1. User acceptance of mobile applications WG1/ WWRF24, Penang 12 April 2010 Lene Sørensen and Knud Erik Skouby center for Communication, Media and Information technologies Aalborg University – Copenhagen,

2. Mobile applications Games, ringtones, guides etc. Huge developments in mobile applications Creating revenue on the mobile markets Transcending passive mobile entertainment For all phones, but... the i-factor

3. Our theme in mobile applications: events Conference events Travelling

4. Aim Discuss the concept of user acceptance in relation to 4 selected travel/event mobile applications Based on ongoing work on user acceptance ‘expert’ evaluations’ Preliminary results/ conclusions

5. The four applications Amsterdam mobile guide Lonely planet city guide Cph Copenhag en unlike city guide

6. The four applications Show the currently most interesting and new thinking possibilities in relation to event services, guides and mobile technology

7. User acceptance Key to success for any service provider User acceptance – the willingness of a user group to employ a technology for the task it is designed for (Dillon, 2001) Provides insight into why technologies are adopted or rejected

8. User acceptance models Most based on TAM: The Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) – Perceived usefulness – Perceived ease of use However this model does not introduce social influences – which is important when discussing mobile applications (the cell phone is a social device)

9. Kaasinen’s model : User acceptance Perceived ease of use – Referring to the degree in which users find the user of the application free of effort Perceived value/usefulness – Referring to the extend in which users perceive a personal value by using the application Perceived ease of adoption – Referring to the actual “taking into use” of the application, the degree in which the user (actively or passively) employs the application Trust – Referring to various types of privacy and trust, among which we distinguish inter-personal trust and system trust From Nielsen and Pierson (2009)

10. Comparing the four applications Perceived ease of use Perceived value/ usefulness Perceived ease of adoption Trust Amsterdam mobile guide High – iPhone app High – for a tourist- pictures, maps, near me, search High- Free download/ GPS traffic ‘Official’ -GPS data –no problems Lonely planet city guide (SF) High – iPhone app however it is a huge application and waiting time may occur High – maps and near by features Medium – complicated / a book in reality – too much waiting time to look up ‘LP-concept’’/ GPS data; no event info –a problem? Roskilde mobile festival guide High – works on many phones – explained to target group High – updated info on music events, interactivity with large screens High –adoption during the festival- free download/ traffic costs High trust – related to event Copenhagen unlike city guide High – iPhone appHigh – for tourists as well as people living in Copenhagen – facts and expert knowledge High – pay for download/ free usage ‘Concept’ / GPS data – probably no problems

11. Conclusions The four app’s score high on the acceptance dimensions ‘Expert Evaluation’ ‘Many’ users – limited statistics Trust an issue Several aspects Private data Currently no problems/issues, but potentials for, e.g,, push services

12. Conclusions User acceptance high in new mobile event applications Many useful features and with a high level of users using the applications Trust not a current issue but could become an obstacle in the future

13. References Crossroads Copenhagen (2009): 6 case studies Nielsen, T. And Pierson, J. (2009): Up for adoption? Paper for the CMI conference 2009, Copenhagen Davis, F.D. (1989): Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, In: MIS Quarterly, 13, (3), pp. 319 – 340. Kaasinen, E. (2005). User acceptance of mobile services – value, ease of use, trust and ease of adoption, doctoral thesis, VTT Publications