Examining the Intention to Adopt an Online Platform for Freight Forwarding Services in Thailand: A Modified Unified Theory for Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background Literature and Hypotheses
2.1. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
2.2. Development of Influencing Factors toward the Intention to Use an Online Platform for Freight Forwarding Services
2.2.1. Performance Expectancy (PE)
2.2.2. Effort Expectancy (EE)
2.2.3. Social Influence (SI)
2.2.4. Perceived Risk (PR)
2.2.5. Facilitating Conditions (FCs)
2.2.6. Intention to Use (IU) and Actual Use (AU)
2.2.7. Moderators
2.3. Proposed Structural Model
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
3.2. Measures and Questionnaire
3.3. Data Analysis: Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
4. Results
4.1. Demographic Structure of Respondents
4.2. Assessment of the Measurement Model
4.3. Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing
4.4. Analysis of Moderating Effects
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1. Discussion of Results
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Theoretical Implications
- (1)
- Extended application of UTAUT model: This study reinforces the robustness of the modified UTAUT model in predicting technology adoption behaviors within the logistics and supply chain management context. It underscores the predictive power of variables such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, perceived risk, and facilitating conditions across diverse organizational settings.
- (2)
- Insights into technology adoption drivers: By identifying and validating factors influencing adoption intentions, such as perceived performance benefits and ease of use, this research provides deeper insights into the cognitive and motivational aspects that shape technology adoption decisions. This contributes to refining theoretical frameworks on technology acceptance by highlighting the nuanced interplay of these factors.
- (3)
- Contextual understanding in logistics: This study enriches the understanding of technology adoption in the logistics industry, emphasizing industry-specific challenges and opportunities. It underscores the importance of organizational readiness, social influences, and perceived risks as critical factors requiring tailored strategies for successful implementation of new technology platforms.
- (4)
- Implication for risk management strategies: This study’s findings on the negative impact of perceived risk on adoption intentions emphasize the critical role of effective risk management strategies in technology adoption initiatives. This prompts further exploration into strategies for mitigating risks and integrating them into adoption frameworks to alleviate user concerns and enhance adoption rates.
- (5)
- Generalizability and transferability of findings: The research findings contribute to the generalizability of technology adoption theories across various contexts, providing insights applicable to similar industries and technological innovations. This supports broader applications of theoretical frameworks in understanding and predicting technology adoption behaviors across different organizational environments.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Research Conclusions
6.2. Limitations and Future Research Direction
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Song, D. A Literature Review, Container Shipping Supply Chain: Planning Problems and Research Opportunities. Logistics 2021, 5, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raza, Z.; Woxenius, J.; Vural, C.A.; Lind, M. Digital Transformation of Maritime Logistics: Exploring Trends in the Liner Shipping Segment. Comput. Ind. 2023, 145, 103811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cichosz, M.; Wallenburg, C.M.; Knemeyer, A.M. Digital Transformation at Logistics Service Providers: Barriers, Success Factors and Leading Practices. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2020, 31, 209–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.; Kushwaha, P.S.; Badhera, U.; Chatterjee, P.; Gonzalez, E.D.R.S. Identification of Benefits, Challenges, and Pathways in E-Commerce Industries: An Integrated Two-Phase Decision-Making Model. Sustain. Oper. Comput. 2023, 4, 200–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinartz, W.; Wiegand, N.; Imschloss, M. The Impact of Digital Transformation on the Retailing Value Chain. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2019, 36, 350–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Surucu-Balci, E.; Iris, Ç.; Balci, G. Digital Information in Maritime Supply Chains with Blockchain and Cloud Platforms: Supply Chain Capabilities, Barriers, and Research Opportunities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2024, 198, 122978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, A.; van der Heijden, R.; Marchau, V.; Bruckmann, D. Towards Rail-Road Online Exchange Platforms in EU-Freight Transportation Markets: An Analysis of Matching Supply and Demand in Multimodal Services. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chanpuypetch, W.; Supeekit, T.; Niemsakul, J. IOT-Based Business Process Management for Temperature-Controlled Logistics of Laboratory Specimens. In Proceedings of the 37th ECMS International Conference on Modelling and Simulation, ECMS 2023, Florence, Italy, 20–23 June 2023; Vicario, E., Bandinelli, R., Fani, V., Mastroianni, M., Eds.; European Council for Modeling and Simulation: Caserta, Italy, 2023; pp. 359–365. [Google Scholar]
- Mishrif, A.; Khan, A. Technology Adoption as Survival Strategy for Small and Medium Enterprises during COVID-19. J. Innov. Entrep. 2023, 12, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, S.; Jones, P.; Kailer, N.; Weinmann, A.; Chaparro-Banegas, N.; Roig-Tierno, N. Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of Research. Sage Open 2021, 11, 215824402110475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ueasangkomsate, P. Adoption E-Commerce for Export Market of Small and Medium Enterprises in Thailand. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 207, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zamani, S.Z. Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Facing an Evolving Technological Era: A Systematic Literature Review on the Adoption of Technologies in SMEs. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2022, 25, 735–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, H.; Soni, U.; Gupta, S.; Kumar, G. Evaluation of Barriers in the Adoption of E-Commerce Technology in SMEs. J. Electron. Commer. Organ. 2021, 20, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H. A Review of Technology Acceptance and Adoption Models and Theories. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 22, 960–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Chen, Q.; Kitkuakul, S. Regulatory Focus and Technology Acceptance: Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness as Efficacy. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2018, 5, 1459006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Rashidin, M.S.; Song, F.; Wang, Y.; Javed, S.; Wang, J. Determinants of Consumer’s Purchase Intention on Fresh E-Commerce Platform: Perspective of UTAUT Model. Sage Open 2021, 11, 215824402110278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razif, M.; Miraja, B.A.; Persada, S.F.; Nadlifatin, R.; Belgiawan, P.F.; Redi, A.A.N.P.; Lin, S.-C. Investigating the Role of Environmental Concern and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology on Working from Home Technologies Adoption during COVID-19. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020, 8, 795–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sari, D.M.F.P.; Suprapti, N.W.S.; Sukaatmadja, I.P.G.; Sukawati, T.G.R. The Implementation of Purchasing Omnichannel Marketing Based through the Expansion of the UTAUT 2 Model. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2023, 11, 1441–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mensah, I.K.; Khan, M.K. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model: Factors Influencing Mobile Banking Services’ Adoption in China. Sage Open 2024, 14, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alduais, F.; Al-Smadi, M.O. Intention to Use E-Payments from the Perspective of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Evidence from Yemen. Economies 2022, 10, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attuquayefio, S.; Addo, H. Using the UTAUT Model to Analyze Students’ ICT Adoption. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Using Inf. Commun. Technol. 2014, 10, 75–86. [Google Scholar]
- Cai, L.; Yuen, K.F.; Xie, D.; Fang, M.; Wang, X. Consumer’s Usage of Logistics Technologies: Integration of Habit into the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67, 101789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, K.O. A Study on Sustainable Usage Intention of Blockchain in the Big Data Era: Logistics and Supply Chain Management Companies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahzad, K.; Zhang, Q.; Khan, M.K. Blockchain Technology Adoption in Supply Chain Management: An Investigation from UTAUT and Information System Success Model. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2024, 18, 165–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, L.-T.; Nguyen, D.-T.; Ngoc, K.N.-N.; Duc, D.T.V. Blockchain Adoption in Logistics Companies in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2023, 10, 2216436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, W.; Fu, C.; Chen, Z.; Zhong, R. Research on Logistics Platform Resource Integration Based on UTAUT Model. In Proceeding of the 24th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management 2018; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 542–548. [Google Scholar]
- HM, A.J.; KB, A.; VR, H. Technology Adoption in Material Procurement: An Empirical Study Applying the UTAUT Model Among Construction Companies in India. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moryson, H.; Moeser, G. Consumer Adoption of Cloud Computing Services in Germany: Investigation of Moderating Effects by Applying an UTAUT Model. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2016, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senk, C. Adoption of Security as a Service. J. Internet Serv. Appl. 2013, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Queiroz, M.M.; Pereira, S.C.F. Intention to Adopt BIG DATA in Supply Chain Management: A Brazilian Perspective. Rev. Adm. Empresas 2019, 59, 389–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uddin, M.A.; Alam, M.S.; Mamun, A.A.; Khan, T.-U.-Z.; Akter, A. A Study of the Adoption and Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): Identification of Moderators and Mediator. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chayomchai, A.; Phonsiri, W.; Junjit, A.; Boongapim, R.; Suwannapusit, U. Factors Affecting Acceptance and Use of Online Technology in Thai People during COVID-19 Quarantine Time. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2020, 10, 3009–3016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esawe, A.T. Exploring Retailers’ Behavioural Intentions Towards Using M-Payment: Extending UTAUT with Perceived Risk and Trust. Paradig. A Manag. Res. J. 2022, 26, 8–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Namahoot, K.S.; Jantasri, V. Integration of UTAUT Model in Thailand Cashless Payment System Adoption: The Mediating Role of Perceived Risk and Trust. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2023, 14, 634–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, B.; Guo, Z. Understanding Users’ Continuance Usage Behavior Towards Digital Health Information System Driven by the Digital Revolution Under COVID-19 Context: An Extended UTAUT Model. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2022, 15, 2831–2842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misra, R.; Mahajan, R.; Singh, N.; Khorana, S.; Rana, N.P. Factors Impacting Behavioural Intentions to Adopt the Electronic Marketplace: Findings from Small Businesses in India. Electron. Mark. 2022, 32, 1639–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odusanya, K.; Aluko, O.; Lal, B. Building Consumers’ Trust in Electronic Retail Platforms in the Sub-Saharan Context: An Exploratory Study on Drivers and Impact on Continuance Intention. Inf. Syst. Front. 2022, 24, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antwi-Boampong, A.; Boison, D.; Doumbia, M.; Boakye, A.; Osei-Fosua, L.; Owiredu Sarbeng, K. Factors Affecting Port Users’ Behavioral Intentions to Adopt Financial Technology (Fintech) in Ports in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Case of Ports in Ghana. FinTech 2022, 1, 362–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Persada, S.F.; Afandi, F.; Redi, A.A.N.P.; Nadlifatin, R.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Kurniawan, A.C. Mix Method Analysis for Analyzing User Behavior on Logistic Company Mobile Pocket Software. J. Sist. Dan Manaj. Ind. 2023, 7, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajunaied, K.; Hussin, N.; Kamarudin, S. Behavioral Intention to Adopt FinTech Services: An Extension of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2023, 9, 100010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, W.; Shin, H.Y.; Wu, H.; Chang, X. Extending UTAUT2 with Knowledge to Test Chinese Consumers’ Adoption of Imported Spirits Flash Delivery Applications. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, M.B.; Tuhin, R.; Alim, M.A.; Rokonuzzaman, M.; Rahman, S.M.; Nuruzzaman, M. Acceptance and Use of ICT in Tourism: The Modified UTAUT Model. J. Tour. Futures 2022, 10, 334–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alalwan, A.A. Investigating the Impact of Social Media Advertising Features on Customer Purchase Intention. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 42, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbad, M.M.M. Using the UTAUT Model to Understand Students’ Usage of e-Learning Systems in Developing Countries. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 7205–7224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alwahaishi, S.; Snášel, V. Modeling the Determinants Affecting Consumers’ Acceptance and Use of Information and Communications Technology. Int. J. E-Adopt. 2013, 5, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alwahaishi, S.; Snásel, V. Consumers’ Acceptance and Use of Information and Communications Technology: A UTAUT and Flow Based Theoretical Model. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2013, 8, 9–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarfaraz, J. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model-Mobile Banking. J. Internet Bank. Commer. 2017, 22, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, T. Understanding Online Community User Participation: A Social Influence Perspective. Internet Res. 2011, 21, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamal, S.A.; Shafiq, M.; Kakria, P. Investigating Acceptance of Telemedicine Services through an Extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Technol. Soc. 2020, 60, 101212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Lee, K.-H. Multiple Routes for Social Influence: The Role of Compliance, Internalization, and Social Identity. Soc. Psychol. Q. 2002, 65, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rathore, B.; Gupta, R.; Biswas, B.; Srivastava, A.; Gupta, S. Identification and Analysis of Adoption Barriers of Disruptive Technologies in the Logistics Industry. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2022, 33, 136–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.Y.; Lee, S.Y. A Research on Users’ Behavioral Intention to Adopt Internet of Things (IoT) Technology in the Logistics Industry: The Case of Cainiao Logistics Network. J. Int. Logist. Trade 2023, 21, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Yu, X. The Impact of Perceived Risk on Consumers’ Cross-Platform Buying Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 592246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, J.-H.; Song, C.H. Effects of Trust and Perceived Risk on User Acceptance of a New Technology Service. Soc. Behav. Pres. 2013, 41, 587–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qalati, S.A.; Vela, E.G.; Li, W.; Dakhan, S.A.; Hong Thuy, T.T.; Merani, S.H. Effects of Perceived Service Quality, Website Quality, and Reputation on Purchase Intention: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust and Perceived Risk in Online Shopping. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1869363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Gahtani, S.S. Computer Technology Acceptance Success Factors in Saudi Arabia: An Exploratory Study. J. Glob. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2004, 7, 5–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, S.; Islam, M.F.; Zannat, N.-E. Behavioral Intention to Use Online for Shopping in Bangladesh: A Technology Acceptance Model Analysis. Sage Open 2023, 13, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camilleri, M.A. The Online Users’ Perceptions toward Electronic Government Services. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc. 2020, 18, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radicic, D.; Petković, S. Impact of Digitalization on Technological Innovations in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 191, 122474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lertwongsatien, C.; Wongpinunwatana, N. E-Commerce Adoption in Thailand: An Empirical Study of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). J. Glob. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2003, 6, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omoruyi, O. Influence of Information Technology on Logistics Integration and Delivery Reliability of Small and Medium Enterprises in Gauteng Province. Int. J. Ebusiness Egovernment Stud. 2018, 10, 34–50. [Google Scholar]
- Setiawan, M.D.; Adhariani, D.; Harymawan, I.; Widodo, M. E-commerce and Micro and Small Industries Performance: The Role of Firm Size as a Moderator. J. Open Innov.: Technol. Mark. Complex. 2023, 9, 100142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrade, C. Sample Size and Its Importance in Research. Indian. J. Psychol. Med. 2020, 42, 102–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnston, K.M.; Lakzadeh, P.; Donato, B.M.K.; Szabo, S.M. Methods of Sample Size Calculation in Descriptive Retrospective Burden of Illness Studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2019, 19, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dash, G.; Paul, J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM Methods for Research in Social Sciences and Technology Forecasting. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 173, 121092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H. Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research. SSRN Electron. J. 2016, 5, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haddad, S.S.; Nasib, N.F. The Role of Online Platforms in Enhancing Logistics Activity Performance; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 186–203. [Google Scholar]
- Hameed, M.A.; Arachchilage, N.A.G. A Conceptual Model for the Organisational Adoption of Information System Security Innovations; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 9781315757421. [Google Scholar]
- Usakli, A.; Rasoolimanesh, S.M. Which SEM to Use and What to Report? A Comparison of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM. In Cutting Edge Research Methods in Hospitality and Tourism; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2023; pp. 5–28. [Google Scholar]
- Ghasemi, A.; Zahediasl, S. Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A Guide for Non-Statisticians. Int. J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2012, 10, 486–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.-Y. Statistical Notes for Clinical Researchers: Assessing Normal Distribution (2) Using Skewness and Kurtosis. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2013, 38, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, P.; Pandey, C.; Singh, U.; Gupta, A.; Sahu, C.; Keshri, A. Descriptive Statistics and Normality Tests for Statistical Data. Ann. Card. Anaesth. 2019, 22, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marsh, H.W.; Hocevar, D. Application of Confirmatory Factor Analysis to the Study of Self-Concept: First- and Higher Order Factor Models and Their Invariance across Groups. Psychol. Bull. 1985, 97, 562–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Methodology in the Social Sciences; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-4625-2334-4 (Paperback); 978-1-4625-2335-1 (Hardcover); 978-1-4625-2300-9 (PDF). [Google Scholar]
- MacCallum, R.C.; Browne, M.W.; Sugawara, H.M. Power Analysis and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling. Psychol. Methods 1996, 1, 130–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moss, T.P.; Lawson, V.; White, P. Identification of the Underlying Factor Structure of the Derriford Appearance Scale 24. PeerJ 2015, 3, e1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 1992, 21, 230–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, L.R.; Lewis, C. A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis. Psychometrika 1973, 38, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentler, P.M. Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 107, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Shang, M.; Jia, C.; Lim, X.-J.; Ye, Y. Understanding Consumers’ Continuous-Use Intention of Crowdsourcing Logistics Services: Empirical Evidence from China. Heliyon 2024, 10, e29819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boonsothonsatit, G.; Vongbunyong, S.; Chonsawat, N.; Chanpuypetch, W. Development of a Hybrid AHP-TOPSIS Decision-Making Framework for Technology Selection in Hospital Medication Dispensing Processes. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 2500–2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graf-Vlachy, L.; Buhtz, K.; König, A. Social Influence in Technology Adoption: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. Manag. Rev. Q. 2018, 68, 37–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalia, P.; Zia, A.; Kaur, K. Social Influence in Online Retail: A Review and Research Agenda. Eur. Manag. J. 2023, 41, 1034–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y. A General Framework of Digitization Risks in International Business. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2022, 53, 344–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abrahão, R.d.S.; Moriguchi, S.N.; Andrade, D.F. Intention of Adoption of Mobile Payment: An Analysis in the Light of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). RAI Rev. Adm. Inovação 2016, 13, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwarteng, M.A.; Ntsiful, A.; Diego, L.F.P.; Novák, P. Extending UTAUT with Competitive Pressure for SMEs Digitalization Adoption in Two European Nations: A Multi-Group Analysis. Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Suh, T.; Roy, D.; Baucus, M. Emerging Technology and Business Model Innovation: The Case of Artificial Intelligence. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saarikko, T.; Westergren, U.H.; Blomquist, T. Digital Transformation: Five Recommendations for the Digitally Conscious Firm. Bus. Horiz. 2020, 63, 825–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazancoglu, I.; Ozbiltekin-Pala, M.; Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, A.; Kazancoglu, Y. Using Emerging Technologies to Improve the Sustainability and Resilience of Supply Chains in a Fuzzy Environment in the Context of COVID-19. Ann. Oper. Res. 2023, 322, 217–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, G.; Schillebeeckx, S.J.D. Digital Transformation, Sustainability, and Purpose in the Multinational Enterprise. J. World Bus. 2022, 57, 101326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adouani, Y.; Khenissi, M.A. Investigating Computer Science Students’ Intentions towards the Use of an Online Educational Platform Using an Extended Technology Acceptance Model (e-TAM): An Empirical Study at a Public University in Tunisia. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saksono, A.S.; Untoro, W. Consumer Perceived Ease of Use and Consumer Perceived Usefulness in Using the Shopee Application in Surakarta with Discount as a Moderation Variable. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. Res. 2023, 8, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyriazos, T.A. Applied Psychometrics: Sample Size and Sample Power Considerations in Factor Analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in General. Psychology 2018, 9, 2207–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Source | Year | Technology | Context | PE | EE | SI | FC | PP | HM | PR | TR | PC | CO | PV | AT | HB | IN | AG | GE | EX | VU | ED | FS | IS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[30] | 2013 | Security as a service | Germany, Austria, and Switzerland | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||
[29] | 2016 | Cloud computing services | Germany | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
[31] | 2019 | Big data in supply chain management | Brazil | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||
[32] | 2020 | Enterprise resource planning (ERP) | Developing and Asian countries | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
[33] | 2020 | Online technology during COVID-19 quarantine time | Thailand | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
[34] | 2022 | M-payment | Retailers in Egypt | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
[35] | 2022 | Cashless payment system | Thailand | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||
[36] | 2022 | Digital health information system | China | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
[37] | 2022 | E-marketplace | Small businesses in India | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||
[38] | 2022 | E-retail platforms | Sub-Saharan Africa | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
[39] | 2022 | Fintech | Port’s users in Ghana and sub-Saharan Africa | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
[26] | 2023 | Blockchain adoption | Logistics companies in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||
[40] | 2023 | Mobile pocket software | A logistics company in Indonesia | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
[41] | 2023 | Fintech service | Jeddah, Saudi Arabia | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
[42] | 2023 | Imported spirit flash delivery applications | China | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Constructs | Items | Source |
---|---|---|
Performance Expectancy (PE) |
| [3,15,69,70] |
Effort Expectancy (EE) |
| [15,69] |
Social Influence (SI) |
| [3,15,69] |
Perceived Risk (PR) |
| [34,35,55] |
Facilitating Conditions (FCs) |
| [15,69] |
Intention to Use (IU) |
| [15,71] |
Actual Use (AU) |
| [15,32] |
Categories | Dimensions | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Position | Chief/managing director | 29 | 7.3% |
Import/export manager | 173 | 43.3% | |
Logistics manager | 142 | 35.5% | |
Other management levels or equivalent | 56 | 14.0% | |
Generation | Gen X (over 43 years old) | 61 | 15.3% |
Gen Y or Millennials (30–43 years old) | 262 | 65.5% | |
Gen Z (29 years old or less) | 77 | 19.3% | |
Average usage shipment | Less than 5 TEUs a month | 100 | 25.0% |
5–20 TEUs a month | 140 | 35.0% | |
21–50 TEUs a month | 84 | 21.0% | |
More than 50 TEUs a month | 76 | 19.0% | |
Firm size | Small (less than THB 50 million/year) | 181 | 45.3% |
Medium (THB 51–300 million/year) | 142 | 35.5% | |
Large (more than THB 300 million/year) | 77 | 19.3% | |
Use of freight forwarding service (past 3 months) | Yes | 400 | 100.0% |
No | 0 | 0% | |
Total | 400 | 100% |
Constructs | Items | Mean | Standard Deviation | Skewness | Kurtosis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Performance Expectancy (PE) | PE1 | 3.96 | 0.678 | −0.291 | 0.115 |
PE2 | 3.97 | 0.705 | −0.299 | −0.061 | |
PE3 | 3.96 | 0.778 | −0.477 | −0.037 | |
PE4 | 3.95 | 0.810 | −0.452 | −0.256 | |
PE5 | 3.99 | 0.771 | −0.317 | −0.461 | |
Effort Expectancy (EE) | EE1 | 4.06 | 0.786 | −0.697 | 0.328 |
EE2 | 4.09 | 0.701 | −0.298 | −0.362 | |
EE3 | 4.08 | 0.762 | −0.742 | 0.607 | |
EE4 | 4.03 | 0.665 | −0.088 | −0.565 | |
Social Influence (SI) | SI1 | 4.04 | 0.650 | −0.477 | 0.852 |
SI2 | 3.99 | 0.761 | −0.357 | −0.109 | |
SI3 | 4.03 | 0.791 | −0.746 | 0.482 | |
Perceived Risk (PR) | PR1 | 3.61 | 0.851 | −0.727 | 1.004 |
PR2 | 3.74 | 0.819 | −0.080 | −0.616 | |
PR3 | 3.99 | 0.883 | −0.415 | −0.739 | |
PR4 | 3.70 | 0.716 | −0.379 | 0.076 | |
PR5 | 3.64 | 0.733 | −0.273 | −0.124 | |
Facilitating Condition (FC) | FC1 | 3.99 | 0.629 | −0.296 | 0.496 |
FC2 | 4.06 | 0.669 | −0.366 | 0.251 | |
FC3 | 3.96 | 0.747 | −0.629 | 0.526 | |
Intention to Use (IU) | IU1 | 4.04 | 0.582 | −0.156 | 0.529 |
IU2 | 4.05 | 0.694 | −0.297 | −0.184 | |
IU3 | 4.10 | 0.623 | −0.198 | .037 | |
Actual Use (AU) | AU1 | 3.75 | 0.589 | −0.691 | 0.927 |
AU2 | 3.75 | 0.588 | −0.914 | 1.257 | |
AU3 | 3.73 | 0.633 | −1.013 | 1.217 |
Constructs | Items | FL | AVE | CR | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Performance Expectancy (PE) | PE1 | 0.789 | 0.651 | 0.903 | 0.863 |
PE2 | 0.836 | ||||
PE3 | 0.850 | ||||
PE4 | 0.785 | ||||
PE5 | 0.771 | ||||
Effort Expectancy (EE) | EE1 | 0.867 | 0.608 | 0.859 | 0.782 |
EE2 | 0.790 | ||||
EE3 | 0.844 | ||||
EE4 | 0.585 | ||||
Social Influence (SI) | SI1 | 0.792 | 0.647 | 0.845 | 0.723 |
SI2 | 0.749 | ||||
SI3 | 0.867 | ||||
Perceived Risk (PR) | PR1 | 0.851 | 0.679 | 0.914 | 0.877 |
PR2 | 0.770 | ||||
PR3 | 0.779 | ||||
PR4 | 0.875 | ||||
PR5 | 0.841 | ||||
Facilitating Condition (FC) | FC1 | 0.785 | 0.639 | 0.841 | 0.711 |
FC2 | 0.855 | ||||
FC3 | 0.754 | ||||
Intention to Use (IU) | IU1 | 0.810 | 0.721 | 0.886 | 0.801 |
IU2 | 0.819 | ||||
IU3 | 0.915 | ||||
Actual Use (AU) | AU1 | 0.789 | 0.714 | 0.882 | 0.799 |
AU2 | 0.866 | ||||
AU3 | 0.877 |
Goodness-of-Fit Indexes | Result Model | Cut-Off for Good Fit | Source |
---|---|---|---|
CMIN/df | 3.306 | Good ≤ 3 and acceptable < 5 | [79,80] |
RMSEA | 0.044 | Excellence < 0.01, good > 0.01–0.05, medium > 0.05 to 0.08, and poor > 0.1 | [81,82,83,84] |
SRMR | 0.032 | <0.08 | [83] |
NNFI or TLI | 0.779 | 0 = poor fit Close to 1 = very good fit | [73,85] |
CFI | 0.833 | 0 = poor fit Close to 1 = very good fit | [83,86] |
Hypothesis | Path | β | S.E. | C.R. | Result | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Performance Expectancy (PE) | → Intention to Use (IU) | 0.478 *** | 0.078 | 3.925 | Supported |
H2 | Effort Expectancy (EE) | → Intention to Use (IU) | 0.168 * | 0.034 | 2.442 | Supported |
H3 | Social Influence (SI) | → Intention to Use (IU) | 0.262 *** | 0.065 | 3.321 | Supported |
H4 | Perceived Risk (PR) | → Intention to Use (IU) | −0.211 *** | 0.022 | −4.451 | Supported |
H5 | Facilitating Conditions (FCs) | → Intention to Use (IU) | 0.458 *** | 0.073 | 3.611 | Supported |
H6 | Facilitating Conditions (FCs) | → Actual Use (AU) | 0.442 *** | 0.059 | 4.579 | Supported |
H7 | Intention to Use (IU) | → Actual Use (AU) | 0.663 *** | 0.104 | 6.753 | Supported |
Firm Size | SME Estimate (n = 323) | Large Enterprise Estimate (n = 77) | z-Score | Moderation | ||
H8a | Performance Expectancy (PE) | → Intention to Use (IU) | 0.572 *** | 0.179 | −1.412 | No |
H8b | Effort Expectancy (EE) | → Intention to Use (IU) | 0.154 * | 0.242 | 0.314 | No |
H8c | Social Influence (SI) | → Intention to Use (IU) | 0.201 * | 0.785 *** | 2.187 ** | Yes |
H8d | Perceived Risk (PR) | → Intention to Use (IU) | −0.234 *** | −0.053 | 1.623 | No |
Generation | Generation X Estimate (n = 61) | Generation Y and Z Estimate (n = 339) | z-Score | Moderation | ||
H9a | Performance Expectancy (PE) | → Intention to Use (IU) | 0.810 | 0.364 ** | −0.617 | No |
H9b | Effort Expectancy (EE) | → Intention to Use (IU) | −0.777 | 0.198 ** | 0.522 | No |
H9c | Social Influence (SI) | → Intention to Use (IU) | 1.701 | 0.177 * | −0.732 | No |
H9d | Perceived Risk (PR) | → Intention to Use (IU) | 0.518 | −0.252 *** | −0.805 | No |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pinyanitikorn, N.; Atthirawong, W.; Chanpuypetch, W. Examining the Intention to Adopt an Online Platform for Freight Forwarding Services in Thailand: A Modified Unified Theory for Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model Approach. Logistics 2024, 8, 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8030076
Pinyanitikorn N, Atthirawong W, Chanpuypetch W. Examining the Intention to Adopt an Online Platform for Freight Forwarding Services in Thailand: A Modified Unified Theory for Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model Approach. Logistics. 2024; 8(3):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8030076
Chicago/Turabian StylePinyanitikorn, Nattakorn, Walailak Atthirawong, and Wirachchaya Chanpuypetch. 2024. "Examining the Intention to Adopt an Online Platform for Freight Forwarding Services in Thailand: A Modified Unified Theory for Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model Approach" Logistics 8, no. 3: 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8030076
APA StylePinyanitikorn, N., Atthirawong, W., & Chanpuypetch, W. (2024). Examining the Intention to Adopt an Online Platform for Freight Forwarding Services in Thailand: A Modified Unified Theory for Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model Approach. Logistics, 8(3), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8030076