Where does result demonstrability collide?

The tangibility and communicability of the results of using an innovation, that is, the degree to which a person can readily observe and describe the benefits of adopting it. When Moore and Benbasat built the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating instrument in 1991, Rogers's single observability attribute would not hold together as one factor, so they split it in two: result demonstrability, about whether the consequences of use can be seen and explained, and visibility, about whether the artefact itself is seen around the organisation. Result demonstrability kept the four items that ask whether the user could tell others what the system does and whether its results are apparent. The referent is the innovation as perceived, and the criterion is rate of adoption.[1][2]

Unit

A user's perception of how demonstrable an innovation's results are

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Four-item PCI result-demonstrability subscale, seven-point agreement; adoption as the criterion

The same construct placed inside the technology acceptance model, where Venkatesh and Davis made it one of the cognitive-instrumental determinants of perceived usefulness. In their 2000 A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model, tested across four longitudinal field studies, result demonstrability joined job relevance, output quality, and subjective norm as antecedents of the usefulness belief: a system whose benefits are easy to observe and describe is judged more useful. The move takes Moore and Benbasat's diffusion subscale, keeps its items unchanged, and reassigns it a causal role in front of a belief about job performance rather than a direct link to adoption.[3]

Unit

A user's perception of how observable and communicable a system's benefits are

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

The four PCI items reused verbatim, modelled as an antecedent of perceived usefulness

Result demonstrability carried forward unchanged into TAM3, Venkatesh and Bala's 2008 integration of the usefulness and ease-of-use determinants into one network with a research agenda on interventions. It remains a cognitive-instrumental determinant of perceived usefulness, with the same four items and the same role that TAM2 assigned it, and TAM3 adds no new theory to the construct, only a fixed place in the combined model beside the ease-of-use antecedents. The name, the scale, and the position are inherited; what is new is the surrounding nomological net and the emphasis on what managers can do to move the belief.[4]

Unit

A user's perception of how demonstrable a system's results are

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

The same four items, positioned in TAM3 as a determinant of perceived usefulness