Understanding mobile handheld device use and adoption

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM December 2003/Vol. 46, No. 12 35

The emergence of m-commercehas generated considerableexcitement among both practi-tioners and academics. The mass

media continually extols each seemingly novelidea about m-communication, m-collaboration,and m-commerce, and presents many speculationsregarding the endless potential of wireless tech-nology [7]. Manufacturers also continue to pro-duce wireless handheld devices based on theiroften abstract conceptions of what the “gener-alized” mobile user1 might value and desire. Whatappears to be missing, however, is a clear under-standing of the motivations and circumstancessurrounding mobile device use and adoption fromthe perspective of the consumers themselves. Rec-ognizing that m-commerce cannot fulfill itspotential without widespread proliferation of

Without device adoption, there is nomobile commerce.

UnderstandingMOBILE HANDHELD DEVICE

USE AND ADOPTION

BY SUPRATEEK SARKER ANDJOHN D. WELLS

1The terms “user,” “consumer,” and “individual” are used interchangeably in this article.

36 December 2003/Vol. 46, No. 12 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM

wireless devices and related applications [5], there is a clear need to comprehend how and why individuals (potential m-commerce consumers)adopt such devices.

Here, we describe the results of an ongoing

exploratory research project (seethe table here for details aboutthe study) designed to unearththe key factors affecting the use

and adoption of handheld hybrid mobile devices(devices offering both voice and data features). It isuseful to mention initially that well-established per-spectives exist, such as the Technology AcceptanceModel and Diffusion of Innovation framework,which offer factors such as “ease of use and useful-ness,” “relative advantage,” “compatibility,” “com-plexity,” “communicability,” and “triability” [3] thatcan, in very general terms, help explain the adoptionof technologies (including, perhaps, mobile devices).

However, rather than merely instantiating existingtheories in a new context, which could potentiallyignore unique issues associated with mobile devices,we take an approach grounded in practice and in thepoints-of-view of actual users. Based on the study,

we offer a framework providingan integrative view of the keyissues related to mobile deviceuse and adoption by individuals.We believe the framework, asrepresented in the figure on thenext page, will not only sensitizepractice-oriented readers to per-tinent factors but also provideresearchers with a map that canhelp motivate empirical studieson this topic.

The framework is structured asan I-P-O (Input-Process-Output)model, and consists of: Inputssuch as User characteristics, Mes-sage/task characteristics, Technol-ogy characteristics, Modality ofMobility, and the SurroundingContext; Process, consisting oftwo interacting use subprocessesof Exploration and Experimenta-tion, and Assessment of Experi-ence; and Output, referring to the

outcome of the use process, specifically, the actualAdoption Decision/Behaviors.

Inputs: Factors Influencing Use Individual Characteristics. Various factors suchas demographics, technology-related skills, andculture were identified as important determinantsinfluencing the implementation and acceptance ofwireless handheld phones; three of the most promi-nent follow.

The age of the potential adopter, which often canpredict whether or not an individual is likely to usemobile technology, especially its data features. Age,or stage in life, seemed to influence the manner in

TWO BROAD factors affecting the implementation and acceptance of wireless phones emerged: Interface characteristics and network capabilities.

Study Conducted in: A large rural public university setting in the U.S.

Participating Individuals

(Total 21 participants)

Period of Participation

Technology, service,and training provided

Data Collection andAnalysis

Group #1 consisted of 5 (out of 7) officers of a large student club in theuniversity (the “MIS Club”). All members were from the U.S.

Group #2 consisted of 5 members, all of whom were exchange students visitingfrom a Northern European country (Norway).

Group #3 consisted of 5 members, all of them being from the Asian-Pacificregion (3 from Thailand, 1 from China, and 1 from S. Korea).

Group #4 consisted of 4 members, who were also team members for an e-commerce course term project. All members were from the U.S.

Group # 5 consisted of all 7 officers of a large student club in the university(the “MIS Club”). All members were from the U.S.

3 weeks (Data collection involving Groups 4 and 5 was initiated at the conclusionof the study of Groups 1, 2, and 3).

•Device: Samsung SPH-N300. •Sprint service that allowed voice communication, and well as use of other data features. •90-minute training session on voice features, WAP browsing, text-messaging, connection to Internet services, conducted by the research team.

•30-minute (approx.) interviews with participants each week; all interviews were transcribed. •Researchers adopted an interpretive stance during the study. •Multiple researchers involved in each interview. •Sometimes multiple interviewees in the same session. •Analysis followed the spirit of coding procedures recommended in the Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM). o Open coding, wherein transcripts are read and important concepts were identified. o Axial coding, wherein concepts were organized into meaningful categories. o Selective coding, wherein all other categories were linked to the core category of mobile technology use.

Some methodologicaldetails about theexploratory study.

which the mobile device users balanced the expensesand convenience associated with mobility.

Technology self-efficacy, which refers to an individ-ual’s degree of confidence in using high-tech devices,was observed an important predictor of use andadoption behaviors. Interestingly, those with priorexposure to other mobile devices were found toencounter difficulties in switching from their exist-ing technological frames [8], which included differ-ent sets of features, sequences of keystrokes toaccomplish a task, and expectations of performancein comparison with other devices.

Cultural origin frequently plays a role in definingindividuals’ patterns of usage of mobile technology.In particular, the symbolic meaning of text messag-ing over a mobile device can be different across cul-

tures, depending on “power distance.” For example,in high power distance cultures such as Korea, textmessaging to individuals such as work supervisorswas seen as a serious offense. In contrast, users fromlower power distance cultures such as Norway didnot see text messaging as being offensive, thoughsome did indicate that text messaging could bepotentially unsuitable for formal communicationwith someone unfamiliar due to the frequent use ofabbreviations and slang terms.

Technology Characteristics. Two broad factorsaffecting the implementation and acceptance ofwireless phones emerged, as described here.

Interface characteristics: Users were usually quiteforgiving of physical limitations of the device due totechnological constraints, but were bothered byflaws in the logical interface of the devices, as seen inthe following illustrative comments: “They need tomake it easier for normal people to use, not justtechno-geeks,” or “you don’t know which sub-menu

you will find something under. And before you canbrowse the submenus on the Web you have to get onthe Web” or “there is just too much going on [in] themessaging system.. if you send a message [it shouldbe] two presses away… you go on the menu, it says‘message’; you go in there, you type it, you send it,that’s it.”

Network capabilities: Poor network characteristicsacted as severe inhibitors to use and adoption. Forexample, the lack of coverage in many areas tendedto reduce the sense of freedom and safety in manysubjects’ minds. The limited reach of mobile tech-nology due to lack of (or limitations in) capability tocommunicate across networks (such as Sprint andVerizon) also dampened the use process and enthu-siasm for adoption. Finally, the lack of reliability and

reduced responsiveness of thenetwork (downtime) con-tributed significantly towarderoding the users’ trust in (and,thus, their interest in using)wireless technology.

Communication/Task Char-acteristics. As mobile device fea-tures are introduced, newpotential applications are discov-ered and use practices continueto evolve. Nevertheless, a num-ber of currently observable use-patterns, particularly related tomobile text messaging, are wor-thy of discussion.

Number of interacting partici-pants: Mobile devices appeared tobe very suitable for accessinginformation unilaterally (readingemail, checking stock quotes andnews headlines), especially whenthe subject was seeking to fill a

time slot that would otherwise be lost (during a shortbus ride, while waiting in a line). Also, bilateral use ofdata features (such as through text messaging) wasquite effective under many circumstances; however,simultaneous multi-lateral use was difficult, thoughnot infeasible [2].

Immediacy of response desired: Examples includesituations when an immediate confirmation of amessage is desired due to urgency of the circum-stances; where there exists a need for micro-coordi-nation of activities due to the rapidly changingphysical positions and schedules of communicators[6]; and where the value/relevance of an idea to therecipient is very time sensitive.

Volume of communication desired can influence use


EXPLORATION andEXPERIMENTATION- Media Choice (Voice/ Data, Synchronicity)- Extent & Exclusiveness- Adjustment of Frames

COMMUNICATION/TASKCHARACTERISTICS- Number of Interacting Participants- Immediacy of Response- Volume of Communication- Communication Objectives

MODALITY OFMOBILITY- Type (Traveling, Wandering, Visiting)- Extent

TECHNOLOGYCHARACTERISTICS- Interface Characteristics- Network Capabilities

CONTEXT- Economic Factors- Social Factors- Critical Mass of Subscribers and Available Services

INDIVIDUALCHARACTERISTICS- Age- Culture- Technological Self-Efficacy and Prior Experience

ASSESSMENT OFEXPERIENCE- Functional- Psychosocial- Relational

ADOPTIONOUTCOME- Continuity of Use Over Time- Resource Commitment

USE PROCESS

An integrated framework for the use and adoption ofmobile handhelddevices.

patterns. For example, mobile text messaging wasseen as suitable when short messages weresent/exchanged. Current constraints with respect tothe device, especially the nature of the keyboard,made it virtually infeasible to participate in a high-volume text exchange.

Communication objectives may be classified asconveyance, convergence, and passive reception.Different media (voice, text messaging, and email)were viewed as suitable for different objectives, givena social context. For example, mobile text messagingseemed suitable for conveying a piece of informa-

tion, rather than when individuals needed conver-gence on a shared understanding of equivocalsituations. Of course, creating a high level of syn-chronicity in communication through back-and-forth messaging could enable two individuals toreach some convergence [1].

Modalities of Mobility. Perhaps the most toutedadvantage of wireless technology is its ability toenable mobile communication, mobile collabora-tion, and mobile commerce. While descriptions ofinnovative applications of mobile technology andvisions of future scenarios abound in the literature,the meaning of mobility, the types of mobility, andthe implications of different types of mobility onwireless device use remain unclear. Traveling, wan-dering, and visiting were seen as three ways to qual-ify the essence of mobility [4]. Traveling is definedas “the process of going from one place to another ina vehicle” [4]. For example, a five-hour drive fromone city to another could belong to this category ofmobility. Wandering, on the other hand, refers to aform of “extensive local mobility” where an individ-ual may spend considerable time walking around[4]. Finally, visiting refers to stopping by at somelocation and spending time there, before moving onto another location.

Different types and extent of mobility are associ-ated with different motivations underlying use pat-terns. For example, safety was an important concern

for those traveling often, in contrast with the yearn-ing for freedom expressed by those frequently wan-dering. Further, different characteristics oftechnologies were associated with different typesand extent of mobility. For example, the optimal sizeof a device associated with wandering was necessar-ily lower than an acceptable device size when visit-ing or traveling, and one needed a larger reach of thetechnological network when traveling than whenwandering.

Context. Undoubtedly, the surrounding socio-economic context plays an important moderating

role on the effect of the factors discussed previously. Economic factors and technological infrastructure:

For individuals on a limited budget (such as collegestudents), use patterns were highly influenced byeconomic considerations. Even though the advan-tages of being mobile were apparent and desirable,for many, the convenience was not worth the addi-tional expense. Further, the pricing plans of variousservice providers were found to encourage and dis-courage different types of behavior. For example, therelative popularity of text messaging in Norwaycompared to Thailand was attributed to the relativecosts associated with this form of communication inthe two countries. The level of proliferation ofmobile devices was also related to the existing qual-ity and availability of traditional telecommunica-tions infrastructure, and to the accessibility of publictelecommunications facilities.

Social factors: The expectation of continuousavailability and responsiveness associated withmobile device use appears to have a natural fit withcultures such as the U.S. that are fast-paced and relyon information for decision making in every aspectof life. Another interesting motivation for mobiledevice use, in the case of a major city in Thailand,was the fact that people are often stuck in their cardue to frequent traffic jams, and social practice ofengaging in “more or less meaningless conversation”as a leisure activity. Another related issue is that of


THE AVAILABILITY of a sufficient number of mobile Web services increased the use of data features and consequently, the chance of adoption.

symbolism, which refers to the meaning (beyondfunctionality) that members in the culture holdabout possessing and using a mobile device. Societieswhere the penetration of mobile technology is notsubstantial may view these devices as “a youngthing,” “a rich thing,” and “a cool thing,” and con-tribute to the users’ perception of an enhanced senseof self-importance.

Critical Mass: For an individual to use a wirelessdevice, particularly its data features, a significantnumber of members of the subject’s social networkneeded to be users of the same features. Further, theavailability of a sufficient number of mobile Webservices (such as news or chat services) increased theuse of data features and, subsequently, the chances of adoption.

The Use Process The first step in the use process is Exploration andExperimentation, which involves the following.

Choice of appropriate medium of communicationand the level of synchronicity: This refers to themedium used when communicating through a wire-less device (for example, voice, text messaging,email) and the synchronicity of the medium chosen(the degree of delay involved in a bidirectional infor-mation exchange).

Choice of extent, mode, and exclusiveness of use:This is related to the frequency and volume of com-municating with a wireless device, whether the par-ticipant primarily acts as an initiator, recipient, orboth, and the extent to which such a device is uti-lized as compared to tethered devices for communi-cation, coordination, and Web access needs.

Adjustment of cognitive frame regarding technology:This involves the process of reframing mobile tech-nology as new motivations, modes, and conse-quences of applying the technology emerge overtime. The adjustment of the cognitive frame alsoincludes learning to improvise in order to bypass thecurrent limitations of mobile technology that arebeing explored and experimented with. For example,through innovation in work practices and organiza-tion (socially configuring the group as a “ring net-work”), a group of subjects utilized a technologyenabling one-to-one communication as a group col-laboration technology.

The second step of the process can be labeled theAssessment of the Experience (that is, Explorationand Experimentation) with the device, which, inturn, recursively influences the manner in which thedevices are utilized. Users appeared to assess theirexperiences on at least three dimensions: functional,psychosocial, and relational.

Impact on Functional Effectiveness and Efficiency,and on Interpersonal Relationships: Being reachableanywhere and at any time has obvious advantages,such as improved coordination and the eliminationof wasted time when waiting for input from individ-uals who may be traveling, visiting, or wandering.This positive orientation to mobile technology isreflected in the view expressed by one of our sub-jects: “mobility means efficiency.” Given that wire-less phones are carried around by users, they may beable to “fill” time, implying the users can call some-one, check email, or send text messages in time slotsbetween other scheduled activities, while wanderingfrom one point to another on campus or while trav-eling from home to work. Sometimes, the filling oftime is equivalent to the “killing” of time when theindividuals use the mobile devices merely to keepthemselves engaged or entertained in a free time slot(or in a time slot that should have been put to moreproductive use); otherwise, mobile devices canenable “shifting” of time, for example, by checkingemail and reading/sending short messages duringtime slots between scheduled activities.

Having access to a mobile device also enabledusers to take care of various business and socialobligations throughout the day, almost in real timeas issues are confronted, rather than batching all themessages and responding later upon returning toone’s workstation. Benefits notwithstanding, thereare a number of potentially negative effects on pro-fessional and social relationships, most arising fromencroachment of personal/family time due to con-tinuous interruption through the mobile devicegiven the norm of constant availability, and fromunmet expectations regarding responsiveness, as anindividual switches off or ignores mobile devices to limit the uncontrolled intrusion of others on personal time.

Psychosocial outcomes: In addition to the more tan-gible impacts of mobile technology use discussedpreviously, a number of psychosocial impacts wereobserved: a sense of safety and security during trav-eling, elevated self-worth professionally or in a socialgroup, a feeling of irritation with society’s predilec-tion for mobile technology, and a sense of physicaland cognitive attachment with the mobile device(users may feel “out of the loop” or “detached” with-out the mobile device that they may be accustomedto carrying). Interestingly, users of mobile devicesexperienced a simultaneous sense of freedom frombeing bound to their desks with a tethered device, yet,at the same time, a sense of captivity owing to thecompulsiveness of responding to communication ini-tiated by others at any or every time.


Changing relationships among individuals: Havinga device readily available often allowed and encour-aged individuals to communicate, whether usingvoice or text, with others with whom communica-tion would not have otherwise occurred, therebyestablishing or reestablishing functionally useful ties.The availability of a communication device also tendsto lead to greater frequency and volume of communi-cation with members of the immediate social net-work, rendering the relationships “closer” [2].Interactions using mobile devices can transform thenature of interpersonal relationships in yet anotherinteresting though unexpected way. One of themobile groups we studied reported that their leader,who normally plays a facilitative role in face-to-facemeetings, came to be perceived as being more auto-cratic, leading to dissatisfaction in the team. The one-to-one communication imperative of using the devicesresulted in the leader becoming the central node in thecommunication, with all members sending theirresponses to him, and the leader unilaterally makingthe decisions and communicating his decisions to thegroup members.

Output—Adoption Outcome A positive experience with the use process, reflectedin favorable assessment in terms of the functional,psychosocial, and relational outcomes, influencedadoption decisions and behavior. This pattern islikely to hold true especially in a voluntary technol-ogy adoption scenario. Different levels of adoptionwere signaled by study participants based on thedegree of commitment of time, effort, and financialresources to enable the routine use of different fea-tures of the technology over time.

Conclusion The areas of m-communication and m-commerceare promising, yet confusion is abundant. Much ofthe existing literature dwells on the description oftechnological leaps and the economic implications,

largely ignoring the fact that without widespreadacceptance of mobile devices among individual con-sumers, the promise of mobility cannot be realized.In our study, through social analysis, we have inves-tigated how and why mobile handheld device adop-tion occurs. While we do not claim the findingspresented here are exhaustive, we are hopeful theholistic framework presented will be valuable inadvancing knowledge in the emerging area of m-communication and m-commerce.

References1. Dennis, A.R. and Valacich, J.S. Rethinking media richness: Toward a

theory of media synchronicity.” HICSS Proceedings, 1999.2. Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., and Ranganathan, D. Mobile instant mes-

saging through Hubbub. Commun. ACM 45, 9 (Sept. 2002), 68–72. 3. Kleijnen, M., de Ruyter, K., and Wetzels, M.G.M. Factors influencing

the adoption of mobile gaming services. In Mobile Commerce, B.E. Men-necke and T.J. Strader. Idea, Hershey, PA, 2003, 202–217.

4. Kristoffersen, S. and Ljungberg, F. Mobility: From stationary to mobilework. In K. Braa, C. Sorensen, and B. Dahlbom, Eds., Planet Internet,Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden, 2000, 137–156.

5. Lim, E. and Siau, K. Editorial preface: Mobile commerce. Journal ofDatabase Management 12, 3 (Mar. 2001).

6. Ling, R. We will be reached: The use of mobile telephony among Nor-wegian youth. Information Technology and People 13, 2 (2000),102–120.

7. Malladi, R. and Agrawal, D.P. Current and future applications andmobile and wireless networks. Commun. ACM 45, 10 (Oct. 2002),144–146.

8. Orlikowski, W.J. and Gash, D. Technological frames: Making sense ofinformation technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Informa-tion Systems 12, 2 (1994), 174–207.

Suprateek Sarker ([email protected]) is an assistant professorin the College of Business and Economics at Washington State University, Pullman, WA.John D. Wells ([email protected]) is an assistant professor inthe College of Business and Economics at Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or class-room use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed forprofit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation onthe first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute tolists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.

© 2003 ACM 0002-0782/03/1200 $5.00

c


INTERESTINGLY, USERSof mobile devices experienced a simultaneous sense of freedom from being bound to their desks with a tethered device, yet, at the same time, a sense of captivity.

Documents

Understanding mobile handheld device use and adoption