The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: a comparison of five theoretical models
Abstract
Many organizations attempt to deploy methodologies intended to improve software development processes. However, resistance by individual software developers against using such methodologies often obstructs their successful deployment. To better explain why individual developers accept or resist methodologies, five theoretical models of individual intentions to accept information technology tools were examined. In a field study of 128 developers in a large organization that implemented a methodology, each model explained significant variance in developers' intentions to use the methodology. Similar to findings from the tool adoption context, we found that, if a methodology is not regarded as useful by developers, its prospects for successful deployment may be severely undermined. In contrast to the typical pattern of findings in a tool context, however, we found that methodology adoption intentions are driven by: 1) the presence of an organizational mandate to use the methodology, 2) the compatibility of the methodology with how developers perform their work, and 3) the opinions of developers' coworkers and supervisors toward using the methodology. Collectively, these results provide surprising new insights into why software developers accept or resist methodologies and suggest what software engineering managers might do to overcome developer resistance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
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-citationFrom Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150
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
Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4 · Cited by 5,718
Mathieson, K. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.173 · Cited by 4,216
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x · Cited by 1,669
Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior
Schifter, D. E., & Ajzen, I. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.843 · Cited by 1,024
Cited by
A 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
Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review
Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006 · Cited by 2,668
Technology acceptance: a meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 1
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007) · Journal of Modelling in Management · doi:10.1108/17465660710834453 · Cited by 624
Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology
Kulviwat, S., Bruner II, G. C., Kumar, A., Nasco, S. A., & Clark, T. (2007) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20196 · Cited by 486
Sustainability design in requirements engineering: state of practice
Chitchyan, R., Becker, C., Betz, S., Duboc, L., Penzenstadler, B., Seyff, N., & Venters, C. C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion · doi:10.1145/2889160.2889217 · Cited by 104
Metadata
- Authors
- Riemenschneider, C. K., Hardgrave, B. C., & Davis, F. D.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1135-1145
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2106676191
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 24.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: a comparison of five theoretical models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2002.1158287
- The paper
- Riemenschneider, C. K., Hardgrave, B. C., & Davis, F. D. (2002). Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: a comparison of five theoretical models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2002.1158287
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.