The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward Preprototype User Acceptance Testing of New Information Systems: Implications for Software Project Management
Abstract
Errors in requirements specifications have been identified as a major contributor to costly software project failures. It would be highly beneficial if information systems developers could verify requirements by predicting workplace acceptance of a new system based on user evaluations of its specifications measured during the earliest stages of the development project, ideally before building a working prototype. However, conventional wisdom among system developers asserts that prospective users must have direct hands-on experience with at least a working prototype of a new system before they can provide assessments that accurately reflect future usage behavior after workplace implementation. The present research demonstrates that this assumption is only partially true. Specifically, it is true that stable and predictive assessments of a system's perceived ease of use should be based on direct behavioral experience using the system. However, stable and behaviorally predictive measures of perceived usefulness can be captured from target users who have received information about a system's functionality, but have not had direct hands-on usage experience. This distinction is key because, compared to ease of use, usefulness is generally much more strongly linked to future usage intentions and behaviors in the workplace. Two longitudinal field experiments show that preprototype usefulness measures can closely approximate hands-on based usefulness measures, and are significantly pr…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Perceived ease of use has been theorized to be closely associated with individuals' self-efficacy beliefs and procedural knowledge, which requires handson experience and execution of skills (Davis et al., 1989;Venkatesh, 2000;Davis & Venkatesh, 2004).”
From Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions (2008) · cites this paper as Davis & Venkatesh, 2004
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Self-citationUser Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Self-citation(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 25,810
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709
Self-citationA Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Self-citationSelf-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 · Cited by 8,815
Anderson, J. R. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9781315799438 · Cited by 6,761
Venkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664
Self-citationExtrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace 1
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x · Cited by 6,231 · cited 3×
“We develop the theoretical justification for a matching account from different theoretical perspectives by primarily drawing from action identification theory [69]; we also justify the arguments by drawing from image theory [10], [11], motivation model of technology acceptance [ 20 ], and knowledge and learning theori…”
MethodInfluentialSelf-citation(1985) · Cited by 6,185
Self-citationTask-Technology Fit and Individual Performance
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249689 · Cited by 6,006
(1983) · Cited by 5,041
Carayannis, E. G. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_100431 · Cited by 4,819
Davis, F. D. (1993) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1022 · Cited by 4,754
Self-citationMathieson, K. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.173 · Cited by 4,216
A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.x · Cited by 4,068
Self-citationSheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209170 · Cited by 3,867
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249751 · Cited by 3,833
Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization1
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249443 · Cited by 3,814
Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1992.4279530 · Cited by 3,713
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54 · Cited by 3,480
Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Review and Avenues for Further Research
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x · Cited by 3,344
Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication
Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249577 · Cited by 3,084
Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249633 · Cited by 2,891
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250981 · Cited by 2,780
Self-citationGefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249720 · Cited by 2,292
Designing for usability---key principles and what designers think
Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1983) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3166.3170 · Cited by 2,166
What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.1.3 · Cited by 1,802
Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model1
Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P. B., & Cavaye, A. (1997) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249498 · Cited by 1,711
Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model
Szajna, B. (1996) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.42.1.85 · Cited by 1,656
Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0040 · Cited by 1,579
Self-citationRe-Examining Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249590 · Cited by 1,525
The capability maturity model: Guidelines for improving the software process
(1996) · Computers & Mathematics with Applications · doi:10.1016/s0898-1221(96)90461-7 · Cited by 1,453
Chin, W. W., & Todd, P. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249690 · Cited by 1,263
Kellerman, H., & Burry, A. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-71370-0_12 · Cited by 1,009
Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing
Straub, D. W., Limayem, M., & Karahanna, E. (1995) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.41.8.1328 · Cited by 974
Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C. E., & Rosen, B. (1989) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.884 · Cited by 910
Assessing a Firm's Web Presence: A Heuristic Evaluation Procedure for the Measurement of Usability
Agarwal, R., & Venkatesh, V. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.2.168.84 · Cited by 873
Self-citationUnit weighting schemes for decision making
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1975) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90044-6 · Cited by 673
Understanding and controlling software costs
BOEHM, B. W., & Papaccio, P. N. (1988) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.6191 · Cited by 667
Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure: Promising Results and Unanswered Questions
Ginzberg, M. J. (1981) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.27.4.459 · Cited by 631
Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules
McConnell, S. (1996) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 611
An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity
Kieras, D. E., & Polson, P. G. (1999) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1983.0317 · Cited by 594
Agile modeling: effective practices for extreme programming and the unified process
Ambler, S. W. (2002) · John Wiley & Sons, Inc. eBooks · Cited by 551
Alternative Measures of System Effectiveness: Associations and Implications
Srinivasan, A. (1985) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/248951 · Cited by 537
A comparison of leading theories for the prediction of goal‐directed behaviours
Bagozzi, R. P., & Kimmel, S. K. (1995) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1995.tb01076.x · Cited by 516
An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity
Kieras, D. E., & Polson, P. G. (1985) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(85)80045-6 · Cited by 504
On the Test-Retest Reliability of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Scales
Hendrickson, A. R., Massey, P. D., & Cronan, T. P. (1993) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249803 · Cited by 483
A Replication of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Measurement*
Subramanian, G. H. (1994) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb01873.x · Cited by 471
Software Evaluation and Choice: Predictive Validation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument
Szajna, B. (1994) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249621 · Cited by 439
An assessment of the prototyping approach to information systems development
Alavi, M. (1984) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/358080.358095 · Cited by 359
The Effects of Information System User Expectations on Their Performance and Perceptions
Szajna, B., & Scamell, R. W. (1993) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249589 · Cited by 323
Norman, P. E., & Smith, L. (1995) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250405 · Cited by 252
Human factors testing in the design of Xerox's 8010 “Star” office workstation
Bewley, W. L., Roberts, T. L., Schroit, D., & Verplank, W. L. (1983) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/800045.801584 · Cited by 238
Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter
Gould, J. D., Conti, J., & Hovanyecz, T. (1983) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2163.358100 · Cited by 225
Making usable, useful, productivity-enhancing computer applications
Gould, J. D., Boies, S. J., & Lewis, C. (1991) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/99977.99993 · Cited by 220
Factors Affecting Information Technology Usage: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature
Mahmood, M. A., Hall, L. L., & Swanberg, D. L. (2001) · Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1207/s15327744joce1102_02 · Cited by 198
Cost/benefit analysis for incorporating human factors in the software lifecycle
Mantei, M. M., & Teorey, T. J. (1988) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/42404.42408 · Cited by 181
Expectancy Theory as an Explanation of Voluntary Use of a Decision-Support System
Sanctis, G. D. (1983) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/pr0.1983.52.1.247 · Cited by 163
The Impact of accuracy and effort feedback and goals on adaptive decision behavior
Creyer, E. H., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (1990) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.3960030102 · Cited by 111
User-derived impact analysis as a tool for usability engineering
Good, M. D., Spine, T. M., Whiteside, J., & George, P. (1986) · ACM SIGCHI Bulletin · doi:10.1145/22339.22378 · Cited by 98
Grudin, J. T. (2011) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.2011.1440450115 · Cited by 91
Olfman, L., & Mandviwalla, M. (1994) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249522 · Cited by 87
A quantitative theory of human-computer interaction
Polson, P. G. (1987) · Cited by 72
Designing for designers: an analysis of design practice in the real world
Rosson, M. B., Maaß, S., & Kellogg, W. A. (1986) · ACM SIGCHI Bulletin · doi:10.1145/1165387.30873 · Cited by 46
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1998) · doi:10.4324/9781410601759-7 · Cited by 45
User-derived impact analysis as a tool for usability engineering
Good, M. D., Spine, T. M., Whiteside, J., & George, P. (1986) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/22627.22378 · Cited by 41
Systems Analysis and Design: Best Practices
Wetherbe, J. C., Vitalari, N. P., & Perlee, C. (1994) · Cited by 34
Vallacher, R. R., & Kaufman, J. C. (1996) · Cited by 29
Involving users in the specification of functionality using scenarios and model-based evaluation
van Schaik, P. (1999) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/014492999118878 · Cited by 28
Designing for designers: an analysis of design practice in the real world
Rosson, M. B., Maaß, S., & Kellogg, W. A. (1986) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/29933.30873 · Cited by 18
Image Theory, the Unifying Perspective
Beach, L. R. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9781315806020-6 · Cited by 15
USER NEEDS WORKSHOPS: A NEW APPROACH TO ANTICIPATING USER NEEDS FOR ADVANCED OFFICE SYSTEMS
Johansen, R., & Baker, E. (1984) · Office Technology and People · doi:10.1108/eb022628 · Cited by 9
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x · DOI · Paper page
- jones, 1996, Patterns of Software Systems Failure and Success
- 1994, Charting the Seas of Information Technology
- pfleeger, 1998, Software Engineering Theory and Practice
- markus, 1994, if we build it, they will come: designing information systems that people want to use, Sloan Manage Rev, 11
- mann, 2002, why software is so bad, Technol Rev, 33
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
“…recent work has challenged the role of behavioral intention as the key predictor of technology use and introduced a new theoretical construct (i.e., habit) as another critical predictor of technology use (e.g., Davis and Venkatesh 2004; Kim and Malhotra 2005; Kim et al. 2005; Limayem et al. 2007).”
Self-citationTechnology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159
“Perceivedeaseofusehasbeentheorizedtobecloselyassociatedwith individuals’self-efficacybeliefsandproceduralknowledge,whichrequireshands-onexperienceandexecutionofskills(Davisetal.,1989;Venkatesh,2000;Davis &Venkatesh,2004).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationA meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003 · Cited by 2,906
Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013
Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1 · Cited by 2,458
“Usage measures: usage measures for operationalization of actual system usage like attitude toward technology [23], usage perception [37, 61, 77], and actual usage of technology [26].”
BackgroundDoes the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review
Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., & Budgen, D. (2010) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.005 · Cited by 851
Metadata
- Authors
- Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- ORCID
- Davis, F.D.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-46
- ISSN
- 0018-9391 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2130427181
- Cited by
- 582
- References
- 78
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 40.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Keywords
- user acceptance testing, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, requirements verification, software project management, intention to use, information system development, requirements errors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
