Effect of user experience on technology acceptance: the case of foss

1 EFFECT OF USER EXPERIENCE ON TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE: THE CASE OF FOSS M. Dolores Gallego Pereira, mdgal[email protected], Universidad Pablo de Olavide Salvador Bueno Ávila, [email protected], Universidad Pablo de Olavide ABSTRACT Free and open source software (FOSS) movement essentially arises like answer to the evolution occurred in the market from the software, characterized by the closing of the source code. Furthermore, some FOSS characteristics, such as (1) the advance of this movement and (2) the attractiveness that contributes the voluntary and cooperative work, have increased the interest of the users towards free software. Traditionally, research in FOSS has focused on identifying individual personal motives for participating in the development of a FOSS project, analyzing specific FOSS solutions, or the FOSS movement itself. Nevertheless, the advantages of the FOSS for users and the effect of the demographic dimensions on user acceptance for FOSS have been two research topics with little attention. Specifically, this paper’s aim is to focus on the influence of the user experience with FOSS the FOSS acceptance. Based on the literature, user experience is an essential demographic dimension for explaining the Information Systems acceptance. With this purpose, the authors have developed a research model based on the Technological Acceptance Model (TAM). RESUMEN El movimiento asociado al software de código abierto (FOSS) surge como una respuesta a la evolución acontecida en el mercado del software, caracterizado por el cierre del código fuente. Además, algunas características del FOSS como (1) el avance de este movimiento y (2) el atractivo que suscita debido a que se construye bajo la filosofía de trabajo voluntario y cooperativo, ha incrementado el interés de los usuarios hacia FOSS. Tradicionalmente las investigaciones en FOSS han estado centradas en identificar las motivaciones personales de participar en el desarrollo de un proyecto FOSS. Mientras que las ventajas del FOSS para los usuarios y el efecto de las dimensiones demográficas en la aceptación de FOSS han sido dos tópicos de investigación con poca atención. Concretamente, este artículo se centra en analizar la influencia de la experiencia con FOSS en la propia aceptación de FOSS. Basado en la literatura, la experiencia del usuario es una dimensión demográfica esencial para explicar la aceptación de los Sistemas de Información. Con este propósito, los autores han desarrollado un modelo de investigación basado en el Metamodelo de Aceptación de la Tecnología (TAM). 2 1. INTRODUCTION From a professional, academic, business and political standpoint, few topics are as current as the development and implementation of free and open source software (FOSS). The changes introduced by FOSS in the software industry have been surprising, and represent a radical change of perspective in developmental business models and software distribution. This change has turned FOSS into one of the most debated topics among software users and analysts Fuggetta (2003). In recent years, FOSS use has rapidly grown among organizations and users, thanks to the advantages that it offers when compared to proprietary software (Ruffin and Ebert, 2004). As a consequence of its evolution, a great amount of research has been done on FOSS. Traditionally, this research has focused on, either the identification of the personal motives of the people who participate in the development of an FOSS project (Bonaccorsi and Rossi, 2003; Hertel et al., 2003; Ye and Kishida, 2003; Hars and Ou, 2002; and Ryan and Deci, 2000), the analysis of specific solutions that are developed by the FOSS movement (Federman,2006; Fink, 2003; Franke and Von Hippel, 2003; Mustonen, 2003; and Garbone and Stoddard, 2001), or on the FOSS movement, itself (Shen, 2005; Van Wendel and Egyedi, 2005; Dwan, 2004; Bonaccorsi and Rossi, 2003; Fuggetta, 2003; Krishnamurthy, 2003; Lakhani and Von Hippel, 2003; West, 2003; Johnson, 2002; Scacchi, 2002) However, the profile of the FOSS user or the influence of the demographic dimensions the acceptance towards this software solution has received very little attention. For this reason, our purpose is to analyze the effect of the user experience on the acceptance for FOSS. User experience is one of the essential demographic dimensions for explaining the Information Systems acceptance. For this development, we have considered the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) which provides the theoretical and methodological framework capable of explaining the acceptance for FOSS. With this objective in mind, we have carried out a study on users of the Linux operating system. We consider that the TAM application for users of the Linux Operative System serves as a representative sample of potential FOSS users. Thus, we understand that the conclusions reached from our specific study will allow to uncover the factors that influence user acceptance of any technology based on FOSS. 2. TAM METHODOLOGY AND HYPOTHESIS The TAM model developed by Davis (1989) has been widely applied with the purpose of understanding the conduct and motivational factors that influence Information Systems and Technologies (IS/IT) adoption and use. Just as Venkatesh and Davis (2000) indicate, only ten years after the model publication, the Social Science Citation Index listed more than four-hundred articles that had cited both articles which introduced TAM methodology, Davis (1989) and Davis et al. (1989). Since then, the model has become well established as a powerful and efficient tool for predicting user acceptance. The TAM model is an adaptation of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1985) to explain and predict the behaviour of organizational members in specific situations. TAM adapts the TRA model to provide evidence for the general factors that influence IS/IT acceptance in order to help determine user behaviour towards a specific IS/IT. This powerful model allows for a contrast in behaviour on the part of the user and is based on four fundamental variables or constructs which are: perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEU), intention to use (IU) and usage behaviour (UB). Independent of the internal constructs of the TAM model, FOSS users consider that the acceptance for FOSS is influenced by some external variables. Therefore, our goal is to identify the external constructs that influence the 3 intention of use a FOSS solution. With this objective in mind, we have taken as a reference the study elaborated previously by the authors Gallego et al. (2008). Based on this work, we consider suitable to include four external constructs to the TAM model. These variables are: system capability (SC), software flexibility (SF), software quality (SQ) and social influence (SI). In a same way, based on the TAM model proposed by Gallego et al. (2008) about FOSS usage behaviour, we formulate an acceptance model that was validated in the cited work with a sample with 347 Linux users. This model explains the user behaviour for FOSS solutions in a 39.1% (Fig. 1). We asked to the users of the sample the years of experience with FOSS for completing our study. Fig. 1. Reduced research model. Source: by Gallego et al. (2008) The experience with FOSS already had been including in other similar studies. The experience with FOSS allows to users the assimilation of information about this software solution and to increase the knowledge on its advantages. In this sense, the user experience influences the user perceptions for FOSS. Some researchers, such as Igbaria and Chakrabarti (1990), Igbaria and Nachman (1990) or Agarwal and Prasad (1999), suggest that the user experience with a technology improves the perceptions and attitudes towards the use. Based on this point of view, we formulate the first working hypotheses of this research. These hypotheses are stated in the following way: • Hypothesis 1 (H1): The user experience with FOSS has a positive effect on perceived ease of use for FOSS • Hypothesis 2 (H2): The user experience with FOSS has a positive effect on perceived usefulness for FOSS. • Hypothesis 3 (H3): The user experience with FOSS has a positive effect on intention to use for FOSS • Hypothesis 4 (H4): The user experience with FOSS will have a positive effect on usage behaviour for FOSS 3. SAMPLE INFORMATION AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS We have selected Linux FOSS users for the sample of our study. We understand that these users are a representation of all FOSS users, and the results obtained could extrapolate any solution based on FOSS. In this sense, we turned to The Linux Counter website, where we were able to access the contact information of the users that were registered in the website. The information provided to us happened to be organized by geographic areas. We selected the European countries which tended to have a higher number of registered users. Within each area, the selection made was completely at random. A total of 1,736 study invitations were sent out by electronic mail to registered Linux users in eleven different European countries. In the end, we received 363 Perceived usefulness R 2 =0.752 Perceived ease of use R 2 =0.481 Intention to use R 2 =0.676 Usage behaviour R 2 =0.391 0.613 *** ( t=6.206 ) 0.156 * (t=1.986) 0.389 *** ( t=7.373 ) 0.369 *** (t=5.424) 0374 ** ( t=2.888 ) 4 survey responses. Of those, 347 were complete and valid for our study. This number represents a response rate of twenty percent. In order to measure each one the variables included in the TAM model developed for our study, we carried out a review of the literature that allowed identifying items for each one of the constructs. The survey and the selection of the sample used for the study already were validated Gallego et al. (2008). In order to cover the main objective of this study, the users of the sample indicated the years of experience with FOSS. The feedback obtained allows realizing a descriptive analysis about the user experience with FOSS and classifying the sample in three categories of users (see Table I). Besides, we have could can observe that the average years of experience with FOSS is very high, (7.43 years). This data shows the loyalty of FOSS users towards this type of technology. Table 1: descriptive analysis Mean S.D. Categories Number of participants 7,43 3,33 Less than 5 years 106 Between 6 - 9 years 131 More than 10 years 110 4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In order to agree upon all the hypotheses collected in the research model, a causal analysis have been developed. The research models were tested by structural equation modelling (SEM) using Lisrel 8.51 with maximumlikelihood estimation. The parameters that represent the regression coefficients among the constructs are indicated with the symbol γ if the relationship it represents is between an independent construct and a dependent one. If the relationship established is between two dependent constructs, it is indicated with the symbol β. PEU = γ1 SC + γ2 SI + SF γ3 + ε1 PU = γ4 SQ + SC γ5 + SI γ6 + β1 PEU + ε2 IU = β2 PEU + β3 PU + ε3 UB = β4 IU + β5 PU + ε4 For the Lisrel, we were able to prove how the model very adequately explains the variance in the perceived ease of use (R2=0,481), perceived usefulness (R2=0,752), intention to use (R2=0,676) and usage behaviour (R2=0,391) Gallego et al. (2008). Based on these findings, we have developed a causal analysis to each group of user experience with FOSS. After, we will compare the findings. The comparison analysis will allow obtaining significant discussions about the influence of user experience the FOSS acceptance. We also use Lisrel 8.51 with maximum-likelihood estimation. 5. RESEARCH MODEL TEST The user experience toward a certain type of technology has generally a positive effect on the perceptions and attitudes towards the use. In our particular research, we want to test the positive influence of the user experience with FOSS on perceived ease of use (H1), perceived usefulness (H2), intention to use (H3) and usage behaviour (H4) for FOSS. Finally, in order to test satisfactorily all the hypotheses, we have divided the sample in two subsamples (see Table II). This decision is adopted to obtain sufficiently wide sub-samples for reaching estimations of the regression equations with the software Lisrel (Boomsma, 1982). 5 The hypotheses were tested for p <0.05*, p <0.01**, p <0.001*** (based on t(499); t(0.05;499) = 1.967007242; t(0.01; 499) = 2.590452926; t(0.001;499) = 3.319543035). Table 2: Model hypotheses contrast These findings show the high significance of the relationship posed in hypothesis H1, between perceived ease of use and user experience. Specifically, the sub-group formed by users with experience with more than seven years has an explained variance of 0.676. The group of users with less than seven years of FOSS experience has an explained variance of 0.446. In both case the level of significance is very high. According to these findings, hypothesis H1 is tested significantly. Regarding to the perception of usefulness, we can observe how the users with less experience perceive more usefulness (0.820) than the users with major experience (0.777). These results don’t verify the positive relationship defined in the hypothesis H2. For that, we can’t accept the hypothesis H2. Finally, with respect to the hypotheses H3 and H4, which define the positive effect between the FOSS experience with the usage behaviour and the intention to use an FOSS solution, we can’t accept them. In these sense, the hypotheses H3 and H4 have not been tested significantly. Nevertheless, based on these findings, we can’t state that the user experience with FOSS has a negative effect on perception of usefulness, usage behaviour or intention to use a FOSS solution. Only we can confirm that these relationships aren’t positive or don’t exist a significant difference. 6. DISCUSSIONS Even though research on FOSS has proliferated in recent years, the acceptance of this type of technological solution on behalf of the users had not been tackled. Thus, the main objective that we pose with this research is to analyze the influence of the user experience with FOSS the acceptance towards this type of technology. With this aim, we have formulated a Technology Acceptance Model based on a previous study of the authors. Besides, we have identified relevant discussions about the influence of user experience the FOSS acceptance. First, we have observed the particularity of FOSS. Specifically, the positive relationship between user experience and perceived ease of use for FOSS (H1) has been tested significantly. Nevertheless, there aren’t significant Interval of year Relationship γ or β tstudent R2 R2 Interval of year Relationship γ or β tstudent R2 R2 Up to seven years of user’s experienc e with FOSS SC→ PEU 0.394 4.435 0.446 0.481 More than seven years of user’s experienc e with FOSS SC→ PEU 0.565 4.041 0.676 0.481 SI→ PEU 0.0298 0.539 SI→ PEU 0.0274 0.604 SF→ PEU 0.118 2.034 SF→ PEU 0.114 3.697 PEU→ PU 0.440 3.164 0.820 0.752 PEU→ PU 0.384 1.124 0.777 0.752 SQ→ PU 0.775 4.756 SQ→ PU 0.714 3.283 SC→ PU 0.0904 0.593 SC→ PU 0.788 1.571 SI→ PU 0.00596 0.0852 SI→ PU 0.0500 0.544 PEU → UB 0.677 4.883 0.675 0.676 PEU → UB 0.737 4.198 0.685 0.676 PU → UB 0.412 4.772 PU → UB 0.350 5.396 PU → IU 0.355 3.458 0.463 0.391 PU → IU 0.316 3.960 0.319 0.391 UB→ IU 0.279 2.613 AU→ IU 0.0176 0.160 6 differences about the perception of usefulness, intention to use or user behaviour between users with different level of experience (hypotheses H2, H3 and H4). Second, with these findings we cannot affirm that exist negative relationships with respect the perception of usefulness, intention to use or user behaviour with the level of experience. For that, these findings show the particularity of the FOSS movement. Thirds, based on the findings, we can affirm that the FOSS governmental organizations and developers must favourer the flow of FOSS information for fomenting the use of these solutions. With this in mind, we think that the efforts of organizations for increasing the number of FOSS users must be orientated to users who only apply proprietary solutions. REFERENCES Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1999). Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies? Decision Sciences, Vol. 30 (2), pp. 361-391. Bonaccorsi, A. and Rossi, C. (2003). Comparing motivations of individual programmers and firms to take part in the Open Source movement. From community to business. http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/ bnaccorsirossimotivationlong.pdf [25-03-2006]. Bonaccorsi, A., and Rossi, C. (2003). Why Open Source software can succeed. Research Policy 32 (7), pp. 1243- 1258. Boomsma, A. (1982). The robustness of Lisrel against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In K.G. Ed. Joreskog y H. Wold, Systems underindirect observation. Amsterdam, Holland. Carbone, G., and Stoddard, D. (2001). Open source enterprise solutions. Nueva York: Wiley. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, pp. 319-340. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22, pp. 1111-1132. Dwan, B. (2004). Open source vs closed. Network Security 5, pp. 11-13. Federman, M. (2006). The Penguinist Discourse: A critical application of open source software project management to organization development. Organization Development Journal 24 (2), pp. 89-100. Fink, M. (2003). The business and economics of Linux and Open Source. New Jersey: Prentience Hall PTR. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Nueva York: Addison - Wesley. Franke, N. and Von Hippel, E. (2003). Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software. Research Policy 32 (7), pp. 1199-1215. Fuggetta, A. (2003). Open source software - an evaluation. Journal of Systems and Software 66 (1), pp. 77-90. Gallego, M.D., Luna, P. and S. Bueno (2007). User acceptance model of Open Source Software. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (5), pp. 2199-2216. Hars, A., and Ou, S. (2002). Working for Free? Motivations for Participating in Open-Source Projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6 (3), pp. 25-40. Hertel, G., Niedner, S., and Herrmann, S. (2003). Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Research Policy 32 (7), pp. 1159-1177. 7 Igbaria, M. and Chakrabarti, A. (1990). Computer anxiety and attitudes towards microcomputer use. Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 9 (3), pp. 229-241. Igbaria, M. and Nachman, S.A. (1990). Correlates of user satisfaction with end user computing: an exploratory study. Information and Management, Vol. 19 (2), pp. 73-82. Johnson, J.P. (2002). Open Source Software: Private Provision of a Public Good. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 11 (4), pp. 637-662. Krishnamurthy, S. (2003). A managerial overview of open source software. Business Horizons 46 (5), pp. 47-56. Lakhani, K. and Von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works: "free" user-to-user assistance. Research Policy 32 (6), pp. 923-943. Mustonen, M. (2003). Copyleft–the economics of Linux and other open source software. Information Economics and Policy 15 (1), pp. 99-121. Ruffin, C., and Ebert, C. (2004). Using open source software in product development. A primer. IEEE Software, 21 (1), pp. 82-86. Ryan, R., and Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1), pp. 54-67. Scacchi, W. (2002). Understanding the Requirements for Developing Open Source Software Systems. IEE Proceedings--Software 149 (1), pp. 24-39. Shen, X. (2005) Developing Country Perspectives on Software: Intellectual Property and Open Source - A Case Study of Microsoft and Linux in China. International Journal of IT Standards & Standardization Research 3 (1), pp. 21-43. Van Wendel, R. and Egyedi, T. (2005). Handling variety: the tension between adaptability and interoperability of open source software. Computer Standards & Interfaces 28 (1), pp. 109-121. Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46 (2), 186-205. West, J. (2003). How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy 32 (7), pp. 1259-1285. Ye, Y., and Kishida, K. (2003). Toward an Understanding of the Motivation of Open Source Software Developers. International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE2003), Portland, Or.