faty
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Origins of the model: Bagozzi (2007) mentions that TAM was introduced by Davis et al. in 1986 (Davis, 1986) although Bagozzi himself played a large part in the early introduction of TAM in 1989 along with Davis and Warshaw (Davis et al., 1989). TAM has been the lead model of technology acceptance for more than two decades (Bagozzi, 2007; Godin and Goette, 2013; Oye et al., 2012). TAM uses TRA as the basis for its framework (Davis et al., 1989) and has added perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. TAM is not viewed as general and as being applied in various contexts as TRA or even TPB is and thus can only be applied to computer acceptance. TAM is used to indicate the way in which users accept and use new types of technology, more focused on the individual than on the organisation (Reimenschneider et al., 2003). In other words, it is used to measure and determine if there is a way in which an end user’s perception of the acceptance of technology can be measured. It tends to focus on the end user’s attitude, which clearly puts the focus on the social side of ICT adoption.
Training techniques
As training should inspire an entrepreneur to want to become successful, the actual delivery of the training is extremely important. However, this thesis does not look into the pedagogy of teaching as this lies outside the scope of this thesis, but looks at ways recommended by various authors of how to deliver training specifically to entrepreneurs. Gibb (1993) notes that small business owners or entrepreneurs typically “learn by doing”, i.e. by practically experiencing a specific situation that they encounter along the way. He adds that whoever provides the training must understand that there are different ways in which people learn and process information and the facilitator must be able to move away from the traditional way of teaching. Table 5 shows the difference in teaching techniques required when training entrepreneurs to ensure they are inspired. In this table the enterprising method is the one that relates to entrepreneur training. The didactic model favours the traditional teaching approach and this approach does not work when teaching entrepreneurs.
CHAPTER 1 – BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION FOR STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 RESEARCH TOPIC JUSTIFICATION AND MOTIVATION FOR STUDYING THE PROBLEM
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION
1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.6 CHAPTER OUTLINE
1.7 CHAPTER CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2 – TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 ADOPTION
2.3 CHAPTER CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3 – ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAINING FRAMEWORK
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 REQUIRED SKILLS FOR THE ENTREPRENEUR
3.3 CONTENT MODEL FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION FRAMEWORK INTRODUCED
3.4 ADDITIONAL ENTREPRENEURS’ TRAINING MODELS AND PROGRAMS
3.5 TRAINING TECHNIQUES
3.6 CHAPTER CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 ‐ RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH PROCESS
4.3 RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
4.4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
4.5 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
4.6 CHAPTER CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 – THE MICRO ENTREPRENEUR’S ICT PROFILE
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 ENTREPRENEUR
5.3 ADOPTING ICT AND BARRIERS TOWARDS ADOPTION
5.4 ICT FOR ENTREPRENEURS
5.5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF UTAUT MODERATING VARIABLE
5.6 INTRODUCTION OF THE ICT PROFILE OF THE ENTREPRENEURS
5.7 CHAPTER CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6 – QUALITATIVE RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 FOCUS GROUP
6.3 FOCUS GROUP ANALYSIS
6.4 FOCUS GROUP CONCLUSION
6.5 INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
6.6 UTAUT LINK
6.7 CHAPTER CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7 – RESEARCH SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 RESEARCH OVERVIEW
7.3 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION
7.4 RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS
7.5 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
7.6 RESEARCH CONCLUSION
