1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Evaluation for Academic Information System (case study : Ma Chung University) Soetam Rizky Wicaksono, Audrey Amelia Ma Chung University CONTACT soetam.rizky@machung.ac.idsoetam.rizky@machung.ac.id – www.soetamrizky.mewww.soetamrizky.me audrey.amelia@machung.ac.id Universitas Ma Chung Villa Puncak Tidar N-01 Malang, 65155, Indonesia Tel: +62 341 550171 Fax : “+62 341 550175 [1] R. Pressman, Software Engineering, 5th ed., Mc Graw Hill, 2001. [2] H. C. Chan and H.-H. Teo, "Evaluating the boundary conditions of the technology acceptance model: An exploratory investigation," ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction,, vol. 14, no. 2, 2007. [3] E. Frokjaer and K. Hornbaek, "Metaphors of human thinking for usability inspection and design," ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 14, no. 4, 2008. [4] B. P. Bailey and S. T. Iqbal, "Understanding changes in mental workload during execution Understanding changes in mental workload during execution," ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 14, no. 4, 2008. [5] A. Burton-Jones and G. S. Hubona, "The Mediation of External Variables in the Technology Acceptance Model," Information and Management, vol. 43, pp. 707-717, 2006. [6] D. Davis, "A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results," 1986. Evaluation of the information system (IS) that has been implemented often becoming forgotten stage by the software developers. Evaluation in IS using the spiral model is considered as the last stage [1]. It also considers as the beginning stages of development at the next level. However, it is strongly advisable to direct the evaluation towards usability when IS has already implemented for a while. The evaluation should create recommendation and also revision for better IS. This evaluation using a which names as technology acceptance model (TAM) [2, 3] The evaluation in general can be obtained from (1) user response based questionnaire or (2) questions which was not disclosed and will be missed when users interact directly with the software [3]. Another way is by measuring the level of error that has been made by the user and assume the results are as disruption or interruption which will ultimately result in a negative effect is referred to as cost of interruptions [4]. Background The early stages of the evaluation is done by analyzing the results of TAM based on error rates that have been performed by users and requiring revision and refinement directly from the software developer. On the other hand, it is also rechecked with the availability of guidelines from software developer. Thus, it will result PU (Perceived Usefulness) and PEOU (Perceived Ease Of Use) that describes the user acceptance of information systems and form the basis for evaluation at a later stage [2]. Results of the TAM evaluation expected to increase user awareness about the importance of PE and PEOU disclosure as feedback to the software developers as simple and honest opinion. Within the scope of this study, it is expected that the evaluation results can be interaction TAM is silent interaction from the user with the developer, considering that interaction evaluation by way of think aloud is still very difficult to do in real terms at an institution that holds a high level of manners (especially in Indonesia) ABSTRACT Evaluation of information technology is an activity that is often forgotten by the developer. Moreover, if an application system has been running long enough, it is strongly recommended to evaluate in terms of usability. Proper evaluation method in this case one of them is the evaluation of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) which use of two types of evaluation which are: (1) Perceived Usefulness, (2) Perceived Ease of Use. The observation error rate that occurs when users use the system can also support the results of the evaluation of TAM. Frequency of use and the results of interviews regarding the availability of additional material evaluation guide into TAM. All of the data collection result and analysis are summarized to improve the effectiveness of the performance even though the system still requires periodic development to meet the needs of users Keywords: Technology Acceptance Model, Software Engineering, Academic Information System, Usability CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES On the evaluation of Perceived Usefulness there are 4 types of evaluation, which are: (1) increasing the effectiveness of work, (2) improve overall performance, (3) faster usage and (4) menu usability. Summary of the results of the evaluation of PU explain that more than 90% of respondents said it help progress more quickly and can increase the effectiveness of work. In addition, 80% more respondents stated that the information academic system usage can improve the overall performance and found in accordance with the module already done. Then summarized that the system is being able to complete the job faster, but the existing modules are still not complete so it can not improve the overall performance Result : Perceived Usefulness Method Result : Perceived Ease of Use NoQuestionsYes(%)No (%) 1Faster task completion 94,44%5,56% 2Work effectiveness 94,44%5,56% 3Overall performance 83,33%16,67% 4Menu acceptance 77,78%22,22% NoQuestionsYes(%)No (%) 1Usage without training 83,33%16,67% 2Ease daily task 77,78%22,22% 3Understandable interaction 83,33%16,67% 4New menus are easy to learn 83,33%16,67% While the results of Perceived Ease of Use consists of four main evaluation namely: (1) ease of use, (2) completion of everyday tasks, (3) ease of interaction of the system and (4) the addition of new menu. A summary of the results states that the respondents still have resistance to the system that has been tested. PU percentage decrease compared to the results of PEU as a reaction from the respondents that implicitly mention they still want a system that is relatively better for each individual subjectively. In addition, the level of understanding and use of each respondent has not been measured in detail so that still require further research with qualitative methods in order to obtain optimal results. The linkage between the results of the evaluation of PU, PEOU, observation error rate and the average frequency of use Information Academic System is how the system is used by the user. Also interpret the usability even if the error is still there when the system is used. In addition, the average result using the application every day also determines the user to accept the application and use the application as a means of support in the improvement of the performance of the user. These results will be answered, whether this information system should be developed into a better direction or even better overall revamp.