Presentation wseaskl acacos_4_april2013

334 views

Published on

WSEAS 12th International Conference on Applied Computer and Applied Computational Science (ACACOS'13)

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
334
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Presentation wseaskl acacos_4_april2013

  1. 1. EXPLORING IT PROFESSIONALS’ INTENTION TO USE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK Elnaz Farhang Darehshori & Norshidah Mohamed, PhD (Presenter) WSEAS 12th International Conference on Applied Computer and Applied Computational Science (ACACOS’13) Renaissance Kuala Lumpur MALAYSIA International Business School http://www.ibs.utm.my Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
  2. 2. OUTLINE• Introduction• Problem formulation• Problem solution• Conclusion 2
  3. 3. INTRODUCTION 3
  4. 4. INTRODUCTION• Software projects have shown an increase in size, complexity and number [1].• While the success of software projects is becoming more critical for these companies [2], a high percentage of software projects still fail to meet their objectives [3]. 4
  5. 5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS1. What is the acceptance of risk assessment framework among IT professionals?2. Do subjective norm, perceived awareness and perceived importance correlate to risk assessment framework acceptance? 5
  6. 6. PROBLEM FORMULATION 6
  7. 7. THEORETICAL BASISTheory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) 7
  8. 8. THEORETICAL BASIS .. cont’ Perceived Usefulness (U) Attitude Behavioral ActualExternal towards intention to system usevariables using (A) use (BI) Perceived Ease of use (E) Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1989) 8
  9. 9. RESEARCH MODEL ACCEPTANCE OF RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKEXTERNAL VARIABLES H2 Perceived ease of compliance Subjective norm H3 H5b Perceived Perceived importance usefulness H1 Perceived awareness Intention to use framework 9
  10. 10. PROBLEM SOLUTION 10
  11. 11. RESEARCH CONTEXT• Selected software development company in Malaysia• Cross-sectional survey approach• Research participants: IT professionals e.g. system administrator, programmer etc.• Risk assessment framework : Malaysia Risk Assessment Methodology (MyRAM) & Corrective and Preventing Action (CAPA) model based on learning from prior experiences 11
  12. 12. RESEARCH CONTEXT .. cont’Source:http://www.mampu.gov.my/pdf/surat_arahankp24nov10/SAMPEL%20DOKUMEN%20ISMS/Sampel%20dokumen%20P1/RA%20Guideline%20%28MAMPU-BPICT-ISMS-P1-008%29.pdf 12
  13. 13. POPULATION & SAMPLING• Estimated population: 202• Sample: 150• Total usable responses: 100• Convenient sampling approach 13
  14. 14. PROFILE OF RESPONDENTSProfile of respondents PercentageGender Male 54 Female 46 Total 100Age 20-29 36 30-39 43 40-49 20 Missing 1 Total 100Education Bachelor 46 Master 52 Doctorate 2 Total 100 14
  15. 15. PROFILE OF VARIABLESMeasures / code / mean Factor α loading Intention to use (overall mean score: 3.49)It is worth to use MyRAM and 0.865 0.861CAPA in software development.(ITU1) mean: 3.91In developing software, I will 0.841frequently use MyRAM and CAPA.(ITU2) mean: 3.67I will strongly recommend others to 0.840use MyRAM and CAPA whendeveloping software. (ITU3) mean:3.08When developing software, I plan to 0.838use MyRAM and CAPA. (ITU4) 15mean: 3.30
  16. 16. PROFILE OF VARIABLES .. cont’Measures / code / mean Factor α loading Perceived usefulness (overall mean score: 3.43)Using MyRAM and CAPA improves my 0.764 0.880performance in assessing softwaredevelopment risks. (PU1) mean: 3.46In software development, using MyRAM 0.694and CAPA enhances my effectiveness inassessing software development risks.(PU2) mean: 3.38Using MyRAM and CAPA improves the 0.885quality of software development riskassessment. (PU3) mean: 3.33Overall, I find using MyRAM and CAPA 0.823useful in assessing software developmentrisks. (PU4) mean: 3.55 16
  17. 17. PROFILE OF VARIABLES .. cont’Measures / code / mean Factor loading α Perceived ease of compliance (overall mean score: 3.68)MyRAM and CAPA are easy for me to comply to. 0.890 0.879(PEOU1) mean:3.51I find it is easy to comply to MyRAM and CAPA. 0.894(PEOU2) mean: 3.43It would be easy for me to become skilful at 0.747complying to both MyRAM and CAPA. (PEOU3)mean: 3.85Overall, I find MyRAM and CAPA as software 0.654development risk assessment tool easy to comply to.(PEOU4) mean: 3.92 17
  18. 18. PROFILE OF VARIABLES .. cont’Measures / code / mean Factor loading α Subjective norm (overall mean score: 3.48)Most people (e.g. my team members, colleagues) 0.850 0.895who are important to me would think that Ishould use MyRAM and CAPA. (SN1) mean:3.48The organisation that I work for would think that 0.817I should use MyRAM and CAPA. (SN2) mean:3.53My superior and/or sponsor who influence(s) my 0.826behaviour would think that I should useMyRAM and CAPA. (SN3) mean: 3.44 18
  19. 19. PROFILE OF VARIABLES .. cont’Measures / code / mean Factor loading α Perceived importance (overall mean score: 3.40)For me personally, in my job, MyRAM and 0.835 0.899CAPA are important. (PI1) mean: 3.42For me personally, in my job, MyRAM and 0.837CAPA are relevant. (PI2) mean: 3.41For me personally, in my job, MyRAM and 0.816CAPA are needed. (PI4) mean: 3.28For me personally, in my job, MyRAM and 0.780CAPA are essential. (PI3) mean: 3.48 19
  20. 20. PROFILE OF VARIABLES .. cont’Measures / code / mean Factor loading α Perceived awareness (overall mean score: 3.70)I understand what software development risks 0.894 0.824are. (PA1) mean: 3.64I understand the procedure to deal with 0.889software development risks. (PA2) mean: 3.54I understand what software risk assessment 0.675process is. (PA3) mean: 3.78I understand what MyRAM is. (PA4) mean: 0.9323.81I understand what CAPA is. (PA5) mean: 3.72 0.786 20
  21. 21. CORRELATION ANALYSIS ITU PU PEOU SN PI PAITU 1PU 0.808** 1PEOU 0.708** 0.491** 1SN 0.591** 0.565** 0.483** 1PI 0.699** 0.711** 0.390** 0.626** 1PA 0.845** 0.774** 0.546** 0.596** 0.641** 1 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) 21
  22. 22. CONCLUSION 22
  23. 23. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS1. What is the acceptance of risk assessment framework among IT professionals?• IT professionals at the software company had positive perceptions of risk assessment framework acceptance.• All measures of risk framework acceptance were valid and internally consistent in the context of Malaysian software development environment. 23
  24. 24. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..cont’2. Do subjective norm, perceived awareness and perceived importance correlate to risk assessment framework acceptance? • All hypotheses were supported • Strong correlation is found for acceptance of risk assessment framework (intention to use, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of compliance). 24
  25. 25. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..cont’2. Do subjective norm, perceived awareness and perceived importance correlate to risk assessment framework acceptance?• When IT professionals perceive usefulness of the risk assessment framework, they will have intention to use it at their workplace.• Besides, they perceive that the framework is easy to comply to. Owing to its ease of compliance, they are likely to see it as being useful to them. 25
  26. 26. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..cont’2. Do subjective norm, perceived awareness and perceived importance correlate to risk assessment framework acceptance?• People who matter to IT professionals at the workplace will promote the professionals’ acceptance of the risk assessment framework.• With awareness and perception of importance of the assessment framework, they see it as useful and are likely to use it. 26
  27. 27. LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH• Data was collected on a convenient basis at a particular software company and in Malaysia• Future research may explore other companies and in countries other than Malaysia. 27
  28. 28. THANK YOUnorshidah@ic.utm.my 28

×