The Influence of TAM, Perceived Risk, and Trust on the Financial Performance of Multi-finance Companies Utilizing GPS Tracker Applications

Article Sidebar

PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.28924/2291-8639-22-2024-194
Published: Oct 31, 2024
Cite as:
Alamsyah, Fergyanto E. Gunawan, Mohammad Hamsal, Viany Utami Tjhin, The Influence of TAM, Perceived Risk, and Trust on the Financial Performance of Multi-finance Companies Utilizing GPS Tracker Applications, Int. J. Anal. Appl., 22 (2024), 194.

Main Article Content

Alamsyah, Fergyanto E. Gunawan, Mohammad Hamsal, Viany Utami Tjhin

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), perceived risk, and trust on the financial performance of multi-finance companies utilizing GPS tracker applications. As technology adoption in the multi-finance sector grows, understanding these factors becomes crucial for optimizing financial outcomes. A quantitative research design involved a cross-sectional survey of multi-finance companies using GPS tracker applications. Data were collected from 150 managers and financial officers through structured questionnaires. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to analyze the relationships between TAM constructs (perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness), perceived risk, trust, and financial performance. The results indicate that perceived ease of use and usefulness significantly enhance trust in GPS tracker applications, positively impacting financial performance. Conversely, perceived risk negatively moderates the relationship between trust and financial performance.

Article Details

References

  1. R.E. Stuck, B.N. Walker, Risk Perceptions of Common Technologies, Proc. Human Factors Ergonomics Soc. Ann. Meet. 63 (2019), 1316–1320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631128.
  2. R. Reepu, R. Arora, The Effect of Perceived Risk on Intention to Use Online Banking, Univ. J. Account. Finance 10 (2022), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujaf.2022.100107.
  3. R. Kassem, M. Ajmal, A. Gunasekaran, P. Helo, Assessing the Impact of Organizational Culture on Achieving Business Excellence with a Moderating Role of ICT: An SEM Approach, Benchmarking: Int. J. 26 (2019), 117–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2018-0068.
  4. B. Singh, M.K. Rao, Effect of Intellectual Capital on Dynamic Capabilities, J. Organ. Change Manage. 29 (2016), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-12-2014-0225.
  5. S. Duchek, Organizational Resilience: A Capability-Based Conceptualization, Bus. Res. 13 (2020), 215–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7.
  6. S. Fainshmidt, A. Pezeshkan, M. Lance Frazier, A. Nair, E. Markowski, Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Performance: A Meta‐Analytic Evaluation and Extension, J. Manage. Stud. 53 (2016), 1348–1380. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12213.
  7. S.J.G. Girod, R. Whittington, Reconfiguration, Restructuring and Firm Performance: Dynamic Capabilities and Environmental Dynamism, Strat. Manage. J. 38 (2017), 1121–1133. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2543.
  8. Y. Liu, M. Guo, Z. Han, G. Beata, S. Bresciani, T. Wang, Effects of Digital Orientation on Organizational Resilience: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective, J. Manuf. Technol. Manage. 35 (2024), 268-290. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-06-2023-0224.
  9. Q. Fu, M.S. Sial, M.Z. Arshad, U. Comite, P.A. Thu, J. Popp, The Inter-Relationship between Innovation Capability and SME Performance: The Moderating Role of the External Environment, Sustainability 13 (2021), 9132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169132.
  10. I.N. Abdullahi, M.H. Husin, A.S. Baharudin, N.A. Abdullah, Determinants of Facebook Adoption and Its Impact on Service-Based Small and Medium Enterprise Performance in Northwestern Nigeria, J. Syst. Inf. Technol. 24 (2022), 246–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSIT-11-2020-0249.
  11. S.U. Khan, X. Liu, I.U. Khan, C. Liu, M.I. Rasheed, Assessing the Investors’ Acceptance of Electronic Stock Trading in a Developing Country: The Mediating Role of Perceived Risk Dimensions, Inf. Resources Manage. J. 33 (2020), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2020010104.
  12. C. Breuer, J. Hüffmeier, F. Hibben, G. Hertel, Trust in Teams: A Taxonomy of Perceived Trustworthiness Factors and Risk-Taking Behaviors in Face-to-Face and Virtual Teams, Human Relations 73 (2020), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718818721.
  13. S.E. Lee, H.J. Jung, K.-H. Lee, Motivating Collaborative Consumption in Fashion: Consumer Benefits, Perceived Risks, Service Trust, and Usage Intention of Online Fashion Rental Services, Sustainability 13 (2021), 1804. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041804.
  14. H. Frank, W. Güttel, A. Kessler, Environmental Dynamism, Hostility, and Dynamic Capabilities in Medium-Sized Enterprises, Int. J. Entrepreneur. Innov. 18 (2017), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750317723219.
  15. H. Wilhelm, M. Schlömer, I. Maurer, How Dynamic Capabilities Affect the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Operating Routines under High and Low Levels of Environmental Dynamism, Br. J. Manage. 26 (2015), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12085.
  16. O.F. Bustinza, F. Vendrell-Herrero, M. Perez-Arostegui, G. Parry, Technological Capabilities, Resilience Capabilities and Organizational Effectiveness, Int. J. Human Resource Manage. 30 (2019), 1370–1392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1216878.
  17. A. Zia, M. Alzahrani, Investigating the Effects of E-Marketing Factors for Agricultural Products on the Emergence of Sustainable Consumer Behaviour, Sustainability 14 (2022), 13072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013072.
  18. M. Hamza, R.W. Azfar, K.M. Mazher, B. Sultan, A. Maqsoom, S.H. Khahro, Z.A. Memon, Exploring Perceptions of the Adoption of Prefabricated Construction Technology in Pakistan Using the Technology Acceptance Model, Sustainability 15 (2023), 8281. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108281.
  19. M.J. Kang, Y.C. Hwang, Exploring the Factors Affecting the Continued Usage Intention of IoT-Based Healthcare Wearable Devices Using the TAM Model, Sustainability 14 (2022), 12492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912492.
  20. A. Anell, A. Glenngård, Better with GPs as Managers? – Variation in Perceptions of Feedback Messages, Goal-Clarity and Performance across Manager´s in Swedish Primary Care, BMC Health Serv. Res. 23 (2023), 639. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09586-2.
  21. M.J. White, R. Xie, H. Lane, J. Rodriguez, L. Gilchrist, J. Howard, E.M. Perrin, A. Skinner, M. Silberberg, Organizational Trust, Usability, and Inclusivity Are Key Implementation Facilitators for a Proposed Assets-Based Mobile Health Intervention, Transl. Behav. Med. 13 (2023), 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibac108.
  22. S. Smyth, Single Site Pilot Clinical Investigation of a Novel App-assisted Self-management Programme for Gestational Diabetes, Thesis, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, (2023). https://doi.org/10.25419/rcsi.21395235.v1.
  23. S.A. Abas, N. Ismail, Y. Zakaria, I. Ismail, N.H. Mat Zain, et al. A Gamified Real-Time Video Observed Therapies (GRVOTS) Mobile App via the Modified Nominal Group Technique: Development and Validation Study, JMIR Serious Games 11 (2023), e43047. https://doi.org/10.2196/43047.
  24. D. Marikyan, S. Papagiannidis, Technology Acceptance Model: A Review, in: S. Papagiannidis (Ed), TheoryHub Book, (2023).
  25. E.M. Mortada, G.M.S. Elhessewi, Assessment of Perceived Risk and Precautionary Behavior toward COVID-19 Pandemic Using the Health Belief Model, Saudi Arabia, J. Egypt. Public Health Assoc. 97 (2022), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42506-022-00111-7.
  26. K. Hanna, P. Clarke, K. Woolfall, S. Hassan, K. Abba, et al. The Perception of Risk in Contracting and Spreading COVID-19 amongst Individuals, Households and Vulnerable Groups in England: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study, BMC Public Health 23 (2023), 653. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15439-8.
  27. Z. Guo, C. Ding, W. Gao, J. Hong, J. Tang, Y. Zhang, J. Jin, Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of Attitudes and Beliefs about Cardiovascular Disease Risk Perception Questionnaire, Sci. Rep. 12 (2022), 20241. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24620-9.
  28. J. Wang, R. Chen, S. Zhang, The Mediating and Moderating Effect of Organizational Resilience on Competitive Advantage: Evidence from Chinese Companies, Sustainability 14 (2022), 13797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113797.
  29. F. Gómez‐Bezares, W. Przychodzen, J. Przychodzen, Bridging the Gap: How Sustainable Development Can Help Companies Create Shareholder Value and Improve Financial Performance, Bus. Ethics: Eur. Rev. 26 (2017), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12135.
  30. M. Dubickis, E. Gaile-Sarkane, Transfer of Know-How Based on Learning Outcomes for Development of Open Innovation, J. Open Innov.: Technol. Market. Complex. 3 (2017), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-017-0053-4.
  31. L. Lucianetti, V. Battista, X. Koufteros, Comprehensive Performance Measurement Systems Design and Organizational Effectiveness, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 39 (2019), 326–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2017-0412.
  32. E. Barasa, R. Mbau, L. Gilson, What Is Resilience and How Can It Be Nurtured? A Systematic Review of Empirical Literature on Organizational Resilience, Int. J. Health Policy Manage. 7 (2018), 491–503. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2018.06.
  33. M. Hubert, M. Blut, C. Brock, C. Backhaus, T. Eberhardt, Acceptance of Smartphone‐Based Mobile Shopping: Mobile Benefits, Customer Characteristics, Perceived Risks, and the Impact of Application Context, Psychol. Market. 34 (2017), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20982.
  34. Y. Kim, Organizational Resilience and Employee Work-Role Performance after a Crisis Situation: Exploring the Effects of Organizational Resilience on Internal Crisis Communication, J. Public Relations Res. 32 (2020), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2020.1765368.
  35. P. Mikalef, J. Krogstie, I.O. Pappas, P. Pavlou, Exploring the Relationship between Big Data Analytics Capability and Competitive Performance: The Mediating Roles of Dynamic and Operational Capabilities, Inf. Manage. 57 (2020), 103169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.004.
  36. Y. Sun, S. Tang, Z. Dou, T. Wang, How Environment and Technology Affect the Regional Manufacturing Industry Development, Heliyon 10 (2024), e35321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35321.
  37. U. Lichtenthaler, E. Lichtenthaler, A Capability‐Based Framework for Open Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity, J. Manage. Stud. 46 (2009), 1315–1338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00854.x.