This paper attempts to investigate the relationship between personal, social and organizational factors with the usage of collaborative systems for research.The target population for this study is the academic staffs of Malaysia research universities. The personal related factors are personal innovativeness and task-technology-fitwhereas the social factors are subjective norm and peer acceptance.The organizational factors are training and management support.The relationship of these three perspectives

(i.e. personal, social and organizational) in relation with usage of collaborative systems is studied using a model adapted from Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) model and incorporating it with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).Data

analysis presents the descriptive statistics of the respondents, the reliability and validity of the instruments used and correlational analysis of the factors.In conclusion, this paper proposes a framework incorporating these factors that are important in influencing usage of collaboration systems for academic research

Idris, Fazli

Mohd Daud, Norzaidi

Zakaria, Halimi

UUM Repository

Knowledge Management International Conference (KMICe) 2012, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 4 – 6 July 2012 698   Personal, Social and Organizational factors in usage of Collaboration Systems for Research Halimi Zakaria 1, Norzaidi Mohd Daud 1, Fazli Idris 2 1Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. 2Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia.     ABSTRACT This paper attempts to investigate the relationship between personal, social and organizational factors with the usage of collaborative systems for research. The target population for this study is the academic staffs of Malaysia research universities. The personal related factors are personal innovativeness and task-technology-fit whereas the social factors are subjective norm and peer acceptance. The organizational factors are training and management support. The relationship of these three perspectives (i.e. personal, social and organizational) in relation with usage of collaborative systems is studied using a model adapted from Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) model and incorporating it with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).  Data analysis presents the descriptive statistics of the respondents, the reliability and validity of the instruments used and correlational analysis of the factors. In conclusion, this paper proposes a framework incorporating these factors that are important in influencing usage of collaboration systems for academic research.   Keywords: Collaborative systems, Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) model, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).   I INTRODUCTION  In general, collaborative systems unite two or more researchers through computer mediated communications (CMC) such as email or online database and other related collaborative tools in order for these researchers to work together on a research project. The technology may assist the group by providing calculation tools, text authoring or graphical design tools, communications medium or as database to maintain the group's memory and data storage needs. In the present day, the usage of these systems is gradually taking over face-to-face interaction in collaborating for research. The degree of usage of collaborative systems for research may be influenced by personal, social or organizational factors.  The importance of e-collaboration tools for research is clear because e-collaboration would add on to face-to-face collaborations resulting in more research productivity. The usage of collaborative systems for research may significantly increase research productivity (Ynalvez & Shrum, 2011). Researchers from around the globe may now easily share ideas, documents and knowledge to work in a research project. Usage of these systems becomes more important as the distance between the researchers increases (Ahmad Fauzi, 2004).  The TAM model shown in Figure 1 is widely used to study the acceptance or usage of many kinds of systems. While much of TAM research had focused on many independent variables, this study is unique in that it incorporates the TOE model to the TAM model to specifically group the independent factors into personal, social and organizational perspectives thus producing a new hybrid framework to study systems usage as illustrated in Figure 2.   Secondly, this study uses this hybrid research model to investigate factors related to usage of collaborative systems for research.  II LITERATURE REVIEW   Electronic collaboration or e-collaboration can be considered the parent term to related fields of groupware, computer-supported cooperative work, group decision support system, collaboration technologies and knowledge management (Kock et al., 2001). The collaborative systems that are mainly used for e-collaboration includes email, Web-based chat, Web-based document sharing (e.g. Google Docs), group writing software, videoconferencing and others. A.  A framework in studying collaborative systems usage for research Technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis et al., 1989) is a research model widely used to investigate the factors of acceptance/usage of computer systems by individual users.   Knowledge Management International Conference (KMICe) 2012, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 4 – 6 July 2012 699   Figure 2.  The adaptation of TOE model groups the external variables in TAM  Actual System Use Behavioral Intention to use Attitude towards use Perceived ease of use  Perceived Usefulness External Variables grouped into: Personal Social Organizational                    Figure 1.  Technology Acceptance model Actual System Use Behavioral Intention to use Attitude towards use Perceived ease of use  Perceived Usefulness External Variable          In essence, the TAM model incorporates the relationship of independent variables or called external variable in the model with user’s perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of a system. These two factors then relate to the user’s intention to use the system or actual usage of the system. The external factors used in this study are grouped into three dimension of personal, social and organizational based on the technology-organizational-environment (TOE) model that was developed by Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990). An example of this model being adapted in the area of technology adoption and usage is the study by Zhu & Kraemer (2005) in studying e-commerce usage. B.  Personal, Social and Organizational factors  The personal related factors are personal innovativeness and task-technology-fit whereas the social factors are subjective norm and peer acceptance. The organizational factors are training and management support. The definitions of these factors are given in Table 1.  Table 1. Construct definitions Construct name Definition TTF The degree to which the collaborative systems assist an individual in performing his or her tasks of collaborative with peers.  Personal innovative in IT  The degree of innovative tendency and adoption speed of a user to adopt IT Managerial support The degree to which management assists users on the usage of collaborative systems Training The extent to which management organizes internally or externally provided formal training and support for users on the usage of collaborative systems Perceived Peer acceptance  The degree of one’s perception that one’s peers or colleagues are also using the collaborative system Subjective norm The degree of one’s perception that other people considered important by the person think he or she should use collaborative systems                  III METHOD  The population of this study is all the academic staffs of research universities in Malaysia who have at least collaborated and co-authored a high impact journal paper. High impact journals as defined by the Malaysia Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) are journals and refereed proceedings that are citation-indexed by SCOPUS /ISI /IEEE /SCI /SSCI/ AI).  The questionnaires (attached with photocopies of recommendation letters from MOHE and/or assistant vice chancellor of academic affairs) were distributed via the particular university’s internal mail system to a random sample of the targeted population of academic staffs of Malaysian research universities. Participation was on a voluntary basis. All of the constructs were measured using a 7-point Likert scale questionnaire format. Demographic data on gender, age, academic rank, experience using collaborative systems for research and years of experience as an academic researcher were also asked. A soft reminder via email was sent after about two weeks from the initial distribution. IV ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS  A descriptive and correlation analysis were calculated and analyzed for each of the factors under study in order to investigate their importance. Reliability test of the constructs using SPSS Cronbach’s Alpha analysis and validity test using factor analysis were done.       Knowledge Management International Conference (KMICe) 2012, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 4 – 6 July 2012 700   A. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS  Data were collected from 21 respondents. This study at the time of writing up this paper was still on-going and therefore may explain the small number of respondents analyzed in this paper.  Table 2 summarizes the demographic data of the respondents. The sample consists of mostly male respondents (62%). Most belong to the age group of 40-50 (57 percent), most are at the academic rank of Associate Professor (43 percent) and most have an education level at the Doctorate level (76 percent).  Table 2. Demographic Statistics Demographic profiles n %   Gender    Female 8 38  Male 13 62      Age    30-39 5 24  40-50 12 57  >50 4 19  Academic rank    Professor 5 24  Associate Professor 9 43  Senior Lecturer 7 33      Education    Post Doctorate 4 19  Doctorate 16 76  Master 1 5       In determining the reliability of the instruments used in this study, the Cronbach alphas were calculated for each of the constructs. In order for an instrument to be a reliable measure of a construct, Nunnally (1978) recommended the Cronbach alpha to be more than 0.6. Referring to Appendix 1, the Cronbach alphas are all more than 0.6. In general, the instruments are reliable and that the data collected could be thus used for analysis.   The validity of an instrument also need be tested using principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation. This is to ensure that all items for a construct actually measure the construct. Appendix 2 shows the result of the factor analysis. For all the constructs, all items loaded on a distinct factor indicating a distinct uni-dimensional scale. All factor loadings for all variables were greater than 0.5 with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and percentage range of between 69%-84% of the total variance explained.  Table 3 summarizes the correlation matrix. TTF has significant moderate positive correlation with Peer acceptance, Training, Subjective norm and Personal innovativeness. Training and Personal innovativeness has a moderate positive correlation.  Peer acceptance and Subjective norm too has a positive correlation.  Table  3. Correlation matrix   TTF PI MS Training PA SN        TTF  .642** .179 .513* .561** .678** PI .624**  -.085 .544* .238 .344 MS .179 -.085  .187 -.93 .225 Training .513* .544* .187  .110 .344 PA .561** .238 -.93 .110  .581** SN .678** .344 .225 .344 .581**         Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; **correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. PI= Personal innovativeness; MS= Management support; PA=Peer acceptance; SN=Subjective norm                V CONCLUSION  From the reliability and validity tests done on this sample of respondents, the instruments conform to recommended levels to be considered reliable and valid instruments.  The main contribution of this paper is the hybrid research model that combines the important features of the TAM and TOE model. The resulting model proposes a more balance analysis on factors that may relate to usage of systems. The model breaks the independent variables into groups of personal, social and organizational perspectives. Future work involves data analysis on the relationships of these independent variables with actual usage of collaborative systems and the relationship between usage and performance in research.  VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  This research is fully supported by a research grant from Universiti Teknologi MARA (Ref no. 600-RMI/SSP/DANA 5/3/Dsp (4/2012).  We appreciate the full support and assistance from Ministry of Higher Education throughout this research. Knowledge Management International Conference (KMICe) 2012, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 4 – 6 July 2012 701   REFERENCES Ahmad Fauzi , A. W. (2004). The impact of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in users’ interaction between the Academic staffs – scientists/engineers in Malaysia. Jurnal Teknologi,  41(B), 35–46. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. & Warshaw, P.  (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. Kock, Ned., Davison, Robert., Wazlawick, Raul and Ocker, Rosalie. (2001). E-collaboration: A look at past research and future challenges. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 5(1), 1 - 8. Nunnally, J.C.  (1978).  Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tornatzky, L. G. & Fleischer, M.  (1990). The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Ynalvez, M. A.  &  Shrum, W. M.  (2011).  Professional networks, scientific collaboration, and publication productivity in resource-constrained research institutions in a developing country. Research Policy,  40, 204–216. Zhu, K. & Kraemer, K. L.  (2005).   Post-Adoption Variations in Usage and Value of E-Business by Organizations: Cross-Country Evidence from the Retail Industry. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 61–84.  APPENDIX A Construct/Scale Mean SD Cronbach's Alpha     Task Technology Fit   0.879 Ease of locating content 4.76 1.044  Ease of use (item 1) 5.29 .902  Ease of use (item 2)  5.14 1.062  Meaning of data (item1)  4.90 .831  Meaning of data (item 2) 4.95 .865      Personal Innovativeness   0.919 Exploration  5.047 1.117  Experiment  4.905 1.179  First to try out  4.191 1.470  Speed to try out  4.762 1.513      Management support   0.920 Awareness of  benefits  5.19 1.078  Encouragement of use 5.14 1.062  Provides necessary resources  4.76 1.091  Provides access to various systems  4.90 1.091  Recognizes usage efforts  4.81 1.030  Importance to management 5.00 1.000      Training   0.938 Assistance availability  4.05 1.532  Specialized training  3.95 1.564  Training completeness 3.86 1.459  Improved understanding 4.10 1.446  Provide confidence  4.14 1.389  Adequate in terms of detail. 4.05 1.396      Peer acceptance   0.885 Peers' extent of usage 5.14 .910  Peers' communication usage 5.14 1.014  Peers' document transfer usage 5.24 .995  Peers' shared document usage 5.05 .973      Subjective norm   0.925 Perception of those opinion valued  5.24 1.044  Perception of important colleagues  5.10 .995  Perception of superiors  5.33 .966  Perception of subordinates  5.24 .995             APPENDIX B   Principal component with Varimax Rotated Factor Loadings Matrix for Training construct Scale items Factor  Assistance availability  .798 Specialized training  .798 Training completeness .863 Improved understanding .939 Provide confidence  .921 Adequate in terms of detail. .943   Eigenvalue 4.637 Variance (%) 77.28           Principal component with Varimax Rotated Factor Loadings Matrix for TTF construct   Scale items Factor  Ease of locating content .557 Ease of use_item1 .909 Ease of use_item2 .890 Meaning of data_item1 .872 Meaning of data_item2 .880   Eigenvalue 3.464 Variance (%) 69.274             Knowledge Management International Conference (KMICe) 2012, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 4 – 6 July 2012 702    Principal component with Varimax Rotated Factor Loadings Matrix for Personal Innovativeness construct   Scale items Factor  Exploration  .946 Experiment  .962 First to try out  .858 Speed to try out  .868   Eigenvalue 3.311 Variance (%) 82.77       Principal component with Varimax Rotated Factor Loadings Matrix for Subjective Norm construct Scale items Factor  Perception of those opinions valued  .931 Perception of important colleagues  .936 Perception of superiors  .870 Perception of subordinates  .878   Eigenvalue 3.27 Variance (%) 81.76         Principal component with Varimax Rotated Factor Loadings Matrix for Management Support construct   Scale items Factor  Awareness of  benefits  .795 Encouragement of use .880 Provides necessary resources  .855 Provides access to various systems  .885 Recognizes usage efforts  .815 Importance to management .842   Eigenvalue 4.29 Variance (%) 71.5                    Principal component with Varimax Rotated Factor Loadings Matrix for Peer  Acceptance construct   Scale items Factor  Peers' extent of usage .816 Peers' communication usage .957 Peers' document transfer usage .917 Peers' shared document usage .971   Eigenvalue 3.36 Variance (%) 84.15                             

Personal, social and organizational factors in usage of collaboration systems for research

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UUM Repository