Journal of the Association for Information Systems


Benbasat and Barki (2007) argue that TAM has been both a blessing and curse for the IS field and they detail reasons why this is the case. Our response to their critique is to highlight areas of agreement, disagree with one of their assertions, and extend their thinking along another, related line. Specifically, we agree that some TAM constructs, namely perceived usefulness and system usage, need to be more closely examined in order to break up the "black box" portrayal of these concepts. Our view of Benbasat and Barki's characterization of TAM as unassailable is that common methods bias has never been well tested and that TAM linkages may in fact be methodological artifacts. Finally, it is argued that the field desperately needs more parsimony in TAM models and that meta-analysis is one good way of achieving this goal.





When commenting on articles, please be friendly, welcoming, respectful and abide by the AIS eLibrary Discussion Thread Code of Conduct posted here.