Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for your participation in our preliminary survey on factors which influence citizens to use or not to use SMS for public services (conducted in February – June 2009 involving 159 responses from 25 countries). I’d like to inform you that the survey result has been available at http://smsegov.info/images/SurveyResult.pdf.

Further, I’d like to invite you to participate in the main survey to confirm the factors that influence individual to use SMS for public services (at http://smsegov.info/formsurvey2.html). It will require 15 – 20 minutes on one occasion to complete the survey. The result of this research is valuable as it could assist governments to develop acceptable SMS applications for public services. Therefore, your participation, particularly any one who has used SMS for public services (e.g. sending feedbacks/report to government organizations via SMS, receiving SMS from government, requesting information from government organisation via SMS, paying bills/tax via SMS-banking etc.), is essential. Please click at this link to participate on the survey:
http://smsegov.info/formsurvey2.html

For each response, this study will donate AU$ 1 for victims of earth quake in Haiti and Padang-Indonesia, and you will also have the opportunity to win one of three mobile phones. A summary of the results will be sent via email to respondents who are interested. Information provided will be treated in the strictest confidence and none of the participants will be individually identifiable in the resulting publications. The survey is expected to be finalized by 1^st July 2010.

We are very pleased to received any feedbacks about the survey result or any enquiries concerning this study, you can contact me at susa0004@flinders.edu.au

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Yours Sincerely,

Tony D Susanto

PhD Student,

Technology Adoption, E-Government, and Mobile Technology

School of Computer Science Engineering and Mathematics
The Flinders University of South Australia

Email: susa0004@flinders.edu.au

Research website: http://smsegov.info

Current news on SMS e-government: http://news.smsegov.info

Halaman Bahasa Indonesia
Teman-Teman, Please saya butuh bantuan dan pendapat teman-teman: “Mengapa Kamu MEMAKAI atau TIDAK MEMAKAI aplikasi SMS untuk Layanan Publik atau untuk Berurusan dengan Pemerintah?”. Please bantu saya sebagai Respondent Penelitian ini, Pendapat Anda sangat penting bagi penelitian ini. Klik di SINI or di alamat ini:http://smsegov.info . (hanya 8 pertanyaan sederhana butuh kurang dari 10 menit waktu anda).
Terima Kasih atas Bantuan dan Waktu Berharga yang teman-teman berikan!

1. Diujicobakan terlebih dahulu digunakan langsung oleh komunitas pengguna dalam skala komunitas kecil, kemudian di-evaluasi.

Pendekatan ini memiliki banyak kelebihan yang telah terbukti, diantaranya: mampu mendeteksi/mengevaluasi faktor-faktor yang dapat menyebabkan penolakan pengguna, menarik perhatian dan rasa “kepemilikan” calon pengguna karena merasa dilibatkan dalam pengembangan teknologi bahkan dilibatkan dalam manajemen penggunaannya.

2. Sebagai awal supply pengguna dengan berbagai kemudahan memiliki teknologi, misalnya keringanan kredit, pemberian cuma-cuma, inisiatif supply dari pemerintah pusat terlebih dahulu.

3. Tahapan berikutnya, sebaiknya proses supply teknologi melibatkan komunitas lokal dalam bentuk ‘business venture’ sehingga harga teknologi dapat diturunkan dan pengguna dapat langsung membeli dari supplier lokal.

Berikut Case Study Bangladesh dalam Teknology untuk Petani:

————————————————————————-

Involving farmers and farming communities in decisions about new agricultural technologies or management practices and allowing them to try a technology form the crux of the participatory approach to research. Not only does this give farming communities a sense of ownership, it also ensures that the technologies are sustainable under the farmers’ own management.

But is farmer participation alone enough to ensure that new technologies are successfully adopted? Even if a new technology initially proves acceptable to farmers, it may ultimately be policy support from governments that catalyzes its spread. Attracting such support requires that governments themselves also participate in the technology adoption process.

In Bangladesh, the direct seeding of rice with plastic drum seeders provides a good example. A drum seeder consists of a series of perforated drums supported between two wheels. Seeds are placed in the drums and the device is hand-pulled by one farmer, allowing seeds to fall in rows into the puddled field. This technology offers great potential to save labor and increase yield and income for Bangladeshi farmers.

Beginning in the 2003 aman (monsoon) season, an IRRI-led drum-seeding trial had five farmers try the technology in their fi elds. By the next boro (dry) season, the trial had expanded to include farmers in 56 locations across the country. Now, after just three seasons, demand for drum seeders is rising rapidly. Some 4,000 Bangladeshi farmers are currently using the technology, with hundreds more seeking access to it.

In the early stages of the trials, IRRI, the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute and the Bangladesh Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) supplied drum seeders to participating farmers. This was designed to be a starting point rather than a sustainable approach. In the longer term, IRRI envisioned a local manufacturer producing and selling drum seeders as a business venture, and local farmers purchasing directly or through retailers. But this is not something that IRRI and its research and funding partners can achieve alone — it requires the backing of the Bangladeshi government. Sure enough, encouraging government involvement has been a critical part of ensuring the policy support needed for widespread adoption of drum seeding.(M. Zainul Abedi, IRRI 2005)

Rasanya biaya-biaya itu layak jika:

1. Website kita terbukti mampu menjadi “Media Income” organisasi kita, misal terbukti banyak pembeli tahu kita lewat website atau pesan barang setelah melihat produk kita di website, atau misal bagi organisasi sosial mampu menjadi media informasi dan pembayaran bagi donatur.

2.  Website kita terbukti mampu mengangkat citra diri (image) organisasi.

3. Website kita terbukti mampu menjadi sarana komunikasi yang efektif .

Namun yang harus dan seringkali saya ingat, begitu banyak saya jumpai proyek Website bernilai jutaan hingga milyaran rupiah hilang begitu saja setelah wujud website-nya jadi dibangun. Apa yang Salah?

1. Website = “Etalase Toko” anda!

Sebagai Etalase, Website anda adalah representasi organisasi (media Public Relation) anda khususnya bagi publik di luar organisasi anda, bahkan untuk publik di seluruh dunia. Olehkarena itu pikirkan benar-benar sebelumnya: Siapa Target Pengunjung Website anda??? jika Internasional, jangan malas untuk menambah feature bahasa English!

2.  Website = “Etalase Informasi” Organisasi anda

3. Website harus BAGUS saat diBANGUN.. + butuh diPELIHARA (diupdate) setiap saat (minimalnya seminggu sekali)

Jadi saat mengganggarkan membangun Website selalu Pikirkan:

1. Biaya 1x Pembangunan Website: termasuk biaya jasa pembuatan website

2. Biaya Beli Domain Name dan Sewa Server: biasanya dianggarkan  per-tahun, misal:  Domain Name Rp 100.000/tahun + Sewa Server Rp 1.500.000,-/tahun = Total Rp 1.600.000,-

3. Biaya Gaji Administrator CONTENT (isi) website (Tukang Upload Data): misal Rp 500.000 – Rp 1.500.000/bulan

4. Biaya Gaji Trouble Shooting dan Pengembangan Website (misal links, email, mberesin yang rusak-rusak termasuk security, dll) (Tukang Programming Website) misal Rp 500.000 – Rp 1.500.000/bulan

5. Biaya Gaji Reporter Website (Tukang Pembuat Berita website..yang selalu mikirin gimana content website selalu bisa menarik?) misal Rp 500.000 – Rp 1.500.000/bulan + biaya transportasi& komunikasi

Nah…jadi pengin punya website nggak sekedar mbangun website terus selesai! ada kebutuhan lainnya yang harus dilakukan dan dianggarkan agar website kita bukan hanya selalu hidup tapi juga tumbuh berkembang dan semakin menarik untuk dikunjungi dan dirasakan manfaatnya oleh target pengguna..sehingga akhirnya semua anggaran yang dikeluarkan akan “pay-off’ terhadap manfaat dan tujuan yang tercapai.

- What is the Technology Adoption?

- Technology Acceptance theories Vs HCI?

- How are the Accepted Technology and the Accepting User?

I. What is it?

Technology Adoption is one of the main streams in Information System topics which has concern on why and how user accepts or rejects a certain technology.

This study is very important since a huge amount of investment across many countries has been put in information technology. In fact, there are many incidents that the intended users are not willing to use the technology, even they know that technology can improve their productivity. All of the investment will lose and the goals of efficiency as well as efficacy will not be achieved if the intended users do not accept the technology.

II. Traditional approach

The traditional approach for this issue is ergonomic concern. It is believed that if the technology is easy to use or the intended users are able to use the technology, then they must be using the technology. Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is the topic in Information Systems which studies mostly on how a technology can be easy to use. Usability is frequently linked to the quality of the user interface design whether the users can use the technology effectively, efficiently and satisfactory. However, this approach is proved not covering all aspects of user acceptance. While ability to use any technology is obviously necessary, it is not sufficient to ensure acceptability; many technologies that are demonstrably usable are never accepted by the target users. The factor of easy of use is just one of many factors that influence user to accept a technology.

Before discussing further about a newer approach of technology acceptance, let’s makes it clear what ‘user acceptance’ is? User acceptance is demonstrable willingness of user to use the technology for the tasks it is designed to support (Dillon, 1996). It means, a technology is accepted by intended user if the user has used the technology for intended purposes. For example, we can not say that Internet technology has been accepted by staff in certain organization if most of them access the Internet just for chatting for their family. Moreover, we can not say that a new installed application of Microsoft Office 2007 is accepted by staff if most of them still prefer to use Microsoft Office 2003.

III. User Acceptance approach

A more comprehensive approach to understand how a technology can be accepted by intended users is Technology Acceptance theories/models. These theories believe that a willingness of user to use a technology is not because it is just easy to use, but also there are other significantly motivational (emotional) forces behind the actions.

To understand how a technology is accepted by a certain user, it can be investigated / seen from both points of view: the acceptable technology and the accepting user

Acceptable Technology

How is an acceptable technology supposed to be?

According to Rogers’ ‘Innovation Diffusion Theory” (IDT) (1995), there are five characteristics of a technology that determine whether it will be accepted or rejected by intended users:

1. Its relative advance (over available technology)

The user will wonder s: “Will this new technology give me more improvements over my previous/available technology?”

2. Its compatibility (with user’s social life/norms)

The user will connect the new technology with her/his social life: “Is this new technology consistent with my social practices and norms?”

3. Its complexity

It is supported by traditional study (Human Computer Interaction), the user will investigate: ”Is this new technology easy to use or easy to learn?”

4. Its trialability

The user tends to try an innovation before committing to use it. It is why a good idea to give a freely trial-software package to attract the intended users. This theory is also supported by HCI study as the importance of user evaluation aspect.

5. Its observability

The user tends to use technology that has clear gain (to see).

Numerous diffusion studies have supported this theory by showing that innovations affording relative advantages, compatibility with practices and beliefs, low complexity, potential triability, and observability are more extensively and rapidly accepted than innovation with opposite characteristics (Dillon, 1996). By this, Roger (1995) argued that the user’s decision to use or to reject a certain technology/innovation is influenced, in part, by these perceived attributes of the technology.

b. The Accepting Users

How are the accepting users typically?

To study about the accepting users of new technology, Alavi and Joachimsthaler (1992 in Dillon 1996) that there are four most relevant users’ factors determining their acceptance for new technology:

1. cognitive style

2. personality

3. demographics

4. user-situational variables

Cognitive style is how the individual acquires knowledge (cognition) and how an individual processes information (conceptualization) (/www2.wmin.ac.uk, 2008). The cognitive styles are related to mental behaviours, habitually applied by an individual to problem solving, and generally to the way that information is obtained, sorted and utilized. There are numerous models of cognitive style, for example Howard Gardener classified the cognitive style into 7 styles (Visual, verbal, Logical, Bodily, Musical, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal).

Personality is the most important, most noticeable parts of an individual’s psychological life particularly towards new technology. Roger (1995) suggests that the decision to accept or to reject a certain technology/innovation is also influenced by the user’s personality. Further He divide technology/innovation adopters into five categories depending on their speed of uptake:

- innovators

- early adopters

- early majority

- late majority

- laggards

Roger illustrates the percentage of individuals that adopt an innovation as bell-shaped (normal) curve.

The first category of adopters is innovators (2.5%); they are the risk-takers and pioneers who lead the way.

The second group is early adopters (13.5%); they climb on board the train early and help spread the word about the innovation to others.

 The third and fourth groups are the early majority (34%) and late majority (34%).

The innovators and early adopters convince the early majority, the late majority waits to make sure that adoption is in their best interests.

The final group is the laggards (16%), the individuals who are highly skeptical and resist adopting until absolutely necessary. In many cases, they never adopt the innovation (Roger 1995 in Joe 2003).

Demographics is selected population characteristics, such as age, sex, education, etc. In terms of technology adoption, especially age and education factors have been shown to influence system use in some contexts.

User-situational factors are suggested more important than individual difference variavles in technology acceptance (Alavi & Joachimesthaler, 1992).