Explaining IT usage in government through “resistance to change”

Abstract

Purpose

The technology acceptance model (TAM) is robust in predicting user acceptance of internet and communication technology (IT) in various contexts but with limited explanatory power. This research uses the theory of bureaucracy to test if resistance to change (RTC) is a significant external factor relevant to the TAM in explaining IT acceptance and usage in a government context. This paper aims to address these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

The research employs a survey of 700 randomly selected government employees in Hong Kong. Additional information is gathered from senior management to validate the survey results.

Findings

RTC can improve the explanatory power of TAM. It bridges previous researches' findings in the TAM. The TAM is confirmed applicable in the government context and most of the theoretical relationships hold true. However, the usefulness‐intention direct link is found to be unstable. Hong Kong Government staff as a whole tends to be reluctant to change. Statistical tests show that there are heterogeneous behaviour groups within the organization. Specifically, younger and more educated staff are more willing to change.

Research limitations/implications

The usable sample is relatively small (n=66).

Practical implications

The use of IT relies on the resistance level. System managers should target the younger and more educated users first to build up sufficient user mass and adopt peer pressure for a more successful level of implementation across all staff.

Originality/value

This is the first research to test the TAM in the Hong Kong Government context. It shows that there are deficiencies in TAM and weaknesses in previous TAM research. Also, as RTC is common to all organizations, the findings in this research are valuable to all organizations.

Citation

Kai Pong Leung, T. and Adams, J. (2009), "Explaining IT usage in government through “resistance to change”", Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 176-192. https://doi.org/10.1108/17561390910999489