Display options
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2021 May 31;12:659421. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.659421. eCollection 2021.

The Application of Acceptance Models to Human Resource Information Systems: A Literature Review.

Frontiers in psychology

Lou Menant, Daniel Gilibert, Céline Sauvezon

Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire Epsylon EA 4556, Université Paul Valéry Montpellier III, Montpellier, France.

PMID: 34135818 PMCID: PMC8202014 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.659421

Abstract

Technology acceptance by users has been extensively studied in recent years in various fields such as technologies for learning, e-commerce, and business technologies. This review focuses specifically on Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) and its acceptance by users. Given their widespread use in organisations, HRIS acceptance has been researched but not synthesised in any way. This article aims to review the effectiveness of the classical TAM and UTAUT models commonly used for new technologies and to identify the variables added to these models to better predict HRIS acceptance by employees. It also highlights the importance of the human-machine-organisation relationship to contribute to the understanding of HRIS acceptance in professional environments. This review confirms the effectiveness of the TAM and UTAUT models and proposes to develop them by (a) variables reffering to technological characteristics (security, system response time, and the data quality implemented in the system), (b) user satisfaction with the system, and (c) organisational variables (expected role of the HR department). The discussion focuses on the retroaction possibilities between the different Human-Machine-Organisation relation levels.

Copyright © 2021 Menant, Gilibert and Sauvezon.

Keywords: acceptability; human resource information system; technology acceptance model; unified theory of acceptance and use of technology; user acceptance

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. PLoS One. 2016 Aug 05;11(8):e0160366 - PubMed

Publication Types