Diffusion of Innovations and Compatibility
Compatibility
“Theoretical and empirical research in technology acceptance, while acknowledging the importance of individual beliefs about the compatibility of a technology, has produced equivocal results” (Karahanna et al, 2006, p. 781). This study denotes the importance of integrating the compatibility construct within technology acceptance models as well as its confounding results in doing so. Rogers (1962) was the first one to introduce and define the term compatibility in his Innovation Diffusion Theory. “Compatibility assesses the extent of congruence between a new technology and various aspects of the individual and the situation in which the technology will be utilized” (Karahanna et al., 2006, p. 782). Diverse studies identified a significant relationship between compatibility and technology acceptance
(Agarwal and Prasad, 1997; Karahanna et al, 1999; Taylor and Todd, 1995). A study performed by Tornatzky and Klein (1982) concluded that, from ten innovative aspects, only relative advantage, complexity and compatibility were consistently and significantly related to technology adoption. However, integrating compatibility in models of technology acceptance has had limited success thus far. A frequent occurring problem amongst researchers was the inability to discriminate between compatibility and constructs equal to UTAUT’s performance expectancy. According to Karahanna et al. (2006) this was due to the inadequate operationalization of the compatibility construct. Rogers (1983) defined compatibility as the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with existing values, needs and past experiences of potential adopters.
Studies incorporating compatibility, defined it, like Rogers (1983) as multidimensional, yet operationalized it as a unidimensional construct (e.g. Moore and Benbasat, 1991; Taylor and
Todd, 1995). Karahanna et al. (2006) attempt to overcome these methodological shortcomings by defining compatibility
“Theoretical and empirical research in technology acceptance, while acknowledging the importance of individual beliefs about the compatibility of a technology, has produced equivocal results” (Karahanna et al, 2006, p. 781). This study denotes the importance of integrating the compatibility construct within technology acceptance models as well as its confounding results in doing so. Rogers (1962) was the first one to introduce and define the term compatibility in his Innovation Diffusion Theory. “Compatibility assesses the extent of congruence between a new technology and various aspects of the individual and the situation in which the technology will be utilized” (Karahanna et al., 2006, p. 782). Diverse studies identified a significant relationship between compatibility and technology acceptance
(Agarwal and Prasad, 1997; Karahanna et al, 1999; Taylor and Todd, 1995). A study performed by Tornatzky and Klein (1982) concluded that, from ten innovative aspects, only relative advantage, complexity and compatibility were consistently and significantly related to technology adoption. However, integrating compatibility in models of technology acceptance has had limited success thus far. A frequent occurring problem amongst researchers was the inability to discriminate between compatibility and constructs equal to UTAUT’s performance expectancy. According to Karahanna et al. (2006) this was due to the inadequate operationalization of the compatibility construct. Rogers (1983) defined compatibility as the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with existing values, needs and past experiences of potential adopters.
Studies incorporating compatibility, defined it, like Rogers (1983) as multidimensional, yet operationalized it as a unidimensional construct (e.g. Moore and Benbasat, 1991; Taylor and
Todd, 1995). Karahanna et al. (2006) attempt to overcome these methodological shortcomings by defining compatibility