The document summarizes the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework for understanding technology adoption. TAM models how users come to accept new technologies based on perceived usefulness and ease of use. It is built on expectancy-value theory and the theory of reasoned action. TOE framework examines how three contexts - technological, organizational, and environmental - influence organizations' decisions to adopt innovations. The document provides details on the key constructs of each model and examples of how they have been applied to study different technologies and industries.

1. 1
Sammer Qader
TAM & TOE Framework
By
Sammer A. Qader
HCED
Information Technology
Department

2. 2
Sammer Qader
TAM.TOE Framework
TAM
Introduction
Global businesses are turning to information technology to compete in a constantly
changing marketplace. Customers demand higher-quality products, more choice of
products, and lower prices. To meet these customer needs, businesses are adopting more,
increasingly complex information systems. Timely and accurate information is a key to
gaining performance efficiency.
1. The technology acceptance model (TAM)
Is an information systems theory that models how users come to accept and use a
technology? The model suggests that when users are presented with a new technology, a
number of factors influence their decision about how and when they will use it (defined
by Fred Davis)
1.1 TAM is built on two theories, the expectancy-value model and the
TRA..
a) Expectancy-Value Theory
b) Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
a) Expectancy-Value Theory
The expectancy-value theory was developed in an attempt to understand the motivation
underlying the behavior of individuals. The theory helps to explain why individuals accept
or reject information technology. The foundation of this theory is BI, which is posited as
the immediate precursor of a particular behavior. The concept of BI is the foundation of
TAM Understanding the elements that influence intention can give researchers the ability
to better predict the likelihood of an individual engaging in a particular behavior, such as
technology adoption

3. 3
Sammer Qader
b) Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
TRA improves the predictive and explanatory nature of the expectancy-value theory.
The TRA is a general model which posits that “a person’s performance of a specific
behavior is determined by his or her BI to perform the behavior” (Davis et al. 1989).
Eveland (1986) observes that “ultimately, technology transfer is a function of what
individuals think – because what they do depends on those thoughts, feelings and
interests” TRA, shown in Fig. 2.1, posits that
 A person’s beliefs and evaluations lead to their attitude(A) toward the behavior,
which in turn leads to BI.
 Normative beliefs and motivation affect the subjective norm (SN) which also
influences BI.
 The SN is defined as the influence others will have on the acceptance decision.
Acceptance may be influenced by peers, subordinates, or superiors. Beliefs in the
model are defined as “the individual’s subjective probability that performing the
target behavior will result in consequence i” (Davis et al. 1989, p. 984).
 BI is determined by the person’s attitude (A) and SN concerning the behavior in
question (Davis et al. 1989).
 In its simplest form, the TRA can be expressed as the following equation:
Where:
• BI = behavioral intention
• (A) = one's attitude toward performing the behavior
• W = empirically derived weights
• SN = one's subjective norm related to performing the behavior[8]
BI = (A) W1 + (SN)

4. 4
Sammer Qader
1.2. TAM posits two key variables beliefs,
1. The perceived usefulness (PU):the degree to which a person believes that using a
particular system would enhance his or her job performance.
 The four independent variables operationalizing PU were (Davis et al. 1989,
p. 991):
 Using Write One would increase my performance in the MBA program.
 Using Write One in the MBA program would increase my productivity.
 Using Write would enhance my effectiveness in the MBA program.
 I would find Write One useful in the MBA program.
2. The perceived ease of use(PEOU): the degree to which a person believes that using
a particular system would be free from effort
 The four PEOU independent variables are (Davis et al. 1989, p. 991):
 Learning to operate Write One would be easy for me.
 I would find it easy to get Write One to do what I want it to do.
 It would be easy for me to become skillful at using Write One.
 I would find Write One easy to use.
Usage of the system, the dependent variable, was measured by two variables.
The first was a seven-point scale with frequent and infrequent as the end points.
The other was a seven-point check-the-box scale describing the responding,

5. 5
Sammer Qader
TAM figure
1.3. Types of Information Systems Examined by TAM.
 .Area of communications systems (e-mail, v-mail, fax, and dial-up systems)
 General-purpose systems (Windows, PC, the Internet, workstations, computer
resource centers, and groupware. Office systems such as word processors,
spreadsheets, presentation software, database programs
 Business systems (systems such as computerized models, case tools, hospital
systems, In Health care system, decision support systems, expert support systems,
and MRP )
 Education (Online Learning )
 Online shopping
 E-commerce
 Marketing
TOE

6. 6
Sammer Qader
2.The technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework
The technology–organization–environment (TOE) framework is described inTornatzky and
Fleischer’s The Processes of Technological Innovation (1990). The book describes the
entire process of innovation – stretching from the development of innovations by engineers
and entrepreneurs to the adoption and implementation of those innovations by users within
the context of a firm. The TOE framework represents one segment of this process – how
the firm context influences the adoption and implementation of innovations. The TOE
framework is an organization-level theory that explains that three different elements of a
firm’s context influence adoption decisions. These three elements are the technological
context, the organizational context, and the environmental context. All three are posited to
influence technological innovation.
3.The Technological Context
The technological context includes all of the technologies that are relevant to the
firm – both technologies that are already in use at the firm as well as those that are
available in the marketplace but not currently in use. A firm’s existing technologies
are important in the adoption process because they set a broad limit on the scope and
pace of technological change that a firm can undertake (Collins et al. 1988).
Innovations that exist but are not yet in use at the firm also influence innovation –
both by demarcating the limits of what is possible as well as by showing firms ways
in which technology can enable them to evolve and adapt
3.1. The three elements of TOE.
1. Technological context
Includes the internal and external technologies that are relevant to the firm. Technologies
may include both equipment as well as processes.
2. The organizational context

7. 7
Sammer Qader
Refers to the characteristics and resources of the firm, including the firm’s size, degree of
centralization, degree of formalization, managerial structure, human resources, amount of
slack resources, and linkages among employees.
3. The environmental context
Includes the size and structure of the industry the firm’s competitors the macroeconomic
context and the regulatory environment (Tornatzky and Fleisher 1990).
These three elements present “both constraints and opportunities for technological
innovation Thus, these three elements influence the way a firm sees the need for, searches
for, and adopts new technology.
Three elements of TOE
3.2. Example of TOE framework

8. 8
Sammer Qader
The TOE model has been used to explain the adoption of inter organizational
systems, e-business, electronic data interchange (EDI), open systems, enterprise
systems 09), and a broad spectrum of general IS applications. The TOE model has
been utilized to explain the adoption of innovations in a host of industries, including
manufacturing, health care, retail, wholesale, and financial services. Furthermore,
the TOE model has been tested in European, American, and Asian contexts, as well
as in both developed as well as developing countries. In each study, the three
elements of technology, organization,
3.3 The Technology–Organization–Environment Framework In Future
Research
The majority of the theoretical development that has taken place related to the TOE
framework has been limited to enumerating the different factors that are relevant in
various adoption contexts. No new constructs have been added to the framework.
This section, reasons for this lack of theoretical development will be presented,
followed by directions for future research.
3.3.1 Reasons for Lack of Development
There may be multiple reasons for the relative lack of evolution and change in the
TOE framework since its initial development.
First:
The TOE framework has been described as a “generic” theory (Zhu and Kraemer
2005, p. 63). This assessment seems appropriate considering that the theory has
come to be used as a framework within which a host of various factors can be placed
the freedom to vary the factors or measures for each new research
Second:
The TOE framework may have seen relatively little evolution because it has been
viewed as aligned with other explanations of innovation adoption –rather than
offering a competing explanation to them.
3.3.2 Future Directions for TOE Research
Future research with the TOE framework can take a number of directions.

9. 9
Sammer Qader
Perhaps the most obvious is that the TOE framework can continue to be used for
empirical research.
Other possibilities exist as well. For instance, one area of interest to researchers is
inter organizational adoption. The TOE framework has been used to study the
adoption of inter organizational systems,
References
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM
 Information Systems Theory Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society,
Vol. 1
By
Yogesh K. Dwivedi
Michael R. Wade
Scott L. Schneberger Editors