Intention of adoption of social media in projects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20397/2177-6652/2021.v21i1.2003Palavras-chave:
Project Management, Social Media, Web 2.0, Intention of AdoptionResumo
The use of social media tools can offer benefits to organizations and for project management. It is known that before the actual behavior of adopting a technology, there is a step of intention formation, but, what seems not to be well known is what factors can influence such intention, specifically in the context of projects. To fill this gap we developed this study with the objective of identifying which factors influence the intention of adopting social media in projects. A survey was distributed to project professionals in 24 countries and 5 continents (n=171). After execution of PLS technique, we found three factors that influence the intention of adopting social media in projects (performance expectance, social factor and perceived ease of use), so professionals who want to adopt social media technologies in their project tasks should pay attentions and invest their efforts in these aspects. We also observed that contextual factors could make correlations with the intention of adoption less significant than originally proposed for compatibility and testability dimensions in seminal studies.Referências
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewoords Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall.
Bonabeau, E. (2009). Decisions 2.0: the power of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 45.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
Denyer, D., Parry, E., & Flowers, P. (2011). “Social”, “Open” and “Participative”? Exploring personal experiences and organisational effects of enterprise 2.0 use. Long Range Planning, 44(5–6), 375–296.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lanf, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
Filev, A. (2008). Project management 2.0: the ultimate benefits of the new approach to project management. PM World Today, X.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Massachussets: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Freitas, H., Janissek-Muniz, R., Costa, R., Andriotti, F., & Freitas, P. (2009). Guia prático Sphinx (1o ed). Canoas: Sphinx.
Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Harris, A. L., & Rea, A. (2019). Web 2.0 and virtual world technologies: a growing impact on IS education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 3.
Horwitz, F., Bravington, D., & Silvis, U. (2006). The promise of virtual teams: identifying key factors in effectiveness and failure. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(6), 472–494.
Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., Sidhu, J., & Oshri, I. (2013). Management innovation and adoption of emerging technologies: The case of cloud computing. European Management Review, 10(1), 51–67.
Khedhaouria, A., Montani, F., & Thurik, R. (2017). Time pressure and team member creativity within R&D projects: the role of learning orientation and knowledge sourcing. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 942–954.
Kosalge, P., & Tole, O. (2010). Web 2.0 and business: early results on perceptions of web 2.0 and factors influencing its adoption (p. 208). Apresentado em AMCIS.
Liang, T., Wu, J., Jiang, J., & Klein, G. (2012). The impact of value diversity on information system development projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 731–739.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 140–155.
Mariani, M. (2020). Web 2.0 and destination marketing: current trends and future directions. Sustainability, 12(9), 3771.
Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
Orenga-Roglá, S., & Chalmeta, R. (2019). Methodology for the implementation of knowledge management systems 2.0. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61(2), 195-213.
O’Leary, M., & Cummings, J. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 1, 433–452.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Recuperado 2 de outubro de 2016, de www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228/
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology readiness index (TRI): a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320.
Parasuraman, A., & Colby, C. (2001). Techno-ready marketing: how and why your customers adopt technology. New York: The Free Press.
Ribeiro, I. C., & Pedron, C. D. (2018). Características do gerenciamento de projetos 2.0: um estudo exploratório. Revista Gestão & Tecnologia, 18(2), 300-320.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5o ed). New York: The Free Press.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 561–570.
Thompson, R., Higgins, C., & Howell, J. (1991). Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124–143.
Triandis, H. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, California: Brooke/Cole.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward A Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 29, p. 271–360). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60019-2
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User aceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Venkatesh, V., & Speier, C. (1999). Computer technology training in the workplace: a longitudinal investigation of the effect of the mood. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(1), 1–28.
Zander, L., Mockaitis, A., & Butler, C. (2012). Leading global teams. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 592–603.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Gestão & Tecnologia
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Os direitos, inclusive os de tradução, são reservados. É permitido citar parte de artigos sem autorização prévia desde que seja identificada a fonte. A reprodução total de artigos é proibida. Em caso de dúvidas, consulte o Editor.
