Factors Affecting Intention to Use Big Data Tools: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model

  • Serap Okcu
  • Gulsah Hancerliogullari KoksalmisEmail author
  • Ecem Basak
  • Fethi Calisir
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering book series (LNMIE)


The purpose of this study is to examine the factors affecting the intention to use big data tools, using an extended technology acceptance model. The model includes job relevance, big data dimensions, compatibility, self-efficacy, complexity, and anxiety. The study was conducted on a Turkish airline company, and data were gathered from its employees through an online survey. A total of 252 questionnaires were collected. The results show that behavioral intention to use big data technology is explained by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Of these, perceived usefulness has a higher direct influence on behavioral intention to use big data tools. Another result of this study is that perceived usefulness is explained by perceived ease of use, job relevance, compatibility, and big data dimensions, where big data dimensions have a higher direct influence on perceived usefulness. The final result is that perceived ease of use is explained by self-efficacy and anxiety. Of these two factors, self-efficacy has a higher direct impact on the perceived ease of use.


Technology acceptance model Big data tools Adoption Big data dimensions 


  1. Agarwal, R., & Prasad J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.Google Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., & Williams, M. D. (2016). Consumer adoption of mobile banking in Jordan: Examining the role of usefulness, ease of use, perceived risk and self-efficacy. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 29(1), 118–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anandarajan, M., Igbaria, M., & Anakwe, U. P. (2000). Technology acceptance in the banking industry: A perspective from a less developed country. Information Technology & People, 13(4), 298–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122.Google Scholar
  9. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bayraktar, C. A., Hancerliogullari, G., Cetinguc, B., & Calisir, F. (2017). Competitive strategies, innovation, and firm performance: An empirical study in a developing economy environment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(1), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhattacherjee, A., & Sanford, C. (2006). Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly, 805–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calisir, F., & Calisir, F. (2004). The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use to end-user satisfaction with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(4), 505–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calisir, F., Altin Gumussoy, C., Bayraktaroglu, A. E., & Karaali, D. (2014). Predicting the intention to use a web-based learning system: Perceived content quality, anxiety, perceived system quality, image, and the technology acceptance model. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 24(5), 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chan, S. C., & Lu, M. T. (2004). Understanding internet banking adoption and user behavior: A Hong Kong perspective.Google Scholar
  15. Chang, S. C., & Tung, F. C. (2008). An empirical investigation of students’ behavioural intentions to use the online learning course websites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 71–83.Google Scholar
  16. Chatzoglou, P. D., Sarigiannidis, L., Vraimaki, E., & Diamantidis, A. (2009). Investigating Greek employees’ intention to use web-based training. Computers & Education, 53(3), 877–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chau, P. Y., & Hu, P. J. H. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 699–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen, L. D., Gillenson, M. L., & Sherrell, D. L. (2004). Consumer acceptance of virtual stores: A theoretical model and critical success factors for virtual stores. ACM Sigmis Database, 35(2), 8–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen, H., Chiang, R. H., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chismar, W. G., & Wiley-Patton, S. (2003, January). Does the extended technology acceptance model apply to physicians. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (p. 8). IEEE.Google Scholar
  21. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.Google Scholar
  22. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.Google Scholar
  24. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Esteves, J., & Curto, J. (2013). A risk and benefits behavioral model to assess intentions to adopt big data. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning: ICICKM 2013.Google Scholar
  26. Fu, J. R., Farn, C. K., & Chao, W. P. (2006). Acceptance of electronic tax filing: A study of taxpayer intentions. Information & Management, 43(1), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fusilier, M., & Durlabhji, S. (2005). An exploration of student internet use in India: The technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behaviour. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22(4), 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gallego, M. D., Luna, P., & Bueno, S. (2008). User acceptance model of open source software. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2199–2216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gantz, J., & Reinsel, D. (2011). Extracting value from chaos. In Proceedings of IDC iView (pp. 1–12).Google Scholar
  30. Gefen, D. (2003). TAM or just plain habit: A look at experienced online shoppers. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 15(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guriting, P., & Oly Ndubisi, N. (2006). Borneo online banking: Evaluating customer perceptions and behavioural intention. Management Research News, 29(1/2), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hackbarth, G., Grover, V., & Mun, Y. Y. (2003). Computer playfulness and anxiety: Positive and negative mediators of the system experience effect on perceived ease of use. Information & Management, 40(3), 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hong, S. J., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). Understanding the adoption of multipurpose information appliances: The case of mobile data services. Information Systems Research, 17(2), 162–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Horst, M., Kuttschreuter, M., & Gutteling, J. M. (2007). Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in The Netherlands. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1838–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huang, T. C. K., Liu, C. C., & Chang, D. C. (2012). An empirical investigation of factors influencing the adoption of data mining tools. International Journal of Information Management, 32(3), 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huffman, A. H., Whetten, J., & Huffman, W. H. (2013). Using technology in higher education: The influence of gender roles on technology self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1779–1786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega, 23(6), 587–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T., & Davis, G. B. (1995). Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(4), 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Karaali, D., Gumussoy, C. A., & Calisir, F. (2011). Factors affecting the intention to use a web-based learning system among blue-collar workers in the automotive industry. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Khalifa, M., & Ning Shen, K. (2008). Explaining the adoption of transactional B2C mobile commerce. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 21(2), 110–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim, S. H. (2008). Moderating effects of job relevance and experience on mobile wireless technology acceptance: Adoption of a smartphone by individuals. Information & Management, 45(6), 387–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kleijnen, M., Wetzels, M., & De Ruyter, K. (2004). Consumer acceptance of wireless finance. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 8(3), 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Larsen, T. (2013). Cross-platform aviation analytics using big-data methods. In Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS) (pp. 1–9).Google Scholar
  45. Lee, Y. C. (2006). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online Information Review, 30(5), 517–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee, H. H., Fiore, A. M., & Kim, J. (2006). The role of the technology acceptance model in explaining effects of image interactivity technology on consumer responses. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 34(8), 621–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liang, H., Xue, Y., & Byrd, T. A. (2003). PDA usage in healthcare professionals: Testing an extended technology acceptance model. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 1(4), 372–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Liao, C., Chen, J. L., & Yen, D. C. (2007). Theory of planning behavior (TPB) and customer satisfaction in the continued use of e-service: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 2804–2822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Liker, J. K., & Sindi, A. A. (1997). User acceptance of expert systems: A test of the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14(2), 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lin, H. F. (2007). The role of online and offline features in sustaining virtual communities: An empirical study. Internet Research, 17(2), 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Naumann, F. (2014). Data profiling revisited. ACM SIGMOD Record, 42(4), 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oh, S., Ahn, J., & Kim, B. (2003). Adoption of broadband Internet in Korea: The role of experience in building attitudes. Journal of Information Technology, 18(4), 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ozturk, A. B., Bilgihan, A., Nusair, K., & Okumus, F. (2016). What keeps the mobile hotel booking users loyal? Investigating the roles of self-efficacy, compatibility, perceived ease of use, and perceived convenience. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6), 1350–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rajan, C. A., & Baral, R. (2015). Adoption of ERP system: An empirical study of factors influencing the usage of ERP and its impact on end user. IIMB Management Review, 27(2), 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, 1(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
  59. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovation theory.Google Scholar
  60. Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations; A cross-cultural approach.Google Scholar
  61. Saadé, R., & Bahli, B. (2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42(2), 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sahoo, P., & Yajnik, N. (2014). Study of factors affecting customer behaviour using big data technology. Computer Science & Information Technology, 31, 39.Google Scholar
  63. Shin, D. H. (2016). Demystifying big data: Anatomy of big data developmental process. Telecommunications Policy, 40(9), 837–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sokol, M. B. (1994). Adaptation to difficult designs: Facilitating use of new technology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8(3), 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15, 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1, 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tung, F. C., & Chang, S. C. (2008a). Nursing students’ behavioral intention to use online courses: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(9), 1299–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tung, F. C., & Chang, S. C. (2008b). A new hybrid model for exploring the adoption of online nursing courses. Nurse Education Today, 28(3), 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tung, F. C., Chang, S. C., & Chou, C. M. (2008). An extension of trust and TAM model with IDT in the adoption of the electronic logistics information system in HIS in the medical industry. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77(5), 324–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.Google Scholar
  74. Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, F. D., & Davis, G. B. (2003). User acceptance of information tehcnology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Woo, B., Vesset, D., Olofson, C. W., Conway, S., Feldman, S., & Bozman, J. S. (2011). Worldwide big data taxonomy (IDC Report).Google Scholar
  77. Wu, J. H., & Wang, S. C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? Information & Management, 42(5), 719–729.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yi, M. Y., Fiedler, K. D., & Park, J. S. (2006). Understanding the role of individual innovativeness in the acceptance of IT-based innovations: Comparative analyses of models and measures. Decision Sciences, 37(3), 393–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serap Okcu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gulsah Hancerliogullari Koksalmis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ecem Basak
    • 1
  • Fethi Calisir
    • 1
  1. 1.Industrial Engineering Department, Management FacultyIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Turkish Airlines Headquarters BuildingAtaturk International AirportIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations