Technology Acceptance and Why it Matters to Healthcare Simulation

Technology Acceptance refers to a model, developed first proposed in 1989 by Fred Davis, that assesses an end-users acceptance of a technology. Now the model is most often related to the computer technologies and related innovations. However, it is important for this article to expand the understanding of technology and innovations. When think about the word technology most would immediately think of a computer system or some other electronic device, but in the broadest sense of the word paper is a technology, so is a book, a quill, ink, and any number of other of developments over the centuries. Using the Merriam-Webster’s definition we find that technology is “the practical application of knowledge, a capability given by the practical application of knowledge, or a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.” Innovation has the same broad definition from the same source “the introduction of something new, a new idea, method, or device.”

Often when individuals use these terms that are attributing it to a device or application, but the broader sense of these words the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is a core component for introducing, training, education, and sharing new ideas. In fact it could be renamed to the New Idea, Process, Method, Device, Acceptance Model. When framed in this way the TAM becomes more than an explanation of how to ensure a new computer system or technology is accepted and adopted, it becomes how new ideas are accepted by those hearing it. When thinking about it in this way even the way we teach old ideas that are new to the audience come under the well-researched TAM.

With the broader sense of the terms in mind, the TAM is a model that traditional attempt to define information system use and moves towards new idea or concept implementation. The original model is built on the premise that Perceived Usefulness (PU) “the degree to which a person believes that a particular system would enhance their job performance” and the Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort” together increase or decrease the probability of “Behavioral Intent” to actually use a system “Usage.”

When applied to a concept or idea that is new to an individual this would be slightly altered to from “system” to “concept” or “idea.” The meat of this comes in the sub-factors that can lead to increasing PU and PEU, or can be barriers and decrease PU and PEU. The most relevant of these sub-factors that an institution can most readily use to influence an end-user to implement a new idea, concept, device, or application are perception of external control, computer playfulness (playfulness), perceived enjoyment, objective usability, job relevance, computer anxiety (anxiety), computer self-efficacy (self-efficacy).

7 Practical Methods to Get New Idea or Technology Accepted

Perception of External Control: This the degree which a user believes that there exists support for using or implementing a technology or idea. Institutions can directly influence implementation by ensuring that there is a safety net of support exists that is robust, responsive, immediate, or reduces the fear of failure. When they try the new idea or technology do they feel they are supported and have access to resources when they have questions or issues arise. Reduce risk through mentoring or having support immediately available during a transition from the old way to new way.

Computer Playfulness (Playfulness): Using the less specific playfulness is an important change as this has to do with new ideas as well as technologies that are not necessarily computer related. The actual definition is the degree of cognitive spontaneity in interactions with new idea or technology. To address this, institutions can provide opportunities to play with an idea or technology in a risk-free environment. Have faculty try out the idea or technology without fear of failure, reduce pressure, and come up with fun ways of implementing the idea or technology.

Perceived Enjoyment: This is the extent to which an activity with a particular idea or technology is perceived to be enjoyable aside from performance consequences. While an institution does not have direct influence on the perceived enjoyment, implementing the playfulness strategies will naturally increase enjoyment because nothing is more enjoyable than success. When a new idea of technology is successfully implemented the natural consequence is joy and satisfaction. Artificially enjoyment can be increased and enhanced through recognition, awards, praise, and rewards.

Objective Usability: This is an objective comparison of how much and what type of effort is required to implement and idea or technology versus the perception of effort required. Looking objectively at what it will actually take to implement an idea or technology is often overlooked and leads to adoption failure. This should be done prior to implementation so there is a clear understanding of what it will take to implement, and then plan to address the perceptions that might arise so they can be addressed early and often. Take a hard look at the new idea or technology and attempt to identify what it will actually take for an end-user to implement, assess for initial perceptions that end-users may have and make plans according to those perceptions and mitigate the misperceptions by having a plan to address them.

Job Relevance/Quality Output: This is a persons’ perception of the degree to which an idea or technology is relevant to their job and improves the quality or quantity of work. This is pretty basic, do not introduce a new idea that is not relevant to the end-users job and does not promise to increase the quality or quantity of work. If an institution believes it will, then sell it, market it accordingly, build up the relevance of the new idea or technology and the positive impact it will have on their jobs. Demonstrate how it is relevant to their jobs and how it will improve performance.

Computer Anxiety (Anxiety): This is the degree of an end-users anxiety, fear, and apprehension when faced with a new idea or technology. Playfulness and success can overcome this, but even more knowing ahead of time those that are resistant to change, new ideas, technology, or simply prefer the old ways of doing something must be addressed. Resistance to change is common for a huge number of reasons. Institutions can prepare for this by first understanding who and to what level that anxiety, fear, and apprehension will play in resistance to the new idea or technology. Get to know what is at the heart of the resistance by assessing the end-users. Knowing why they are resistant can assist in finding ways of mitigating those issues. Using peer support can mitigate these issues, and success experienced among peers in implementing a new idea or technology can overcome anxiety. In addition, creating risk-free environments that allow a resistant end-user to try out a new idea or technology cannot be stressed enough. Success breeds joy and overcomes fear and anxiety.

Computer Self-Efficacy (Self-Efficacy): This is the degree to which an end-user believes they have the ability to perform or implement a new idea or technology. Again, this is a matter of creating risk-free environments for the end-user to practice and gain confidence, along with a professional development plan to build the knowledge and skills necessary to implement the idea or technology. In my experience, most training and professional development programs concentrate on step-by-step instructions to use a particular technology, but very little is done to address the psychosocial factor of self-efficacy. In order to increase self-efficacy, a training approach must address it first and foremost. If an individual does not believe that have the ability or skill to implement and idea or use a technology, then a series of step-by-step instructions is falling on deaf ears, and they will default to what they already know and what they perceive as within their current skillset.

Overall, new ideas and technologies require a comprehensive plan of implementation if an institution wants it to be widely adopted successfully. Without a solid plan, new ideas and technology either fail entirely, or are sporadically implemented, and often with many key features unused. This is not just something for staff and faculty, it is something that should be considered when implementing new ideas and technology to students as well. We all assume the younger generations of students are totally adapted to accepting new ideas and technologies. We see them with their devices, their use of social media, and they all seem to be innovative thinkers. The fact is your students fit on the same exact scale of in the same exact numbers – 2.5% are innovative thinkers, 13.5 are early adopters, 34% are early majority, 34% are late majority, and 16% are laggards. This means in your class of 30 students, 1 will be an innovator, 4 will be early adopters, 10 will be early majority, 10 will be late majority, and 5 will be laggards.

This has huge ramifications when considering the introduction of new concepts or technologies. 4 of the students will quickly accept and see all the benefits of the idea or technology and will enthusiastically begin to see its’ relevance. However, the majority of your class will naturally have barriers to learning that are typically left unaddressed.

A huge issue I have with healthcare simulation is the failure to recognize and address technology acceptance and adoption among student populations that it is being used on. One of the first things we all learn as educators is “knowing your audience,” yet simulation professionals operate on the assumption that all students equally accept the concept of simulation without consideration that over 97% of their students will resist the technologies and ideas based on solid research that has been around since the 60’s. The assumption as I stated earlier is that all students because of their age and the fact they have grown up with technology are automatically in with doing things differently, and this flies in the face of reality.

The answer is simple; do not assume, make plans to address the psychosocial factors of technology acceptance in your curriculum. Simulation organizations should begin to advocate for introducing simulation and the technologies that support it as part of the curriculum. If simulation is going to be the accepted a way of teaching, training, and meeting standards of practice, then introduce them to what it is prior to expecting them to perform in simulation. Prior to using a SimMan3G to teach students, ensure they are comfortable with using the SimMan3G. If you expect them to perform while being filmed then address the factors that are natural barriers to performing while filmed. Show them how to use the tools before you expect them perform procedures that would normally be done on a real patient without all the simulation technology. The current “high-fidelity” solutions are not when compared to an actual patient and they require some getting used too. So get them used to the technology by introducing it early and more often than once or twice a semester.

SETTI.CO specializes in offering on-site training and professional development, as well as technology consulting services that focus on developing and innovating practice and utilization of your current technological resources. Interconnecting humanity and technology to bring about higher utilization, efficiency, effectiveness, and increasing your return on investment is our goal, and we believe that it is always best to get the most of the technology you have already invested.

James D. Cypert

Founder/CEO

SETTI.CO

james@setti.co