International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

IJSTR@Facebook IJSTR@Twitter IJSTR@Linkedin
Home About Us Scope Editorial Board Blog/Latest News Contact Us

IJSTR >> Volume 5 - Issue 4, April 2016 Edition

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616

The Influence On Factors In Attitudes Toward Acceptance Of The Information System Using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Case Study SPAN System In Indonesia

[Full Text]



Donny Maha Putra



TAM, SPAN, SEM, Accepted, Attitudes, Perceptions, Efficacy, Ease to use, Usefulness, Intention to Use



Theoretically and practically Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is a model that is considered most appropriate in explaining how the user receives a system. This study aimed to analyze the factors that influence the attitudes towards the acceptance of Sistem Perbendaharaan Anggaran Negara (SPAN) using TAM approach. The problems raised in this research, aims to determine the attitude of the use of the transition process lagecy system to the new system which for many users create conflict in the process of adaptation. On the basis of this proposed theoretical models to test hypotheses using Structural Equation Model (SEM) and analysis tool using lisrel. This research was conducted in all offices DG of Treasury of Ministry of Finance with 210 respondents were chosen at random to represent each office. The results of this study prove 4 hypothesis is accepted from 8 hypothesis, namely: a) a negative affect with the results demonstrabilty, b) computer self-efficacy with the output quality, c) computer self-efficacy with the perceived ease of use, d) perceived ease of use with the perceived of usefulness. Overall indicates that the application of the SPAN system in the Ministry of Finance of In Indonesia can be accepted by users.



[1] Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., & Stair, R.M. (2000). Research report: The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy--An empirical assessment. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 418-430.

[2] Azhar Susanto. 2009. Management Information Systems: Developing, Risk, Structured Approach. First edition. Bandung: Lingga Jaya.

[3] Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[4] Bentley, Lonnie D., & Whitten, Jeffrey L. 2007. Systems Analysis and Design For The Global Enterprise. 9th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. International Edition.

[5] Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 229-254.

[6] Chau, P.Y. (2001). Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on IT usage behavior. Journal of End User Computing, 13(1), 26-33.

[7] Compeau, D., Higgins, C.A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145-158.

[8] Doll, W.J., Hendricson, A., & Deng, X. (1998). Using Davis's perceived usefulness and ease-of-use instruments for decision making: A confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis. Decision Sciences, 29(4), 839-869.

[9] Elbeltagi, I., McBride,N., & Hardaker,G. (2005).Evaluating the factors affecting DSS usage by senior managers in local authorities in Egypt. Journal of Global Information Management, 13(2), 42-64.

[10] Elsbach,K.D., & Barr, P.S. (1999).The effects of mood on individuals' use of structured decision protocols. Organization Sicenc, 10(2), 181-198.

[11] Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

[12] Gallivan, M.J. (2000). Examining workgroup influence on technology usage: A community of practice perspective. In proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research (pp. 54-66). Chicago, Illinois: Association for Computing Machinery.

[13] Gefen, D., Straub, D.W., & Boudreau, M.C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice, Communications of the AIS, 4, available from cais.isworld.org.

[14] Gelinas, Ulrich & Dull, B. Richard. 2012. Accounting Information Systems. 9th Edition. USA: South Western Cengage Learning.

[15] Ghozali, Imam dan Fuad. 2005. Structural Equation Modeling: Teori, Konsep, dan Aplikasi. Semarang:Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.

[16] Hari Wijayanto, Setyo (2008). Structural Equation Modelling dengan Lisrel 8.8. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Graha Ilmu.

[17] Hasan, B. (2006). Effectiveness of computer training: The role of multilevel computer self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 18(1), 50-68.

[18] Hayashi, A., Chen, C., Ryan, T., & Wu, J. (2004). The role of social presence and moderating role of computer self efficacy in predicting the continuance usage of e-learning systems. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(2), 139-154.

[19] Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325.

[20] Jane M. Carey , Susan S. Fiorito and Charles J. Kacmar. The influence of attitude on the acceptance and use of information systems, Journal of Information Resources Management 2009, 22(2)

[21] Katz, Y.J., & Yablon, Y.B. (2003). Online university learning: Cognitive and affective perspectives. Campus-wide Information Systems, 20(2), 48-54.

[22] Laudon, Kenneth. C & Jane P. Laudon. 2012. Mangement Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm. 12th Edition. USA: Prentice Hall.

[23] Liu, L., & Ma, Q. (2006). Perceived system performance: A test of an extended technology acceptance model. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 37(2&3), 51-59.

[24] Marakas, G.M., Yi, M.Y., & Johnson, R.D. (1998). The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: Toward clarification on the construct and an integrative framework for research. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 126-163.

[25] Mathieu, J.E., Martineau, J.W., & Tannenbaum, S.I. (1993). Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy - Implications for training effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 125-147.

[26] O’Brien, James A. & Maracas, George M. 2009. Management Information Systems. 9th Edition. NY: McGraw-Hill Inc. 1221 avennue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10020.

[27] Petra S.M. Wijaya. 2005. Pengujian Model Penerimaan Teknologi Internet Pada Mahasiswa. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan, Vol. l, No. l. Februari.

[28] Shroff, Ronnie H., Christopher C. Deneen and Eugenia M. W. Ng. 2011. Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Examining Students’ Behavioural Intention to Use an E-portfolio System” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2011, 27(4), 600-618.

[29] Sri Mulyani. 2010. Treasury System new Implemented. Via< http://bisniskeuangan.kompas.com/read/2010/03/02/14004991/Sistem.Perbendaharaan.Baru.Diterapkan>[3/2/2010].
[30] Stone, R.W., & Henry, J.W. (2003). The roles of computer self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in influencing the computer end-user's organizational commitment. Journal of End User Computing, 15(1), 38-53.

[31] Thatcher, J.B., McKnight, D.H., Gundlach, M.J., & Srite, M. (2007). Individual and human assisted computer self-efficacy: An empirical investigation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik, Karlsruhe, Germany.

[32] 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.

[33] Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen,A. (1988). Devlopment and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affects: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6),1063-1070.

[34] Wixom, B.H., & Tood, P.A (2005). A theorical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information System Research, 16(1),85-102

[35] Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.