{"id":{"repo_id":"cape-town","oai_identifier":"oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/5660"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cape-town/oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/5660","repository":{"repo_id":"cape-town","name":"University of Cape Town","base_url":"https://open.uct.ac.za/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"A comparison of alternative technology adoption models : the adoption of a CASE tool at a university","abstract":"In a field such as that of Information Systems the emergence of new technologies is one of the only constants. It is therefore necessary, indeed vital, to be able to measure, as well as anticipate, the adoption and diffusion of these new technologies into organisations. For this purpose adoption models came to the fore. Such models include the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), the Technology Acceptance Model 2 (T AM2) (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour (DTPB) (Taylor & Todd, 1995b), and the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating model (PCI) (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). Adoption models test the perceptions and attitudes of potential and actual adopters of a new technology. Although all of the adoption models test adoption of a new technology, each tests different aspects of this adoption. Through the comparison of the four adoption models mentioned above, this study determines which constructs mostly strongly explain the adoption of a CASE tool by university students. These constructs are then combined to form a new technology adoption model, the Perceived Characteristics of Technology Adoption CPCTA), which is tested and found to explain a significant degree of variance in the context of CASE tool adoption amongst students at a university.","abstract_html":"In a field such as that of Information Systems the emergence of new technologies is one of the only constants. It is therefore necessary, indeed vital, to be able to measure, as well as anticipate, the adoption and diffusion of these new technologies into organisations. For this purpose adoption models came to the fore. Such models include the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), the Technology Acceptance Model 2 (T AM2) (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour (DTPB) (Taylor & Todd, 1995b), and the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating model (PCI) (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). Adoption models test the perceptions and attitudes of potential and actual adopters of a new technology. Although all of the adoption models test adoption of a new technology, each tests different aspects of this adoption. Through the comparison of the four adoption models mentioned above, this study determines which constructs mostly strongly explain the adoption of a CASE tool by university students. These constructs are then combined to form a new technology adoption model, the Perceived Characteristics of Technology Adoption CPCTA), which is tested and found to explain a significant degree of variance in the context of CASE tool adoption amongst students at a university.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Pollock, Michael A"],"institution":"Department of Information Systems","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Eccles, Mike"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2004,"date_issued":"2004","date_published":"2004","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:23:41Z","subjects":[],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/11427/5660","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Eccles, Mike"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Pollock, Michael A"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-07-31T12:18:17Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-07-31T12:18:17Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2004"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["Department of Information Systems"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Cape Town"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Master Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Masters"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["MCom"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/11427/5660"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Bibliography: leaves 95-105."]},{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["In a field such as that of Information Systems the emergence of new technologies is one of the only constants. It is therefore necessary, indeed vital, to be able to measure, as well as anticipate, the adoption and diffusion of these new technologies into organisations. For this purpose adoption models came to the fore. Such models include the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), the Technology Acceptance Model 2 (T AM2) (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour (DTPB) (Taylor & Todd, 1995b), and the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating model (PCI) (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). Adoption models test the perceptions and attitudes of potential and actual adopters of a new technology. Although all of the adoption models test adoption of a new technology, each tests different aspects of this adoption. Through the comparison of the four adoption models mentioned above, this study determines which constructs mostly strongly explain the adoption of a CASE tool by university students. These constructs are then combined to form a new technology adoption model, the Perceived Characteristics of Technology Adoption CPCTA), which is tested and found to explain a significant degree of variance in the context of CASE tool adoption amongst students at a university."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A comparison of alternative technology adoption models : the adoption of a CASE tool at a university"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Eccles, Mike"],"dc:creator":["Pollock, Michael A"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-07-31T12:18:17Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-07-31T12:18:17Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2004"],"dc:description":["Bibliography: leaves 95-105."],"dc:description.abstract":["In a field such as that of Information Systems the emergence of new technologies is one of the only constants. It is therefore necessary, indeed vital, to be able to measure, as well as anticipate, the adoption and diffusion of these new technologies into organisations. For this purpose adoption models came to the fore. Such models include the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), the Technology Acceptance Model 2 (T AM2) (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour (DTPB) (Taylor & Todd, 1995b), and the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating model (PCI) (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). Adoption models test the perceptions and attitudes of potential and actual adopters of a new technology. Although all of the adoption models test adoption of a new technology, each tests different aspects of this adoption. Through the comparison of the four adoption models mentioned above, this study determines which constructs mostly strongly explain the adoption of a CASE tool by university students. These constructs are then combined to form a new technology adoption model, the Perceived Characteristics of Technology Adoption CPCTA), which is tested and found to explain a significant degree of variance in the context of CASE tool adoption amongst students at a university."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/11427/5660"],"dc:language.iso":["eng"],"dc:publisher.department":["Department of Information Systems"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Cape Town"],"dc:title":["A comparison of alternative technology adoption models : the adoption of a CASE tool at a university"],"dc:type":["Master Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Masters"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["MCom"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:23:41Z"}