Vol. 13 No. 4 (2025): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

Modern management techniques in practice: Technology acceptance model approach within organised industrial zones

PDF (Turkish)
  • Umut Çil
Umut Çil
Assist. Prof. Dr., Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Türkiye

Published 2025-12-25

Keywords

  • Technology Acceptance Model, Modern Management Techniques, Manufacturing Firms, Management Practices, Adoption
  • Teknoloji Kabul Modeli, Modern Yönetim Teknikleri, Üretim İşletmeleri, Yönetim Uygulamaları, Benimseme

How to Cite

Modern management techniques in practice: Technology acceptance model approach within organised industrial zones. (2025). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 13(4), 1679-1698. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v13i4.2632

Copyright (c) 2025 Umut Çil

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Modern management techniques in practice: Technology acceptance model approach within organised industrial zones. (2025). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 13(4), 1679-1698. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v13i4.2632

Abstract

This study investigates the adoption of modern management techniques (MMTs) in Turkish manufacturing firms within the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework. Examining the awareness, usage, and acceptance levels of 24 MMTs among 138 professionals, the research reveals significant disparities in familiarity: Continuous Improvement (Kaizen) and Outsourcing exhibit the highest levels of awareness, whereas the Balanced Scorecard and Six Sigma demonstrate comparatively low recognition. The findings indicate that education level, sector, and firm size significantly influence awareness of MMTs. Structural equation modelling confirms that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use positively affect the intention to adopt MMTs. By extending TAM to the context of MMT adoption, this study contributes to the literature by providing context-specific insights into Turkish manufacturing and offering a methodological reference for similar research. The results further show that when users perceive a technique as easy to use, their belief in its usefulness is strengthened, thereby increasing their intention to adopt it. Therefore, the findings suggest that targeted training programs and tailored strategies are essential to foster the adoption of MMTs and enhance organisational performance.

PDF (Turkish)

References

  1. Al-Adwan, A. S., Li, N., Al-Adwan, A., Abbasi, G. A., Albelbisi, N. A., ve Habibi, A. (2023). Extending the technology acceptance model (TAM) to Predict University Students’ intentions to use metaverse-based learning platforms. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 15381-15413.
  2. Alsharida, R., Hammood, M., ve Al-Emran, M. (2021). Mobile learning adoption: A systematic review of the technology acceptance model from 2017 to 2020. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 16(5), 147-162.
  3. Anand, G. ve Kodali, R. (2008). Benchmarking the benchmarking models. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 15(3), 257-291.
  4. Annosi, M. C., Brunetta, F., Monti, A., ve Nati, F. (2019). Is the trend your friend? An analysis of technology 4.0 investment decisions in agricultural SMEs. Computers in Industry, 109, 59-71.
  5. Antony, J. (2006). Six sigma for service processes. Business Process Management Journal, 12(2), 234-248.
  6. Ayanwale, M. A., ve Molefi, R. R. (2024). Exploring intention of undergraduate students to embrace chatbots: from the vantage point of Lesotho. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 20.
  7. Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244-254. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00122
  8. Biernacki, P., ve Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141-163.
  9. Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., ve Roberts, J. (2013). Does management matter? Evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 1-51.
  10. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84.
  11. Cameron, K. S., ve Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  12. Camp, R. C. (1989). Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to Superior Performance. Visconsin: ASQC Quality Press.
  13. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
  14. Chatterjee, S., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., ve Baabdullah, A. M. (2021). Understanding AI adoption in manufacturing and production firms using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, 120880.
  15. Collings, D. G., ve Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.04.001
  16. Çil, U. (2025). İnovasyon ve Dijital Dönüşüm Türkiye'deki Yönetim ve Organizasyon Araştırmalarını Nasıl Şekillendiriyor? UYOK Bildirileri Üzerine Boylamsal Bir Analiz. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 27(49), 1104-1139.
  17. Dahlgaard-Park, S. M., Reyes, L., ve Chen, C. K. (2018). The evolution and convergence of total quality management and management theories. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 29(9-10), 1108-1128.
  18. Davenport, T. H. (1998). Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 121-131.
  19. Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
  20. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., ve Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
  21. Davis, F. D., Granić, A., ve Marangunić, N. (2024). The technology acceptance model: 30 years of TAM. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.
  22. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
  23. Denison-Day, J. L., Muir, S., Newell, C., ve Appleton, K. M. (2023). The role of aesthetics in intentions to use digital health interventions. PLOS digital health, 2(6), e0000274.
  24. Doerr, J. (2018). Measure what matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation rock the world with OKRs. Penguin.
  25. Doğan, M., Şen, R. ve Yılmaz, V. (2015). İnternet bankacılığına ilişkin davranışların planlanmış davranış teorisi ve teknoloji kabul modeli kullanılarak önerilen bir yapısal eşitlik modeliyle incelenmesi. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 1-22.
  26. Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., ve Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Information systems frontiers, 21, 719-734.
  27. Fishbein, M., ve Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
  28. Förster, K. (2024). Extending the technology acceptance model and empirically testing the conceptualised consumer goods acceptance model. Heliyon, 10(6).
  29. Gebhardt, A. (2007). Rapid Prototyping–Rapid Tooling–Rapid Manufacturing. Carl Hanser, München.
  30. Ghobakhloo, M. (2018). The future of manufacturing industry: a strategic roadmap toward Industry 4.0. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(6), 910-936. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-02-2018-0057
  31. Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(1), 148-170.
  32. Granić, A. (2024). Technology adoption at individual level: toward an integrated overview. Universal Access in the Information Society, 23(2), 843-858.
  33. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., ve Anderson, R. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis. (8h ed.) Cengage Learning Emea.
  34. Hamutoğlu, N. B. (2018). Bulut bilişim teknolojileri kabul modeli 3: ölçek uyarlama çalışması. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 8(2), 8-25.
  35. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  36. Hu, L. T., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
  37. Ifinedo, P. (2012, January). Technology acceptance by health professionals in Canada: An analysis with a modified UTAUT model. In 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 2937-2946). IEEE.
  38. Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. McGraw-Hill.
  39. Jabbour, C. J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Foropon, C., ve Godinho Filho, M. (2020). When titans meet–Can industry 4.0 revolutionise the environmentally-sustainable manufacturing wave? The role of critical success factors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.017
  40. Jovanovic, P., ve Beric, I. (2018). Analysis of the available project management methodologies. Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies, 23(3), 1-13.
  41. Kaplan, R. S., ve Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.
  42. Khalatur, S., Vinichenko, I., ve Volovyk, D. (2021). Development of modern business processes and outsourcing activities. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 7(3), 195-202.
  43. King, W. R., ve He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information ve Management, 43(6), 740-755.
  44. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Publications.
  45. Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Harvard business press.
  46. Lacity, M. C., ve Hirschheim, R. (1993). Information systems outsourcing: Myths, metaphors and realities. John Wiley & Sons.
  47. Lee, A. T., Ramasamy, R. K., ve Subbarao, A. (2025). Understanding Psychosocial Barriers to Healthcare Technology Adoption: A Review of TAM Technology Acceptance Model and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and UTAUT Frameworks. Healthcare, 13(3), 250. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13030250
  48. Lemon, K. N., ve Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding Customer Experience Throughout the Customer Journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69-96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420
  49. Liao, Y. K., Wu, W. Y., Le, T. Q., ve Phung, T. T. T. (2022). The integration of the technology acceptance model and value-based adoption model to study the adoption of e-learning: The moderating role of e-WOM. Sustainability, 14(2), 815.
  50. Liker, J. (2020). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill.
  51. Lin, Y., ve Yu, Z. (2023). Extending Technology Acceptance Model to higher-education students’ use of digital academic reading tools on computers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 34.
  52. Ma, J., Wang, P., Li, B., Wang, T., Pang, X. S., ve Wang, D. (2025). Exploring user adoption of ChatGPT: A technology acceptance model perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(2), 1431-1445.
  53. Marangunić, N., ve Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14, 81-95.
  54. Moon, J. W., ve Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & management, 38(4), 217-230.
  55. Nonaka, I., ve Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001
  56. Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of social research methodology, 11(4), 327-344.
  57. Pillai, R., ve Sivathanu, B. (2020). Adoption of AI-based chatbots for hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(10), 3199-3226.
  58. Porter, M. E., (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press.
  59. Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., ve Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing agile. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 40-50.
  60. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., ve Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & education, 128, 13-35.
  61. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. Broadway Business.
  62. Senge, P. M., (2013). Beşinci Disiplin: Öğrenen Organizasyon Sanatı ve Uygulaması (16. baskı). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  63. Shleifer, A., ve Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737-783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x
  64. Song, Y., Qiu, X., ve Liu, J. (2025). The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Adoption on Organizational Decision-Making: An Empirical Study Based on the Technology Acceptance Model in Business Management. Systems, 13(8), 683. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13080683
  65. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865
  66. Tidd, J., ve Bessant, J. (2021). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organisational change (7th ed.). Wiley.
  67. Turan, A. H. ve Özgen, F. B. (2009). Türkiye’de E-Beyanname Sisteminin Benimsenmesi: Geliştirilmiş Teknoloji Kabul Modeli İle Ampirik Bir Çalişma. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(1), 134-147.
  68. Üzümcü, Ö., Sıvacı, S. ve Hakkoymaz, S. (2024). Teknoloji Kabul Modeli Kapsamında E-Öğrenme Platformlarının Kullanım Algısı Ölçeğinin Uyarlanması ve Farklı Değişkenlere Göre İncelenmesi. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 34(2), 633-645.
  69. Venkatesh, V., ve Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  70. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., ve Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
  71. Vimalkumar, M., Sharma, S. K., Singh, J. B., ve Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). ‘Okay google, what about my privacy?’: User's privacy perceptions and acceptance of voice based digital assistants. Computers in Human Behaviour, 120, 106763.
  72. Wang, C., Ahmad, S. F., Ayassrah, A. Y. B. A., Awwad, E. M., Irshad, M., Ali, Y. A., ve Han, H. (2023). An empirical evaluation of technology acceptance model for Artificial Intelligence in E-commerce. Heliyon, 9(8).
  73. Wang, Z., Wang, Y., Zeng, Y., Su, J., ve Li, Z. (2025). An investigation into the acceptance of intelligent care systems: an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Scientific Reports, 15(1), 17912.
  74. Wheelen, T. L., Hunger, J. D., Hoffman, A. N., ve Bamford, C.E. (2018). Strategic Management and Business Policy: Globalization, Innovation, and Sustainability (15th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
  75. Yılmaz, M. ve Kavanoz, S. (2017). Teknoloji kabul ve kullanım birleştirilmiş modeli-2 ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Turkish Studies, 12(32).
  76. Zhang, Y. (2024). Impact of perceived privacy and security in the TAM model: The perceived trust as the mediated factors. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 4(2), 100270.
  77. Zhong, Y., Oh, S., ve Moon, H. C. (2021). Service transformation under industry 4.0: Investigating acceptance of facial recognition payment through an extended technology acceptance model. Technology in Society, 64, 101515.