Understanding the acceptance of augmented reality at an organisational level: The case of Geeor Tin Mine Museum
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•108 views
Cranmer, E.; Jung, T.; tom Dieck, C., T.; Miller, A.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Understanding the acceptance of augmented reality at an organisational level: The case of Geeor Tin Mine Museum
Similar to Understanding the acceptance of augmented reality at an organisational level: The case of Geeor Tin Mine Museum (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Understanding the acceptance of augmented reality at an organisational level: The case of Geeor Tin Mine Museum
- 1. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 1 Understanding the acceptance of Augmented Reality at an Organisational level: The case of Geevor Tin Mine Museum Ella Cranmer,. Dr. T Jung,. Dr. M tom-Dieck, and Dr. A Miller Manchester Metropolitan University, UK eleanor.e.cranmer@stu.mmu.ac.uk http://creativear.org/
- 2. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 2 Augmented Reality (AR) • Overlays information in the real environment • Enhances visitor experience • Provides richer, more immersive content But, AR is still not actively and widely used
- 3. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 3 AR in Cultural Heritage Tourism • ‘Info-cultural-tainment’ • Value-added benefits • Interactive interpretation • Engaging and educational • Retains authenticity Introducing AR does not guarantee positive experiences
- 4. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 4 Research focus • Despite its growing importance, few studies attempt to understand user satisfaction, intention to use and adopt AR applications in tourism • Even more limited are studies exploring AR adoption from an organisational perspective • Understanding organisational perspective fundamental to the success and longevity of the adoption of new technologies
- 5. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 5 Organisational support • Attempts fail as stakeholders do not use and accept it (Mitchell et al., 2012) • IT usage explained by employee beliefs and attitudes towards technology • No organisational support often leads to a waste of time, money and resources • Important to understand organisational characteristics for adoption and acceptance of new technologies (Thong, 1999)
- 6. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 6 Technology Adoption Models
- 7. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 7 Organisational scope Technology adoption = opportunity or threat Firm size and scope are strong influencers of technology adoption Large Organisations •More resources •Economies of scale •Benefit of ability to take greater risks SME Organisations •Restricted resources •Limited funding •Advantage of greater flexibility toward change
- 8. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 8 Case Study: Geevor Tin Mine Museum • UNESCO, multi-award winning attraction in rural Cornwall • Council-owned and publically funded • Small internal stakeholder network
- 9. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 9 Methods • 9 internal stakeholders, in-depth, semi- structured interviews • Exploratory study, using non-probability sampling • Content analysis Position Years' experience Prior understanding of AR Trustee 3 Moderate Chair of Trustees 2.5 Moderate Marketing Assistant 3 Low Learning Development Officer 8 Moderate Mine Development Officer 20 Low Mine Guide 10 Low Curator 8 Low IT Manager 10 High Mine Manager 11 High May 2015
- 10. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 10 Findings…
- 11. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 11 Potential of AR at Geevor • Bring Geevor into 21st Century • Pre, during and post experience • Alleviate staffing pressure • Broaden appeal • Preserve knowledge “AR would be really amazing…it could take over the job for the informal visitor we are not accessible to”
- 12. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 12 Perceived value of AR • Tailor information to different levels • Attract and engage younger audiences • Positive perception change • Enhanced experience • Potential to charge more “An advantage to encourage people to come in…no one else has got it”
- 13. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 13 Perceived staff benefits • Fun, engaging, raises morale • Site advancement • Helps to educate • Preserves knowledge • Access for all • Alleviates pressure “The visitor will be looked after a bit better, we don’t have the staff to do the face-to-face part ”
- 14. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 14 Perceived visitor benefits • Interactivity and gamification • Enhanced overall experience • Appeals to wider audiences • Varied interpretation tools • Different content levels • Easier navigation “A bit more fun as well as being factually educational”
- 15. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 15 Perceived organisational benefits • Increases awareness of site facilities • Links experience to café/shop • Helps prevent veto • Reduced knowledge gap • Increases spending • Social media and sharing “It would engage just about every customer that we are looking for”
- 16. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 16 Perceived impact of AR • Continuation of technical innovation • Improved visitor experience • Positive overall impact • Economic benefits • Competitive advantage • Sustainability “It would engage just about every customer that we are looking for”
- 17. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 17 Perceived barriers and considerations • Costs • Staff require educating • Issues of technical competency • Generational technology readiness • Sympathetic implementation essential • Infrastructural issues “People need to think it is important, that is the biggest hurdle really”
- 18. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 18 Discussion • Extends current understanding of considerations and factors that influence an organisation in adopting new technologies • Highlights important factors to consider in the design and development stages of AR apps • Ensures practitioners consider implementation issues and align these with existing strategies to provide added value • Accentuates the need to further educate stakeholders about implementation and expected outcomes
- 19. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 19 Limitations • Case study approach is hard to generalise to other attractions, but can provide context • Small organisational scope limits the generalisation of findings for big organisations with more extensive stakeholder networks • Limited by solely focusing on internal stakeholders, a further study of external stakeholders is suggested
- 20. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 20 Future Research • Conduct interviews with stakeholders throughout the development and implementation process to align with organisational strategy • Extend study to include external stakeholders • Conduct context specific studies prior to AR implementation • Extend study to include other cultural heritage attractions, compare and contrast
- 21. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 21 Any questions? Contact: creativearhub.org @creativearhub Creative Augmented Realities Hub eleanor.e.cranmer@stu.mmu.ac.uk
- 22. ENTER 2016 Research Track Slide Number 22 References Bharadwaj, P. & Soni, R. (2007). E‐Commerce Usage and Perception of E‐Commerce Issues among Small Firms: Results and Implications from an Empirical Study. Journal of Small Business Management 45(4): 501‐521. Chung, N., Han, H. & Joun, Y. (2015) Tourists’ intention to visit destination: Role of augmented reality applications for heritage site. Computers in Human Behaviour 50: 588‐599. Cranmer, E. & Jung, T. (2014, May) Augmented Reality (AR): Business models in Urban Cultural Heritage Tourist destinations. Pacific Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education: APacCHRIE, Kuala Lumpur. Manchester: Research Gate. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly 13(3): 319‐340. Fuller, T. (1996). Fulfilling IT needs in small businesses; a recursive learning model. International Small Business Journal 14(4): 25‐44. Han, D.I, Jung, T. & Gibson, A. (2014). Dublin AR: Implementing Augmented Reality in Tourism. In Z. Xiang, & I. Tussyadiah (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014 (pp. 511‐523). Vienna, Springer. Jung, T., Chung, N. & Leue, M. (2015). The determinants of recommendations to use augmented reality technologies: The case of a Korean theme park. Tourism Management 49(1): 75‐86. Leue, M., tom Dieck, D. & Jung, T. (2014). A Theoretical Model of Augmented Reality Acceptance. e-Review of Tourism Research 5: 1‐5. Levy, M., Powell, P. & Yetton, P. (2001). SMEs: aligning IS and the strategic context. Journal of Information Technology 16(3):133‐144. Lippert, S. K. & Govindarajulu, C. (2015). Technological, organizational, and environmental antecedents to web services adoption. Communications of the IIMA 6(1): 14. Oliveira, T. & Martins, M. (2011). Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation 14(1): 110‐121. Tomatzky, L. & Fleischer, M. (1990). The process of Technology Innovation. Lexington: Lexington Books. tom Dieck, M.C. & Jung, T. (2015). A theoretical model of mobile augmented reality acceptance in urban heritage tourism. Current Issues in Tourism 18: 1‐21. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G. & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly 27(3): 425‐478.
Editor's Notes
- Introduce myself
- Explain quote Anything that is adding an extra layer to reality, real world view Long history, traced to 1950, only recently become widely used term Driven by increased smartphone ownership Smaller, cheaper, more powerful 2/3 adults own smartphone, most widely used AR display device BUT contrary to expectations AR still not widely and actively used by mass market
- Focus – CHT Deloitte: future success of tourism depends on investment into innovative technologies to address changes in visitor experience Attract attention of modern tourists Modern tech, rise of internet made T more competitive AR grown in pop as revolutionised way individuals access info while on the move. Practical ability to allow tourists to naturally explore surroundings excelled AR to be valuable tool in tourism Enhances exp, more enjoyable, entertaining, interesting Dest. Differentiation and competitive advantage Tech attracts T, availability of apps sole reason some people visit High quality interpretation can add considerable value to attraction EG apps ARCHEOGuide, Museum Zoom Research demonstrates; AR affects users behaviours and interactions. -visitors stayed longer -spent longer at each exhibit -negative impact on interaction among groups and proximity to exhibits THEREFORE implementation needs careful consideration and planning
- Despite potential and large investments; Many implementations of new technologies fail as internal stakeholder do not use and accept it Studies look at IT usage explained by internal stakeholders beliefs and attitudes to the technology Therefore very important to understand org characteristics in adoption of new tech Lack of org support often leads to waste of time, money and resources … huge implications especially for SMEs
- Many models emerged in last 20 years to attempt to understand IT usage and adoption TAM – Technology acceptance model – user adoption DOI – Diffusion of Innovation TOE – Technology, Organisation, Environment Framework BOTH applied at firm level to understand adoption of new tech such as e-business and e-commerce but not associated with AR BUT association with AR implementation is minimal. Also within tourism context which has large interrelated value chains Few studies attempt to understand user satisfaction, intention to use and accept AR apps in tourism Scares attempt to understand organisation perspective towards AR implementation Little research has attempted to understand user satisfaction, intention to use and accept AR apps in tourism Understanding orgs willingness to adopt innovative techs like AR recognised as fundamental for future success and longevity of Implementations
- All orgs have different structures, size, scopes, value networks and influences Thus big difference between small and large orgs; Firm size and scope is a powerful influencer for tech adoption In tourism, many attractions are council owned or publically funded, therefore implementation of new technologies requires full support from the organisation Small Limited resources Limited funding But more agile toward change Large More resources Economies of scale – bargaining power But can take bigger risks Opportunity or threat? Understanding of org important to determine
- Tin Mine Museum. On mining site, closed in 1991 Huge part of local identity, heritage Reopened to preserve and maintain history Now UNESCO recognised, multi-award winning BUT publically funded, so seek additional revenue streams. AR tool to overcome challenges e.g. modernising site, updating visitor offer, appealing to wider audience, continuing technical legacy Understanding from org perspective important to ensure successful implementation of AR, development process and also increase longevity and use of AR
- -Semi-structured approach allowed freedom to add to and extend questions to gather enriched data Respondents were most knowledgeable and well – informed people in the organisation Provided AR info sheet beforehand to ensure all had level and proficient understanding of AR Table demos levels of understanding
- Bring the site to life, advance site, bring into 21st century Pre, during, post visit – increase visitors and repeat visits Alleviate staff pressure – Geevor face challenges with low budgets and staffing in summer – so cannot put enough torus on to cater to all customers – therefore AR described as prefect substitute for people, to interpret what they are looking at Better exp for all, esp those without guide Educational side large part of offering, AR broaden appeal Children are visitors of future, vital to engage them now Visits driven by children's reaction Multisensory experience – better education
- Engage children Novelty factor Cater and tailor info to diff levels Attract, engage and give younger audiences something to do Also help parents interpret site for kids, so get more form visits Positive perception change about attraction type, not ‘old dusty museum’ Therefore encourage visitors Different forms of interpretation, info boards and signage old fashioned Visitors can return to recall info, and source additional info Charge more !! Added value, get more from exp
- Introduce element of fun Keep engaged Raise morale Demonstrate site advancement Make job of educating easier by helping explain complex processes – save time Help interpret for disabled individuals or visitors with learning difficulties Preserve knowledge – members of staff with first-hand knowledge won't be around forever – identified as key value offering and strength Ensures authenticity of the exp, ensures strength of Geevor for years to come
- Enhance interpretation Extend appeal Support staff Entertain children – happy kids = happy family Add to, not detract from what is already there Target site to lots of dif users Visitors choice if want to use AR Additional tool
- Reduces visitors gap in knowledge – can be shown around by app or in person Improve efficiency of explaining complicated processes, animations Total add, not to detract from what is there AR not for everyone, added bonus Attract more people, increasing visitor admissions Reviews and comments on social media would help attract wider audience People who would not have previously visited Positive perception change More things to do Increase awareness of facilities, encourage to spend more Linked exp to café or shop
- All agreed positive impact Couldn't not make a difference Geevor's history, technical innovation been key – continue the legacy Improve visitor experience BUT would have to be fully and completely embraced
- Need to fully educate staff about potential and added value Need clear communication Staff resistance minimised if they were more educated “may secure their jobs, more money on site = more secure job” – vital in area of deprivation and high unemployment Highly motivated, enthusiastic and loyal staff PROBLEMS; Assumes everyone has mobile phone Need devices with enough spec, memory to sufficiently run app Issues with downloading 3G / wifi connectivity Cannot conflict with anything
- Modernise site Positive support Need for T orgs to embrace modern techs to remain competitive & attractive to modern T Need for clear implementation strategy identified Ensure doesn’t conflict with any other projects Max benefits realised for visitor and stakeholders Tech adoption in SMEs without proper planning have low success rate Need to teach stakeholder expected benefits, outcomes, what implementation would entail Study extend understanding, what factors influence adoption at org level Creating new knowledge and highlighting considerations for designing/ implementing AR apps for tourism AR use and implementation in tourism remains largely underexplored, is yet to be meaningfully implemented Limitations Findings based solely on Geevor, can be hard to generalise to other CHT attractions But they provide context and insight Small staff base – hard to generalise to big org Suggested to conduct study specific study prior to AR implementation Recommended to extend to include external stakeholders to provide more comprehensive and complete overview Have interviews with internal S throughout process to ensure org goals and strategies maintained