what is tam?
|
What are "PU" & "PEU"? |
|
"accepting" technology?
|
|
the model |
|
Limitations of tam
- Assumes people plan their behavior and are rational in their actions
- Assumes we actually evaluate the usefulness of a technology
- Products like iPad or iPhone generate massive draw without people ever knowing usefulness of it
- Doesn’t tell us how to make technology easy to use or useful - doesn’t give any design advice
- Even in cited research, very few researchers use the TAM “as-is” - they use updated models or put their own restrictions and requirements on the predictive behaviours.
- The TAM is not a good predictor, if looking for numbers. Generalities can be extrapolated from similar deployments, but nothing conclusive or strongly predictive.
- The TAM is evaluated in hindsight only, after a particular deployment has succeeded or failed. It is hard to apply this model directly to real-life (real time). Rather the generalities surrounding the model should make those wishing to introduce new technologies aware of similar challenges and provide broad guidelines.
- It really doesn’t do well outside of formal spaces: work, school, etc. When it comes to hedonic technology use (music, games, video, etc) the TAM is ineffective in any reliable capacity. This may have links to things like Game-Based Learning or Gamification, which rely on hedonic feedback to engender motivation.