section of the chapter

indicates that intention to use, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude

towards use, and age have a strong negative correlation with the acceptance of using the

Internet on handheld devices. Perceived ease of use, attitude towards use, and system

support have a strong positive correlation with perceived usefulness. Attitude towards

use, interface, perceived user control, and accessibility have a strong positive correlation

with perceived ease of use. The results showed also that perceived user control has a

strong positive correlation with attitude towards use. Finally, it was found that gender has

a weak positive relationship with the acceptance of using the Internet on handheld

devices.

It was also observed that the majority of the respondents were male (71%), who

35.7% were between 30 to 39 years of age and 65% completed their bachelors’ degree. A

reliability check was done to verify the validity of the variables and also to integrate

every question within its subtopic. This test was accomplished by using the Cronsbach’s

alpha. The integration factor was extracted from the data reduction factor. Among the

fifteen hypotheses studied in this paper, only two were rejected.

A detailed discussion of the conclusions and recommendations follows at Chapter

5. This chapter will discuss the implications of the findings in the analysis chapter and

suggest future research on the acceptance of mobile technologies in Hawaii.


Chapter 5: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

Purpose of Paper

The purpose of this research project was to use the technology acceptance model


project narrows the research by surveying only employees from three large life and health

insurance companies in Honolulu.

Purpose of Chapter

The purpose of this chapter is to conclude the research on the acceptance of

mobile Internet connectivity in three large life and health insurance companies in

Honolulu. This final chapter presents the findings, recommendations, and conclusions of

this study. The findings section presents the data revealed as a result of the analysis

concluded and reported in the previous chapter. The conclusion section shows the

comments on the results gathered in the previous section and the effects on sample size,

sample techniques, and instrumentation. In the recommendation section, the researcher

presents comments about the use of the results of the study. The dilemma presented in the

study is investigated by analyzing the outcome of each research question in relation to

life and health insurance organizations. Furthermore, it is proposed further studies on the

acceptance of mobile connectivity. The chapter and the study end with a summary of the

main points investigated and analyzed in this study.


Findings

The findings in this study revealed that the respondents somewhat accepted the

usage of the Internet on handheld devices.

In research question number 1, the results did not support hypothesis 1 that there

is a positive relationship between intention to use and the acceptance of using the Internet

on handheld devices. The results indicated that intention to use has a strong negative

correlation with the acceptance of using the Internet on handheld devices and achieve

significance (r = -.744, p < .05). Therefore, individuals may not be counting on use the

Internet on handheld devices.

In research question number 2, the results did not support hypothesis 2 that there

is positive relationship between perceived usefulness and system usage. Instead,

perceived usefulness has a strong negative correlation with the acceptance of using the

Internet on handheld devices and achieve significance (r = -.715, p < .05). Therefore,

individuals may not necessarily use the Internet on handheld devices to increase

productivity or performance on their job.

In research question number 3, the results did not support research hypothesis 3

that there is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and system usage. This

indicates that perceived ease of use has a strong negative correlation with the acceptance

of using the Internet on handheld devices and achieve significance (r = -.681, p < .05).

Therefore, individuals are likely to use the Internet on handheld devices if they believe it

is ease to use.

In research question number 4, the results support research hypothesis 4 that there

is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness in


regard to system usage. This indicates that perceived ease of use has a strong positive

correlation with perceived usefulness and achieve significance (r = .711, p < .05). This

shows that perceived ease of use has a direct effect on the acceptance of using the

Internet on handheld devices thought perceived usefulness. Therefore, combining

Hypothesis 2, 3 and 4, individuals are likely to accept the Internet on handheld devices if

they believe it is ease to use and it will increase their performance and productivity on the

job.

In research question number 5, the results did not support research hypothesis 5

that there is a positive relationship between attitude towards use and system usage. This

indicates that attitude towards use has a negative correlation with the acceptance of using

the Internet on handheld devices and achieve significance (r = -.808, p < .05). The result

shows that individuals may not believe they would enjoy the benefits of the technology.

In research question number 6 and number 7, the results support research

hypotheses 6 and 7 that there is a positive relationship between attitude towards use and

perceived usefulness and attitude towards use and perceived ease of use. This indicates

that attitude towards use has a strong positive correlation with perceived usefulness and

perceived ease of use and achieve significance (r = -.929 and r = 827, respectively, p <

.05). This shows that individuals are more likely to enjoy the benefits of the technology if

it is easy to use, or if increases their performance and productivity on the job.


is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and accessibility. This indicates

that perceived ease of use has a strong positive correlation with accessibility. Therefore,

accessibility could be viewed as a predictor of perceived ease of use of mobile


technology and achieve significance (r = .835, p < .05). This result shows that

accessibility has a direct effect on the acceptance of using the Internet on handheld

devices through perceived ease of use. Therefore, individuals are more likely to use the

system if they believe that the downloading time, the importance of receiving real-time

information and the importance of accessing the Internet are easy tasks to be

accomplished on handheld devices.


is a positive relationship between system support and perceived usefulness. This indicates

that system support has a strong positive correlation with perceived usefulness.

Therefore, system support is directly related to perceived usefulness of mobile

technology and achieve significance (r = .768, p < .05). The results shows that system

support has a direct effect on the acceptance of using the Internet on handheld devices

through perceived usefulness. Therefore, individuals are more likely to believe that by

using the system, they can increase their performance and productivity on the job if they

receive system support.

In research question number 12, the results support research hypothesis 12 that

there is a positive relationship between interface and perceived ease of use. This indicates

that interface has a strong positive correlation with perceived ease of use. Therefore, as

expected, the interface used in handheld devices was directly related to perceived ease of

use and achieve significance (r = .642, p < .05). The result shows that because of the size

of they screen, keyboard and menu limitations, individuals are less likely to believe that

the technology is ease to use and, thus accept it.



there is a positive relationship between perceived user control and attitude towards use.

This indicates that perceived user control has a strong positive correlation with attitude

towards use. Therefore, perceived user control is directly related to the attitude towards

usage of mobile technology to access the Internet and achieve significance (r = .924, p <

.05). The result shows that individuals are more likely to believe that they could enjoy the

benefits of the technology if they were able to install software and hardware, choose the

operating system, and choose the browser.


there is a positive relationship between perceived user control and perceived ease of use.

This indicates that perceived user control has a strong positive correlation with perceived

ease of use. Therefore, perceived user control was directly related to perceived ease of

use and achieve significance (r = .699, p < .01). This shows that perceived user control

has a direct effect on the acceptance of using the Internet on handheld devices thought

perceived ease of use. Therefore, combining hypothesis 3, and 14 individuals are more

likely to accept the technology and believe it is ease to use if it was possible to install

new hardware and software, and choose the operation system and browser on their

handheld devices.


personal background has a positive relationship between the acceptance of using

handheld devices to access the Internet and gender. The results showed that P is equal to

.061, which is greater than .05 (level of significance). Gender may have an effect on their


acceptance of using handheld devices to access the Internet. Therefore, the null

hypothesis 15 is accepted.

Conclusions

This project combined Davis’s Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) variables

with perceived accessibility, system support, interface, and perceived user control used in

other research projects of technology acceptance to study the acceptance of using the

Internet on handheld devices. The issues on the respondents’ behavioral, such as

perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, intention to use, attitude towards use,

perceived accessibility, system support, interface, and perceived user control measured

the correlation between the variables in regard to the acceptance of using the Internet on

handheld devices. A correlation, positive or negative, was not only found between

variables studied by Davis (1989), but also between other variables proposed in this

study, such as accessibility system support, interface and perceived user control.

Three conclusions were drawn from this study.

First, it was concluded that the TAM in conjunction with these variables was able

to predict the usage and acceptance of the Internet on handheld devices. The model used

in this study showed significant reliability to measure the acceptance of using the Internet

on handheld devices. Among the 15 research questions proposed in this research nine

hypotheses were supported by the results found in the analysis section of the project.

Among all the positive correlation found in this study, the relationships between attitude

towards use and perceived usefulness, and attitude towards use and perceived user

control posed the strongest positive correlation among all variables studied. Only two

hypotheses were rejected in this study. This could be related to the small sample size


presented in the study, which could influence the results, limiting the reliability of the

study. The relationships using perceived user control, accessibility, and interface were

found to be important predictors of system usage through perceived ease of use, and

system support was found to be an important predictor of system usage through perceived

usefulness.

The second conclusion that may be drawn from this study is that individuals

believe that by having control of the hardware, software, operating system, and browser

installed on their handheld devices, being able to have access to information at any time

and any where, or having a friendly user interface, the technology would be easier to use,

and thus more accepted. Also, it was concluded that individuals are more likely to believe

that the technology can improve their performance and productivity on the job if they

receive system support.

The third conclusion that may be drawn from this study is that assuming that the

acceptance of mobile technology was measured by the amount of time and the frequency

of usage of the technology, using the Internet on handheld devices, was somewhat

accepted among the respondents. More than half of the respondents (67.1%) intend to use

the Internet on handheld devices between less than 1 hour and more than 3 hours a day.

Coincidentally, it was found that 67.1% of the respondents intend to use the technology at

least once a month.

Recommendations

This study provides a baseline study for organizations and researches regarding

the acceptance employees in life and health insurance companies in Honolulu would have

to access the Internet on handheld devices. The results of this study presented


recommendations to two different organizations: life and health insurance, and mobile

technology.

Regarding the life and health insurance industry, the results of this study revealed

that the technology is somewhat accepted by the majority of the respondents. This points

out the need for organizational support regarding the usage of handheld devices for

financial planners along with training considering the gender of the employee,

particularly to solve problems pertaining to system support and the usefulness of the

technology. In regard to mobile technology organizations, issues on the accessibility,

security, and perceived user control were revealed to be an important predictor of system

usage.

The methodology applied in this study showed significant reliability. Therefore, it

is recommended to use the same method in other researches. More studies need to be

conducted to refine this survey instrument in order that it may be adapted in other studies

of mobile connectivity technologies. For example, a question regarding the usage of the

Internet, using a categorical variable (Yes or No) should be added to this study. In this

way, users employees that did not intend to use the Internet on handheld devices could

answer “no” and return the survey for future analysis. Questions should be tailored

according to the profession to which it is distributed. For instance, managers tend to work

in the office, making less use of mobile technology to access the Internet. Questions

regarding accessibility should be redesigned or added to the survey. Finally, although the

three main life and health insurance companies in Honolulu were used in this research,

the small sample size could present a possible source of incorrectness.


Chapter Summary

In summary, the findings of this study revealed that the respondents somewhat

accepted the usage of the Internet on handheld devices. It was concluded that from all the

research hypothesis presented in this study, four hypothesis were revealed to have a

negative correlation between the variables, while nine were reveled to have a positive

correlation between the variables, and two hypothesis were rejected. The main

recommendation drawn from this study was that accessibility, security, and perceived

user control revealed to be an important predictor of system usage. This could be

favorable to organizations that use and depend on mobile technology to generate profits.


References

Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992, June). Perceived usefulness,

ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication. MIS Quarterly, 16, 227-

247.

Agrawal, P., & Famolari, D. (1999, November). Mobile Computing in Next

Generation Wireless Networks. Communications of the ACM [On-line]. Available:

http://www.acm.org [2000, June 23].

Alanko, T., Kojo, M., Laamanen, H., Liljeberg, M., Moilanan, M., & Raatikainen,

K. (1994, November). Measured performance of data transmission over cellular

telephone networks. Computer Communication Review, 24, 24-44.

Allen, J. (1998, June). Who shapes the future? Computers and Society.

Association for Computing Machinery- ACM [On-line]. Available: http://www.acm.org

[2000, July 02].

Alvi, H. (1999, February 01). Technical zone: WAP: Internet to the handset-close

to reality voice dialing in Latin America. Lighting Dimensions. Electronic Library. [On-

line]. Available: http://www.elibrary.com [2000, June 23].

Amoroso, D. L., & Cheney, P. H. (1991). Testing a casual model of end-user

application effectiveness. Journal of Management Information Systems, 8, 63-89.

Bagozzi, R. P., Davis, F. D., & Warshaw (1992, July). Development and test of a

theory of technological learning and usage. Human Relations, 45, 659-686.

Berners-Lee, T., Cailliau, R., Luotonen, A., Nielsen, H. F., & Secret, A. (1994,

August). The World Wide Web. Communications of the ACM, 37, 76-82.


Billsus, D., Pazzani, M. J., & Chen, J. (2000, June). A learning agent for wireless

news access. Communications of the ACM [On-line]. Available: http://www.acm.org

[2000, June 23].

Bowman, C. M., Danzing, P. B., Manber, U., & Schwartz, M. F. (1994, August).

Scalable Internet resource discovery: research problems and approaches.

Communications of the ACM, 37, [On-line]. Available: http://www.acm.org [2000, June

23]

Buyukkurt, M. D., & Vass, E. C. (1993). An investigation of factors contributing

to satisfaction with end-user computing process. Canadian Journal of Administrative

Sciences, 10, 212-228.

Cappelletti, L. (1997, May 27). Mobile computing – beyond laptops. PC

Magazine. Communications of the ACM. [On-line]. Available: http://www.acm.org

[2000, June 23]

Casey, H. V. E., & Wolf, J. S. (1989). Developing visual literacy among

academically able fifth-grade students. Roeper Review, 12, 86-91.

Chau, P. Y. K. (1996, Fall). An empirical assessment of a modified technology

acceptance model. Journal of Management in Information Systems, 13, 185-204.

Clark, D., & Pasquale, J. (1996, September 26). Strategic directions in

Networking and telecommunications. MIT-Laboratory for Computer Science. [On-line].

Available: http://ana-www.lcs.mit.edu/projects/sdcr-net/reportP4.2.html. [2000, June 22].

Crowe, D. (2000, March, January 01). WML: the ML that matters. Wireless

Review. Electronic Library. [On-line]. Available: http://www.elibrary.com [2000, June

23].


Culnan, M. J. (1985). The dimension of perceived accessibility to information:

implications for the delivery of information systems and services. Journal of the

American Society of Information Systems, 36, 302-308.

Davis, F. D. (1989, September). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and

user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-339.

DeMarie, S. M., Townsend, A. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998, August). Virtual

Teams: Technology and the Workplace of the Future. Academy of Management

Executive, 12.

Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance

model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36, 9-21.

Flaherty, N. (1999, March 22). Communication—focus: wireless Internet access:

WAP optimized for heavy traffic. Electronic Engineering Times. Electronic Library. [On-

line]. Available: http://www.elibrary.com [2000, June 23].

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an

introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fonseca, B. (2000, June 12). Cell phone virus scare raises questions about device

security. Electronic Library. [On-line]. Available: http://www.elibrary.com [2000, June

23].

Fritz, M. B. W., Narashimhan S., & Rhee H. (1998). Communication and

coordination in the virtual office. Journal of Management Information System, 14, 7-28.

Gallanger, K., & McFarland, M. A. (1996). The wired physician: current clinical

information on the Internet. Missouri Medicine, 93, 487-507.


Gerson, M., Chien, I. S., & Raval, V. (1992, January). Computer assisted decision

support systems: their use in strategic decision. Communications of the ACM [On-line].

Available: http://www.acm.org [2000, June 23].

Goodwin, N. C. (1987, March). Functionality and usability. Communications of

ACM, 30, 229-233.

Graves, W. H. (1996, September/October). We need Internet IT. Educom Review,

28-31.

Guyon, J. (2000, June 20). The world is your office what will it be like when you

can be at work or on the Net or trading stocks wherever you are, whenever you want?

Here’s a glimpse. Fortune. Electronic Library. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.elibrary.com [2000, June 23].

Hakken, D. (1993). Computing and social change: New technology and

workplace transformation, 1980-1990. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, 107-32.

Haynes, R. M., & Thies (1991, August). Management of technology in service

firms. Journal of Operations Management, 10, 388-397.

Hendrickson, A. R., & Collins, M. R. (1996, Spring). An assessment of structure

and causation of IS usage. The DATABASE for advances in Information Systems, 27,

61-67.

Hjelm, J., Martim, B., & King, P. (1998, September 28). WAP Forum – W3C

cooperation. WAP Forum. [On-line]. Available: http://wapforum.org/what/docs/WAP-

W3C-white-paper_v1.2.htm [2000, June 20].


Housel, B. C., & Lindquist, D. B. (1996). WebExpress: a system for optimizing

Web browsing in a wireless environment. Communications of the ACM [On-line].

Available: http://www.acm.org [2000, June 23].

Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y. K., Lui Sheng, O. R., & Tam, K. Y. (1999, Fall). Examining

the Technology Acceptance Model using physician acceptance of telemedicine

technology. Journal of Information System Management, 16, 91-112.

Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A. L. M. (1997, September).

Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model. MIS

Quarterly, 279-305.

Igbaria, M. Guimaraes, T., & Davis, G. B. (1995, Spring). Testing the

determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model. Journal of

management in Information Systems, 11, 87-114.

Igbaria, M., Shayo, C., & Olfman, L. (1999). On becoming virtual: the driving

forces and arrangements. SIGCPR 1999. Communications of the ACM [On-line].

Available: http://www.acm.org [2000, July 02].

Imielinsky, T., & Badrinath, B. R., (1994, October). Wireless Computing.

Communications of the ACM [On-line]. Available: http://www.acm.org [2000, June 23].

Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived

usefulness and ease of use. Information & Management, 35, 237-250.

Kanter, J. (2000, Summer). Have we forgotten the fundamental IT enabler: ease

of use. Information Systems Management, 17, 70-77.

Kerr, E., & Hiltz, S. R. (1982). Computer-mediated communications systems.

Academic Press, New York.


Kleinrock, L. (1996). Nomadicity: anytime, anywhere in a disconnected world.

Communications of the ACM [On-line]. Available: http://www.acm.org [2000, July 02]

Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sena, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. (1998, September). The

role of ease of use, usefulness and attitude in the prediction of World Wide Web usage.

CPR 1998 Boston. Communications of the ACM [On-line]. Available:

http://www.acm.org [2000, July 02].

Leiner, B. M. (1994, August). Internet technology. Communication of the ACM,

37, 32.

Lowe, H. J., Lomax, E. C., & Polonkey, S. E. (1996). The World Wide Web: a

review of an emerging Internet –based technology for the distribution of biomedical

information. The Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 3, 1-14.

Lundberg, G. D. (1998). Medical information on the Internet. The Journal of

American Medical Association, 280, 1363.

Matcalfe, R. (1999, December). Invention is a flower, innovation is a weed.

Technology Review, 102, 55-57.

Mathieson, K. (1991, September). Predicting user intention: comparing the

technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems

Research, 2, 173-191.

McGinity, M. (1999, December). Flying wireless, with a Net. Communications of

the ACM [On-line]. Available: http://www.acm.org [2000, June 23].

Miller, T. E. (1996). Segmenting the Internet. American Demographics, 18, 48-

51.


Nelson, M. G. (2000, June 13). Will a wireless Europe overrun the U.S.?

Information Week. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20000613S0004 [2000, June 17].

Perkins, C. E. (1998). Mobile networking in the Internet. Mobile Network and

Applications. Communications of the ACM. [On-line]. Available: http://www.acm.org

[2000, June 23].

Pitkow, J. E., & Keho, C. M. (1996, June). Emerging trends in the WWW user

population. Communication of the ACM, 39, 106-108.

Reed-Flynn, H. (1999, August 31). On-line: WAP’s vision remains blurred.

Wireless Review. Electronic Library. [On-line]. Available: http://www.elibrary.com

[2000, June 23].

Roach, S. S. (September-October, 1998). In search of productivity. Harvard

Business Review, 76, 153-160.

Robey, D. (1979, September). User attitudes and management information system

use. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 527-538.

Sanches, J. (1999, June 07). Microsoft hedges its bets on WAP. InfoWorld.

Electronic Library. [On-line]. Available: http://www.elibrary.com [2000, June 18].

Schultz, R. L. & Slevin D. P. (1975). Implementation and organizational validity:

an empirical investigation, in implementing operations research. American Elsevier, 153-

182.

Sharma, M. K., & Bingi, P. (2000, Spring). The growth of Web-based investment.

Information Systems Management, 17, 58-64.


Shelly, G. B., Cashman, T. J., & Serwatka, J. A. (1998). Business Data

Communications. Cambridge, MA: International Thomson Publishing company, USA.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of

telecommunications. Wiley, London.

Shirk, C. (2000, May). WAP’s closed-door approach. Business 2.0, 120.

Straub, D., Limayem, M., & Karahanne-Evaristo (1998 August). Measuring

system usage: implications for IS theory testing. Management Science, 41, 309-319.

Survey says wait on wireless initiatives; banks press on with pilot programs

(1999, October 13). Retail Delivery News. Electronic Library. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.elibrary.com [2000, June 18].

Szajna, B. (1996, January). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology

acceptance model. Management Science, 42, 85-92.

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995, December). Assessing IT usage: the role of prior

experience, MIS Quarterly, 19, 561-570.

The Wireless Application Protocol: wireless Internet today (1999). WAP Forum.

[On-line]. Available: http://www.wapforum.org/what/WAP_white_pages.pdf [2000, June

20].

Vlahos G. E., & Ferrat, T. W. (1992 January), The use of information technology

by managers in corporations in Greece to support decision making. Communications of

the ACM. [On-line]. Available: http://www.acm.org [2000, July 02]

Wallace, B. (2000, June 28). Wireless Everything. InformationWeek. [On-line].

Available: http://www.informationweek.com/792/wless.htm [2000, July 17].


Walter, M., & Hamed, Y. (2000, February 29). The bottom line on WAP.

Wireless Review. Electronic Library. [On-line]. Available: http://www.elibrary.com

[2000, June 18].

Woodland, D. E., & Szul, L. F. (1999, Fall). Visualization ability, proofreading,

and color configurations of a computer screen—interaction and implications.

Organizational Systems Research Association, 17, 15-21.

Zanino, M. C., Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1994, February). Graphical User

interfaces and ease of use: some myths examined. SIGCPR. Communications of the

ACM. [On-line]. Available: http://www.acm.org [2000, June 23]

Xylomenos, G. (1999). Multi service link layer: an approach to enhancing Internet

performance over wireless links (link layer protocols). Digital Dissertations. [On-line].

Available: http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations


Appendix 1

August 11, 2000

Dear Participant:

My name is Pedro Luiz Vecchi. I am a graduate student at Hawaii PacificUniversity in Honolulu, Hawaii. I’m currently working on my thesis in the Master ofScience in Information Systems program.

The purpose of this survey is to understand the relationships between identifiedbarriers, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness of mobile Internet and intentionto use. In other words, the objective of this survey is to investigate the acceptance ofaccessing web-base information on handheld devices.

Selected individuals who are employed in three large life and health insurancecompanies in Honolulu will be given a survey to complete. We ask you to be as throughand frank as possible in answering the questions.

Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. All responses areconfidential and will remain anonymous. It is important to mention that the success ofthis study depends on the completeness and the quality of information you provide.Knowing that your time is very precious, your participation in this research effort isinvaluable and greatly appreciated.

I would be most happy to answer any questions you might have. Please do nothesitate to send me an email ([email protected]) with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Pedro Vecchi


Questionnaire

Personal Background

1. What is your gender? [ ] Male [ ] Female

2. What is your age? [ ] 20 or less [ ] 21-29 [ ] 30-39 [ ] 40-49 [ ] 50 or more

3. What is your last completed educational degree?[ ] High school [ ] Bachelors [ ] Masters [ ] Doctorate/Ph.D

4. What is your occupation? ___________________

System Usage

6. On average, how much time do you intend to spend per day using your handheld device to accessthe Internet? (Please circle one only)

[ ] Almost never [ ] 1-2 hours[ ] Less than ½ hour [ ] 2-3 hours[ ] from ½ to 1 hour [ ] More than three hours

7. On average, how frequently do you intend to use the Internet on your handheld device? (Pleasecircle one only)

[ ] Less than once a month [ ] A few times a week[ ] Once a month [ ] About once a day[ ] A few times a month [ ] Several times a day

Intention to Use

9. I would use the Internet on a handheld device.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Perceived usefulness

10. Using a handheld device to access web-based information will improve my performance on thejob.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

11. Using a handheld device to access web-based information will improve my productivity on thejob.


Perceived ease of use

12. I would find ease to use the Internet on a handheld device.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

13. I would find ease to become skillful at using a handheld device to connect to the Internet.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree


[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Attitude towards use

14. I would enjoy use a handheld device to connect to the Internet.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

15. Using a handheld device to connect to the Internet would be beneficial to accomplish my job.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

16. Using a handheld device to connect to the Internet would be a good ideaStrongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Perceived accessibility

17. I would like to have access to information anytime and anywhere.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

18. I would like to receive real-time information on my handheld device.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

19. I would not mind to wait for download information from a web site.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

System Support

20. I would find convenient to have someone available for assistance when using the Internet on ahandheld device.


Security

21. I would not use my handheld device to access the Internet because I do not want hackers to hackinto my device.


22. I would not use my handheld device to access the Internet because I am afraid of virus.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

23. I would not use my handheld device to access the Internet because I do not want to be botheredwith any type of information.


24. I believe that using a handheld device to access the Internet is secure.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree


[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Interface

25. I would find ease to use a handheld device to type text content.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

26. I would find ease to use a small screen to access the Internet.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

27. I would find ease to use a web site with no menu graphics driven, just text content.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Perceived user control

28. I would like to install new versions of software when availableStrongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

29. I would like to upgrade the processing speed of my handheld device when needed.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

30. I would like to choose the operating system I use on my handheld device.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

31. I would like to choose the browser I use on my handheld device.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]


Appendix 2

System Usage (SU)

Perceived Usefulness (PU)

N of Cases = 42 N of Items = 2Alpha = 0.9534

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 42 N of Items = 2Alpha = 1.000

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

Reliability Coefficients


Appendix 3

System Usage (SU)

Communalities

.836 .914

.836 .914

Amount of time

Frequency of usage

Initial Extraction

Extraction Method: Alpha Factoring.

Total Variance Explained

1.914 95.706 95.706 1.827 91.350 91.350

8.589E-02 4.294 100.000

Factor

1

2

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings



Appendix 4

Perceived Ease of Use (PEU)


1.777 88.849 88.849 1.553 77.631 77.631

.223 11.151 100.000

Factor

1

2




Communalities

.604 .776

.604 .776

Easy to use


Initial Extraction



Appendix 5

Attitude Towards Use (ATU)

Communalities

.698 .741

.737 .785

.803 .925


Benefits when accomplishing my job


Initial Extraction



2.630 87.658 87.658 2.452 81.730 81.730

.239 7.976 95.634

.131 4.366 100.000

Factor

1

2

3





Appendix 6

Perceived Accessibility (PA)

Communalities

.876

.887

.254

Accessibility


Download time

Initial



2.240 74.674 74.674

.699 23.292 97.966

6.103E-02 2.034 100.000

Factor

1

2

3

Total % of Variance Cumulative %

Initial Eigenvalues



Appendix 7

Security (S)

Communalities

.658

.502

.688

.175

Fear of hackers

Fear of virus

Privacy

Security

Initial



2.446 61.160 61.160

.987 24.675 85.835

.377 9.428 95.263

.189 4.737 100.000

Factor

1

2

3

4


Initial Eigenvalues



Appendix 8

Interface (I)

Communalities

.715

.807

.546

Keyboard limitation

Size of the screen

Menu limitation

Initial



2.430 80.998 80.998

.449 14.963 95.961

.121 4.039 100.000

Factor

1

2

3


Initial Eigenvalues



Appendix 9

Perceived User Control (PUC)

Communalities

.891 .909

.905 .908

.891 .909

.933 .958



Choose the OS

Choose brower

Initial Extraction



3.763 94.067 94.067 3.684 92.095 92.095

.116 2.912 96.979

7.447E-02 1.862 98.841

4.637E-02 1.159 100.000

Factor

1

2

3

4




Thesis by Pedro Vecchi

Documents

Transcript of Thesis by Pedro Vecchi