TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION
A BUSINESS RESEARCH PROJECT
IRUM HASSAN
1|Page
Implementation and Adoption of emerging technology are
problems within the organizations.
1. Research Statement.
People associated with an organization usually face problems in the adoption of new
technology.
1.1 Research Objective.
Main objective of this study is to identify the problems new technology brings with its
emergence in any organization. I am keen to identify the factors that are causing problems
regarding Q_OBE for the students in Namal. I will take a sample of Namal students and
study the problems they are facing while using Q_OBE. So, that I may be able to filter out
some important factors in this regard. This will ultimately lead the organization to create
better and comprehensive technology. And they can make sure that keeping in view the
factors determined by this study, they can make better strategies to solve the problem.
1.2 Research Question.
1. How Students at Namal are facing issues for operating Q_OBE?
2. Do lack of technical knowledge and training are impeding the students from
understanding Q_OBE?
3. Do students find the interface of previous LMS more easy to understand and use
than the new Q_OBE?
2. Target Audience.
I will target the students at Namal. As they are using the new Q_OBE panel. And I have
noticed that students are having issues while using the Q_OBE panel.
2.1 Method of research.
I will use the interview method mainly. If I feel any need to collect the responses for some
binary questions, then I will create any google docs form.
2|Page
3. Literature Review.
3.1 Students find the technology a complex term.
Understanding the level of complexity regarding the adoption of new technologies in any
business firm depends on the cost effectiveness purpose. Small organizations working in
3|Page
the rural areas are more likely to have a resistance for the acceptance of the technology.
And that’s one of the reason that created the uncertainty broaden whether the new
technology will be implemented in the organization or not. The difficulty level in this case
is important to understand as it can be because of the complex structure of the hardware
and its standards (Premkumar & Roberts, 1999). The efforts for the adoption of that
specific technology also matters along with the complexity. People who have a fear of
new technological implantations is because they don’t feel appreciations for adopting that
technology. So, the very first step we need to make sure for the implementation of the
technology is to change the perspectives of the employees in the organization for that
technology. According to the behavioral psychological analysis, this change can be
attained by helping the respective people to overcome their fears and anxieties about the
technology that is just introduced. It’s important to educate them properly for the purpose
that they don’t understand the new technology some alien term (Backer, 1995).
3.2 Lack of technical knowledge.
In most of the organizations, the people who are non-adopters of the technology are
mainly those who don’t know much about the emerging technology. This creates a hype
for the businesses to deliver a proper education for that technology. Also, there are
multiple other factors that cause people to not actively adopt the new technology. The
support from top management and the size of the businesses are few of them. The
organizations where the top management is involved and present an altogether benefits
in the active implantation of the technology, are having more technology adopters
(Premkumar & Roberts, 1999, p. 480).
Not every member of a social group that is exposed to an invention does so at the same
rate; some people and groups embrace an innovation more slowly than others. Although
technology has been successfully incorporated into higher education on campuses, the
faculty, administration and the students has been sluggish to do the same for teaching.
Technology adoption problems are multifaceted, multidimensional elements that are
impacted by many impediments. You must be aware of the problems and the ways in
which the barriers influence them in order to build successful tactics to remove them from
the way students use technology in education. Most of the time the visible reasons were
resistance to change by the students and lack of technological support provided by the
4|Page
organization. It was not unexpected to learn that the biggest obstacle to the University's
use of web-based technologies in education was the information or knowledge gap. The
institution may be categorized as an early adopter of the use of web-based technology in
education based on how the faculty has responded to its usage in instruction as well as
the acceptance and innovation curve. An institution may use the framework as a tool to
acquire a lot of data on technology adoption difficulties, identify and analyze concerns
and obstacles to technology (Abrahams, 2010).
3.3 Unavailability of technical support in campus.
The inability of any student or the teacher to pick the newly launched technology can be
because of the internal or external barriers. The internal barrier includes the “perception”
and “Attitude” towards that technology. But there are external barriers too. Access to
practical, pertinent, and suitable hardware and software is restricted, which falls under
the availability and accessibility category of obstacles. As a second broad category of
external barriers, technical support in the form of user services or media professionals
who help employees and students utilize and maintain various technologies, as well as
institutional support, may be combined. In a school, district, or institution, having a small
technical support team makes it very difficult to embrace new technologies. It's possible
that those working in technical assistance don't have the necessary skills. Technology
adoption hurdles in schools lead to a complicated balance and counterbalance of several
elements. What will and won't be taken into consideration is heavily influenced by views
about technology and how it is used in education. Attitudes regarding the degree of
institutional support that is provided is also important. Key individuals' attitudes and views
might end up being the biggest obstacle to implementing any technology. The availability
and accessibility of hardware and software, appropriate stakeholder development
opportunities for teachers and students at all levels of technology adoption, and
appropriate and adequate technical and institutional support to start and maintain
technology adoption in teaching and learning are the three major categories into which
potential barriers fall once they are past this stage (Rogers, 2000).
Although some students could have a lot of experience with some technologies, the
majority won't have any experience with learning technology like Blackboard, PowerPoint,
smartboards, or library databases. The kids who are attempting to utilize them may
5|Page
become frustrated by this. On occasion, students
lack
access
to
the
right
technologies and instructional settings (Gustafson & Kors, 2004). It's possible that
organizations that offer student help don't have the support planned at times that suit the
requirements of the students. Only 32% of colleges offering online programmers offered
24/7 technical assistance, and another 32% only provided minimal weekend support,
according to the "2010 Managing Online Education Survey". If the institution does not
offer this support, the instructor will have to deal with the students' annoyance and
requests for extra assistance in a subject that is neither their area of expertise nor their
job. Faculty engagement in the process of choosing and deploying new instructional
technologies is typically minimal. Continuous assistance is sometimes an afterthought
that fails to take into account all persons in need of it or the kinds of help they might
require. Many times, professional development falls short of faculty needs. Help desk
workers, technical trainers, and faculty development staff frequently work in different
departments and don't interact all that much (Reid, 2014).
3.4 Students don’t want to quit the comfort level attached to previous technology.
The degree to which the idea has been assimilated into the English language is seen by
phrases like "being in one's comfort zone" or "I'm comfortable with that." Behaviorists
and psychologists each have their own. Even so, when it comes to performance, it is
very simple to create a description of the comfort zone:
“A person operates in the comfort zone when their anxiety levels are low and they use a
small number of behaviors to produce a consistent level of performance, typically without
feeling at danger”.
This suggests that the performance level will remain constant as long as the "anxiety" or
the skills used do not vary. The degree of performance will also shift if the "anxiety" or
the abilities used change, either in an upward or downward direction (White, 2009).
Students' comfort level with remote education technology would be greatly influenced by
their prior experience with distance education. There was a notable difference in comfort
level between students who had previously taken remote education courses and those
who had not. Counter to what would be expected, a comparison of means showed that
students with prior course experience ranked their degree of technological comfort lower
than those enrolling in a distance education course for the first time. (Irani & Telg, 2002).
6|Page
4. Theoretical Framework.
4.1 Hypothesis.
1. Increase in the technical knowledge can help students understand and use the new
technology.
2. Students understanding and usage of the new emerging technology can be
enhanced by providing them proper trainings.
3. Encouraging the students to come out of their comfort zone can maximize the
technology adoption in them.
4.2 Variables:
4.2.1 Dependent Variables.
Technology adoption by students in the organization.
4.2.2 Independent variables.
 Technical knowledge.
 Enough trainings/support.
 Comfort zone.
Technical knowledge.
Enough trainings/
support.
Comfort zone.
Technology
adoption
students in the organization.
by
7|Page
References
Irani, T., & Telg, R. (2002). Gauging distance education students’ comfort level with technology
and perceptions of self-assessment and technology training initiatives. Journal of Applied
Communications, 45-55.
White, A. (2009). From comfort zone to performance management.
Abrahams, D. A. (2010). Technology adoption in higher education: A framework for
identifying and prioritising issues and barriers to adoption of instructional
technology. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education.
Backer, T. (1995). Assessing and enhancing readiness for change: Implications for
technology. In Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology
transfer. 21-41.
Gustafson, K., & Kors, K. (2004). Strategic implications of an educational technology
assessment. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 71–72.
Premkumar, G., & Roberts, M. (1999). Adoption of new information technologies in rural
small businesses. Omega, 4(27), 467-484.
Reid, P. (2014). Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies.
Education and Information Technologies., 383-407.
Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of
educational computing research, 455-472.