Analysis of Integrated Railway QR Code Mobile Payment Systems’ Technology Acceptance

Authors

  • Rahardianto Tripradipta INDONESIA
  • Sigit Priyanto INDONESIA
  • M. Rizka Fahmi Amrozi INDONESIA
  • Andrew H Kemp UNITED KINGDOM

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32832/astonjadro.v13i3.15571

Keywords:

tariff integration; technology acceptance model; QR code; mobile payment; structural equation modeling.

Abstract

This research investigates passengers' perceptions regarding the implementation of integrated railway Quick-response Code mobile payment systems. Their perception of the technology is crucial for determining the main factors that influence technology acceptance in transport tariff integration sector. The research locations are in Jakarta (Jaklingko application) and United Kingdom (Trainline application). The method used in this research was the technology acceptance model. The model was used to identify the construct and indicator variables hypothesized to influence acceptance. The model's dependability was then evaluated using the partial least squares – structural equation modelling method. After the model had been evaluated for dependability, it was tested on the determined hypothesis to determine factors that could increase passenger acceptance of the application. The analysis revealed that the technology acceptance model extension factors which influent the model were self-efficacy, informativeness, result demonstrability, subjective norms and perceived risk. This study's findings also suggest that policies implement travel behavior interventions, distribute information, instructing transportation operators to conduct targeted advertisement technology and comply with network security standards can increase technology acceptance. These results support previous research concerning the core concept of technology acceptance model but also found differences with several previous studies, namely that perceived risk does not influence perceived ease of use because the most significant concern of mobile telecommunication users is failure transactions. Moreover, the indicator difference between the two application models demonstrates that each technology implementation is unique and that there may be disparities in the indicators representing the model's construct variables.

Author Biographies

Rahardianto Tripradipta, INDONESIA

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta

Sigit Priyanto, INDONESIA

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta

M. Rizka Fahmi Amrozi, INDONESIA

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta

Andrew H Kemp, UNITED KINGDOM

School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds

References

Abdullah, F. and Ward, R. 2016. Developing a General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior. 56, pp.238-256.

Abrate, G., Piacenza, M. and Vannoni, D. 2009. The impact of Integrated Tariff Systems on public transport demand: Evidence from Italy. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 39(2), pp.120-127.

Aloudat, A., Michael, K., Chen, X. and Al-Debei, M.M. 2014. Social acceptance of location-based mobile government services for emergency management. Telematics and Informatics. 31(1), pp.153-171.

Azzam Akmal, A., Felicia Kyla, F., Vera, S. and Raden Isma, A. 2023. JakLingko: The Implementation of Integrated Transportation Approach in Jakarta Smart City. In: Proceedings of the Business Innovation and Engineering Conference (BIEC 2022), 2023/05/15: Atlantis Press, pp.310-316.

Bahli, B. and Benslimane, Y. 2004. An exploration of wireless computing risks: Development of a risk taxonomy. Inf. Manag. Comput. Security. 12, pp.245-254.

Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. 1994. User Participation, Conflict, and Conflict Resolution: The Mediating Roles of Influence. Information Systems Research. 5(4), pp.422-438.

Barney, N. 2023. PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard). [Online]. Available from: https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/PCI-DSS-Payment-Card-Industry-Data-Security-Standard

Chopdar, P.K., Korfiatis, N., Sivakumar, V.J. and Lytras, M.D. 2018. Mobile shopping apps adoption and perceived risks: A cross-country perspective utilizing the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Computers in Human Behavior. 86, pp.109-128.

Chow, M., Herold, D.K., Choo, T.-M. and Chan, K. 2012. Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use Second Life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers & Education. 59(4), pp.1136-1144.

Dash, G. and Paul, J. 2021. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 173, p121092.

Davis, F.D. 1986. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. thesis.

Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 13(3), pp.319-340.

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. 1989. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science. 35(8), pp.982-1003.

Fraga-Lamas, P., Fernandez-Carames, T.M. and Castedo, L. 2017. Towards the Internet of Smart Trains: A Review on Industrial IoT-Connected Railways. Sensors (Basel). 17(6).

Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V. 2014. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool for Business Research. European Business Review. 26, pp.106-121.

Išoraitė, M., Jarašūnienė, A. and Samašonok, K. 2023. Assessment of the Impact of Advertising in Promoting Sustainable Mobility and Multimodality in the Urban Transport System. Future Transportation. 3(1), pp.210-235.

Li, J., Wang, J., Wangh, S. and Zhou, Y. 2019. Mobile Payment With Alipay: An Application of Extended Technology Acceptance Model. IEEE Access. 7, pp.50380-50387.

Li, Y.-H. and Huang, J.-W. 2009. Applying Theory of Perceived Risk and Technology Acceptance Model in the Online Shopping Channel. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering. 29.

Marangunić, N. and Granić, A. 2014. Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society. 14(1), pp.81-95.

Paul, A.P. 2003. Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. 7(3), pp.101-134.

Pintado, T., Carcelen, S. and Alameda, D. 2017. The Effects of Digital Media Advertising Content on Message Acceptance or Rejection: Brand Trust as a Moderating Factor. Journal of Internet Commerce. 16, pp.364-384.

Plouffe, C.R., Hulland, J.S. and Vandenbosch, M. 2001. Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions—Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System. Information Systems Research. 12(2), pp.208-222.

Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.-M. 2022. SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek. SmartPLS.

Sevilla, C.G., Ochave, J.A., Punsalan, T.G., Regala, B.P. and Uriarte, G.G. 1984. An Introduction to Research Methods. Rex Book Store.

Sharaby, N. and Shiftan, Y. 2012. The impact of fare integration on travel behavior and transit ridership. Transport Policy. 21, pp.63-70.

Shuran, C. and Xiaoling, Y. 2020. A New Public Transport Payment Method Based on NFC and QR Code. In: 2020 IEEE 5th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Engineering (ICITE), 11-13 Sept. 2020, pp.240-244.

Singh, P., Elmi, Z., Krishna Meriga, V., Pasha, J. and Dulebenets, M.A. 2022. Internet of Things for sustainable railway transportation: Past, present, and future. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain. 4.

Skarin, F., Olsson, L.E., Friman, M. and Wästlund, E. 2019. Importance of motives, self-efficacy, social support and satisfaction with travel for behavior change during travel intervention programs. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 62, pp.451-458.

Summers, C.A., Smith, R.W. and Reczek, R.W. 2016. An Audience of One: Behaviorally Targeted Ads as Implied Social Labels. Journal of Consumer Research. 43, pp.156-178.

Taber, K.S. 2018. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education. 48(6), pp.1273-1296.

Trainline. 2023. Annual Report and Accounts 2023.

Udoh, I.S. and Kotonya, G. 2018. Developing IoT applications: challenges and frameworks. IET Cyber-Physical Systems: Theory & Applications. 3(2), pp.65-72.

Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. 2008. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences - DECISION SCI. 39, pp.273-315.

Zhao, J. and Wang, J. 2020. Health Advertising on Short-Video Social Media: A Study on User Attitudes Based on the Extended Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17(5), p1501.

Zhou, T. 2013. An empirical examination of continuance intention of mobile payment services. Decision Support Systems. 54(2), pp.1085-1091.

Published

2024-09-19

How to Cite

Tripradipta, R., Priyanto, S., Fahmi Amrozi, M. R., & Kemp, A. H. (2024). Analysis of Integrated Railway QR Code Mobile Payment Systems’ Technology Acceptance. ASTONJADRO, 13(3), 708–721. https://doi.org/10.32832/astonjadro.v13i3.15571

Issue

Section

Articles