University Management Information Systems: a Cross-cultural Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf20241167Keywords:
University Management Information System, Technology Acceptance Model, User Acceptance, Sustainable Adoption, Cross-Cultural AnalysisAbstract
Management Information System (MIS) is an important support for the planning and management of information resources in universities. In different cultural backgrounds, users’ understanding and application of MIS may vary due to the language and cultural symbols they use, which can affect the actual application of the system. In order to improve the quality of management information in universities and understand different user needs, this article conducted a cross-cultural study on the user acceptance and sustainable adoption of MIS in universities. It constructed a theoretical research model using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and then established system performance, management information quality, system interactivity, social impact, educational culture, usage habits, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, user acceptance, sustained use intention, and sustained use behavior as research variables. On this basis, a research hypothesis was constructed and finally validated through experimental analysis. The results show that system performance, management information quality, educational culture, and perceived usefulness had a significant positive impact on user acceptance, with path coefficients of 0,256, 0,752, 0,607, and 0,368, respectively. Social influence, usage habits, perceived usefulness, and user acceptance had a significant positive impact on user willingness to continue using, with path coefficients of 0,533, 0,532, 0,441, and 0,602, respectively. The conclusion indicates that cross-cultural research on user acceptance and sustainable adoption of MIS in universities can help understand user needs in different cultural backgrounds and provide objective guidance for improving the management level of universities
References
1. Wang Diaojiang. “Innovative thinking on informatization of education management in colleges and universities in the context of big data.”Research and practice of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Theory 4.22 (2021): 154-156.
2. Shao Yan. “Exploring the informatization model of smart campus in colleges and universities in the big data environment.”Journal of Jilin University (Information Science Edition) 38.4 (2020): 502-508. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-5896.2020.04.018
3. Lin Yuan, and Chen Long. “Practice and thinking on the informatization construction of teaching in colleges and universities.” Research & Exploration in Laboratory 38.8 (2019): 236-239. DOI:CNKI:SUN:SYSY.0.2019-08-056.
4. Enriquez, Fernando, Jose A. Troyano, and Luisa M. Romero-Moreno. “Using a business process management system to model dynamic teaching methods.” The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 28.3 (2019): 275-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsis.2018.07.002
5. Chu Qingdong, Zhang Minxia, and Cui Weitao. “The design and implementation of a new type of student information management system in colleges and universities.”Information Technology 43.6 (2019): 69-71. DOI: CNKI:SUN:HDZJ.0.2019-06-017
6. Wang Dingke. “Research on the design of smart campus management system in colleges and universities.”Modern information technology 4.1 (2020): 69-70. DOI: CNKI:SUN:XDXK.0.2020-01-026
7. Bright, Antwi Amankwah, and Gideon Asare. “The impact of management information system on University of Education Winneba, Kumasi Campus-Ghana.” European Journal of Research and Reflection in Management Sciences 7.1 (2019): 1-20.
8. Valks, Bart, Monique H. Arkesteijn, Alexander Koutamanis &Alexandra C. den Heijer. “Towards a smart campus: supporting campus decisions with Internet of Things applications.” Building Research & Information 49.1 (2021): 1-20. DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2020.1784702
9. Malaya, Ara Rivina N., Emely A. Munar, Floribeth Panay Cuison, Enrico G. Dacanay. “Information management system for research of Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University–South La Union Campus.” Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science 28.3 (2022): 1668-1675.
10. Garone, Anja, Bram Pynoo, Jo Tondeur, Celine Cocquyt, Silke Vanslambrouck, Bram Bruggeman, et al. “Clustering university teaching staff through UTAUT: Implications for the acceptance of a new learning management system.” British Journal of Educational Technology 50.5 (2019): 2466-2483. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12867
11. Saroia, Asher Irfan, and Shang Gao. “Investigating university students’ intention to use mobile learning management systems in Sweden.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 56.5 (2019): 569-580. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2018.1557068
12. Aburbeian, AlsharifHasan Mohamad, Amani Yousef Owda, and Majdi Owda. “A technology acceptance model survey of the metaverse prospects.” Ai 3.2 (2022): 285-302. DOI: 10.3390/ai3020018
13. Park, Eun Soo, and Min Seo Park. “Factors of the technology acceptance model for construction IT.” Applied Sciences 10.22 (2020): 8299-8313. DOI:10.3390/app10228299
14. Granic, Andrina, and Nikola Marangunic. “Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review.” British Journal of Educational Technology 50.5 (2019): 2572-2593. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12864
15. Fan Zhe, and Liu Yilun. “Analysis of the influence of perceived usefulness and ease of use on the user’s mobile visual search behavior intent.”Intelligence work 41.1 (2020): 79-86. DOI: 10.12154/j.qbzlgz.2020.01.009
16. Malatji, William Ratjeana, R. Van Eck, and Tranos Zuva. “Understanding the usage, modifications, limitations and criticisms of technology acceptance model (TAM).” Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal 5.6 (2020): 113-117. DOI: 10.25046/aj050612
17. Sagnier, Camille, Emilie Loup-Escande, Domitile Lourdeaux, Indira Thouvenin &Gerard Vallery. “User acceptance of virtual reality: an extended technology acceptance model.” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 36.11 (2020): 993-1007. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2019.1708612
18. Heer, Jeffrey. “Agency plus automation: Designing artificial intelligence into interactive systems.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116.6 (2019): 1844-1850. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1807184115
19. Goette, Lorenz, and Egon Tripodi. “Social influence in prosocial behavior: evidence from a large-scale experiment.” Journal of the European Economic Association 19.4 (2021): 2373-2398. DOI: 10.1093/jeea/jvaa054
20. Lim, Weng Marc. “Toward a theory of social influence in the new normal.” Activities, Adaptation & Aging 46.1 (2022): 1-8. DOI: 10.1080/01924788.2022.2031165
21. Ventre, Ivan, and Diana Kolbe. “The impact of perceived usefulness of online reviews, trust and perceived risk on online purchase intention in emerging markets: A Mexican perspective.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 32.4 (2020): 287-299. DOI: 10.1080/08961530.2020.1712293
22. Zaineldeen, Samar, Hongbo Li, Aka Lucien Koffi, Bilal Mohammed. “Technology acceptance model’concepts, contribution, limitation, and adoption in education.” Universal Journal of Educational Research 8.11 (2020): 5061-5071. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2020.081106
23. Pitafi, Abdul Hameed, Shamsa Kanwal, and Ali Nawaz Khan. “Effects of perceived ease of use on SNSs-addiction through psychological dependence, habit: The moderating role of perceived usefulness.” International Journal of Business Information Systems 33.3 (2020): 383-407. DOI: 10.1504/IJBIS.2020.105831
24. Kemp, Andrew, Edward Palmer, and Peter Strelan. “A taxonomy of factors affecting attitudes towards educational technologies for use with technology acceptance models.” British Journal of Educational Technology 50.5 (2019): 2394-2413. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12833
25. Liu Qiping, He Guoqing, and Wang Weijun. “Research on the continuous use behavior of users of knowledge-based payment platform based on qualitative analysis.”Intelligence Science 37.7 (2019): 133-138. DOI: CNKI:SUN:QBKX.0.2019-07-022
26. Ma Zhihao, Ge Jinping, and Zhou Xiang. “The continuous use behavior and subjective well-being of webcast users--based on the expectation confirmation model and the theoretical perspective of quasi-social relations.”News and Communication Review 73.2 (2020): 29-46. DOI: CNKI:SUN:WHDS.0.2020-02-004
27. Ambarwati, Rita, Yuda Dian Harja, and Suyono Thamrin. “The role of facilitating conditions and user habits: a case of Indonesian online learning platform.” The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 7.10 (2020): 481-489. DOI: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no10.481
28. Daneji, Aisha Aminu, Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub, and Mas Nida Md Khambari. “The effects of perceived usefulness, confirmation and satisfaction on continuance intention in using massive open online course (MOOC).” Knowledge Management & E-Learning 11.2 (2019): 201-214. DOI: 10.34105/j.kmel.2019.11.010.
29. Dong Qingxing, Zhou Xin, Mao Fenghua, Zhang Bin. “Research on the continuous willingness of users in online health communities to use-based on the theory of perceived value.”Modern Intelligence 39.3 (2019):3-14. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0821.2019.03.001
30. Zhao Xueqin, and Wang Shaochun. “An investigation on the influencing factors of WeChat mini program users’ willingness to continue to use it.”Modern intelligence 39.6 (2019): 70-80. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0821.2019.06.008
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Linnan Zhu, Mohd Shahizan Bin Othman, Lizawati Binti Mi Yusuf, Xuying Sun (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
