Berdasarkan penelitian dan pembahasan di atas maka dapat diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa :
a. Pengalaman (Experience) tidak berpengaruh secara signifikan terhadap Persepsi Kegunaan (Perceived Usefulness) artinya meskupun seseorang memiliki banyak pengalaman pada pekerjaan tertentu, akan tetapi akan kesulitan menggunakan sebuah teknologi baru ketika sistem tersebut masih memiliki banyak permasalahan.
b. Pengalaman (Experience) berpengaruh secara signifikan terhadap Persepsi Kemudahan Penggunaan (Perceived Ease Of Use). Dari hasil tersebut dapat di artikan bahwa pengalaman seseorang dalam mengoperasikan sebuah teknologi akan membantu untuk mempermudah seseorang dalam mengoperasikan teknologi baru.
c. Kerumitan (Complexity) berpengaruh secara signifikan terhadap Persepsi Kegunaan (Perceived Usefulness). Dengan hasil tersebut dapat disimpulkan bahwa kerumitan sebuah sistem berdampak pada penggunaannya. Semakin rumit sebuah sistem maka bisa mambuat seseorang kesulitan dalam penerimaan sistem tersebut yang akhirnya mengakibatkan kinerja kurang optimal.
d. Persepsi Kemudahan Penggunaan berpengaruh (Perceived Ease Of Use) terhadap Persepsi Kegunaan (Perceived Usefulness). Hasil tersebut dapat diartikan bahwa kemudahan penggunaan sebuah sistem berdampak pada seseorang dalam menggunakan sistem tersebut. Semakin mudah sistem untuk di operasikan maka akan semakin sering orang tersebut untuk menggunakan sistem tersebut.
e. Persepsi Kegunaan (Perceived Usefulness) berpengaruh terhadap Niat Untuk Menggunakan (Behavioral Intention to Use). Artinya, ketika sebuah sistem dirasa mempunyai banyak manfaat dan mempermudah dalam menyelesaikan pekerjaan maka niat seseorang untuk menggunakannya akan semakin tinggi.
f. Niat Untuk Menggunakan (Behavioral Intention to Use) berpengaruh secara signifikan terhadap penggunaan secara nyata (Actual Use). Dari hasil itu dapat disimpulkan bahwa semakin terbukti sebuah sistem dapat meningkatkan kinerja seseorang maka semakin tinggi juga niat seseorang untuk menggunakannya.
DAFTAR PUSTAKA :
Abowd, J. M., & Stinson, M. H. (2013). Estimating measurement error in annual job earnings: A comparison of survey and administrative data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(5), 1451-1467.
Abrami, P. C., Wade, C. A., Lysenko, L., Marsh, J., & Gioko, A. (2016). Using educational technology to develop early literacy skills in Sub-Saharan Africa. Education and Information Technologies, 21(4), 945-964.
Adamson, C., Beddoe, L., & Davys, A. (2014). Building resilient practitioners:
Definitions and practitioner understandings. British Journal of Social Work, 44(3), 522-541.
Ajzen, H., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Aker, J. C., Boumnijel, R., McClelland, A., & Tierney, N. (2016). Payment mechanisms and antipoverty programs: Evidence from a mobile money cash transfer experiment in Niger. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 65(1), 1-37.
Al-Maroof, R. S., Salloum, S. A., AlHamadand, A. Q., & Shaalan, K. (2020).
Understanding an Extension Technology Acceptance Model of Google Translation: A Multi-Cultural Study in United Arab Emirates.
International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 14(03), 157-178.
Al-Rahmi, A. M., Ramin, A. K., Alamri, M. M., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Abualrejal, H., & Al-Maatouk, Q. Evaluating the intended use of Decision Support System (DSS) via Academic Staff: An Applying Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Aldraiweesh, A. A., Alamri, M. M., Aljarboa, N.
A., Alturki, U., & Aljeraiwi, A. A. (2019). Integrating technology acceptance model with innovation diffusion theory: An empirical investigation on students’ intention to use E-learning systems. IEEE Access, 7, 26797-26809.
Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1), 143-155.
Ali, M., Zhou, L., Miller, L., & Ieromonachou, P. (2016). User resistance in IT: A literature review. International Journal of Information Management, 36(1), 35-43.
ALI, N., SAMSURI, S., SOOMRO, A., BROHI, I., & SHAH, A. (2019).
Investigating the usage of E-learning: An Integrated model of TAM and IS Success. Sindh University Research Journal-SURJ (Science Series), 51(2), 169-174.
Almaiah, M. A., & Alyoussef, I. Y. (2019). Analysis of the effect of course design, course content support, course assessment and instructor characteristics on the actual use of E-learning system. IEEE Access, 7, 171907-171922.
Arndt, E., & Peterson, D. (2018). Experience Alters Perceptions of Educational Technology Acceptance among Adolescents. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
Azwar, S. (1986). Reliabilitas dan Validitas: Interpretasi dan Komputasi.
Yogyakarta: Liberty.
Baird, S., McIntosh, C., & Özler, B. (2011). Cash or condition? Evidence from a cash transfer experiment. The Quarterly journal of economics, 126(4), 1709-1753.
Barrera-Osorio, F., Bertrand, M., Linden, L. L., & Perez-Calle, F. (2011).
Improving the design of conditional transfer programs: Evidence from a randomized education experiment in Colombia. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(2), 167-195.
Boardman, J., & Sauser, B. (2006). System of Systems-the meaning of of. Paper presented at the 2006 IEEE/SMC International Conference on System of Systems Engineering.
Chen, C.-C., & Tsai, J.-L. (2019). Determinants of behavioral intention to use the Personalized Location-based Mobile Tourism Application: An empirical study by integrating TAM with ISSM. Future Generation Computer Systems, 96, 628-638.
Chen, H.-R., & Tseng, H.-F. (2012). Factors that influence acceptance of web-based e-learning systems for the in-service education of junior high school teachers in Taiwan. Evaluation and program planning, 35(3), 398-406.
Chen, S. C., Chen, H. H., & Chen, M. F. (2009). Determinants of satisfaction and continuance intention towards self‐service technologies. Industrial Management & Data Systems.
Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers & education, 63, 160-175.
Collins, S. (2017). Social workers and resilience revisited. Practice, 29(2), intention to use internet banking. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Studi Pembangunan (Journal of Economics and Development Studies), 8(1), 17-22.
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models.
Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Dickson, G. W. (1981). Management information systems: Evolution and status.
In Advances in computers (Vol. 20, pp. 1-37): Elsevier.
Douglass, R. B. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. In: JSTOR.
Elkaseh, A. M., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2016). Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of social media for e-learning in Libyan higher education: A structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(3), 192.
Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine faculty use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(2).
Fauzy, F. A. A., Shah, Z. A., Saedudin, R. R., Kasim, S., Azadin, A. A., Ahmar, A. S., & Hidayat, R. (2018). Registration System and UTM Games Decision Using the Website Application. Int. J. Eng. Technol, 7(2.2), 45-47.
Fish, S., & Hardy, M. (2015). Complex issues, complex solutions: Applying complexity theory in social work practice. Nordic Social Work Research, 5(sup1), 98-114.
Fishbein, M. (1981). leek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior:
An Introduction to Theory and Research. Read-ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Foster, C., Hendrickson, K. J., Peyer, K., Reiner, B., deKoning, J. J., Lucia, A., . . . Wright, G. (2009). Pattern of developing the performance template.
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43(10), 765-769.
Fuerst, W. L., & Cheney, P. H. (1982). Concepts, theory, and techniques: Factors affecting the perceived utilization of computer‐based decision support systems in the oil industry. Decision Sciences, 13(4), 554-569.
Gabrielsson, J., & Politis, D. (2012). Work experience and the generation of new business ideas among entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.
Gangwar, H., Date, H., & Ramaswamy, R. (2015). Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Journal of enterprise information management.
Geladi, P., & Kowalski, B. R. (1986). Partial least-squares regression: a tutorial.
Analytica chimica acta, 185, 1-17.
Geyer, R. (2012). Can complexity move UK policy beyond ‘evidence-based policy making’and the ‘audit culture’? Applying a ‘complexity cascade’to education and health policy. Political studies, 60(1), 20-43.
Ghozali, I. (2009). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program SPSS.
Semarang: UNDIP.
Ghozali, I. (2011). Structural Equation Modeling Metode Alternatif Dengan Partial Least Square (PLS) Edisi 3, Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro. In: Semarang.
Ghozali, I., & Latan, H. (2012). Partial Least Square: Konsep, Teknik dan Aplikasi Smart PLS 2.0 M3. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
Gould, S. (1979). Age, job complexity, satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 209-223.
Harfouche, A. (2010). The same wine but in new bottles. Public e-services divide and low citizens’ satisfaction: an example from Lebanon. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 6(3), 73-105.
Hermanto, S. B., & Patmawati, P. (2017). Determinan Penggunaan Aktual Perangkat Lunak Akuntansi Pendekatan Technology Acceptance Model.
Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 19(2), 67-81.
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010). The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. Journal of biomedical informatics, 43(1), 159-172.
Howard, R., Restrepo, L., & Chang, C.-Y. (2017). Addressing individual perceptions: An application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology to building information modelling. International Journal of Project Management, 35(2), 107-120.
Howard, S. K., & Gigliotti, A. (2016). Having a go: Looking at teachers’
experience of risk-taking in technology integration. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5), 1351-1366.
Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T., & Davis, G. B. (1995). Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model. Journal of management information systems, 11(4), 87-114.
Kinman, G., McMurray, I., & Williams, J. (2014). Enhancing Self Knowledge, Coping Skills and Stress Resistance. Developing resilience for social work practice, 148-168.
Lazim, D., Shah, Z. A., Saedudin, R. R., Kasim, S., Azadin, A. A., Hidayat, R., . . . Arief, I. (2018). Information Management and PSM Evaluation System.
Int. J. Eng. Technol, 7(1.6), 17-19.
Lengelle, R., Meijers, F., Poell, R., Geijsel, F., & Post, M. (2016). Career writing as a dialogue about work experience: A recipe for luck readiness?
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 16(1), 29-43.
Lim, C., Kim, M.-J., Kim, K.-H., Kim, K.-J., & Maglio, P. P. (2018). Using data to advance service: managerial issues and theoretical implications from action research. Journal of Service Theory and Practice.
Lin, F., Fofanah, S. S., & Liang, D. (2011). Assessing citizen adoption of e-Government initiatives in Gambia: A validation of the technology acceptance model in information systems success. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 271-279.
Lucas, H. C. (1973). User reactions and the management of information services.
Management Informatics, 2(4), 165-172.
Maduku, D. K., Mpinganjira, M., & Duh, H. (2016). Understanding mobile marketing adoption intention by South African SMEs: A multi-perspective framework. International Journal of Information Management, 36(5), 711-723.
McDermott, F. (2014). Complexity theory, trans-disciplinary working and reflective practice. Applying Complexity Theory, 181-198.
Meijer, E., Rohwedder, S., & Wansbeek, T. (2012). Measurement error in earnings data: using a mixture model approach to combine survey and register data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 30(2), 191-201.
Meyer, B. D., & Mittag, N. (2019). Using linked survey and administrative data to better measure income: implications for poverty, program effectiveness, and holes in the safety net. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(2), 176-204.
Meyer, M. H., & Curley, K. F. (1991). An applied framework for classifying the complexity of knowledge-based systems. MIS quarterly, 455-472.
Mokhtar, S. A., Katan, H., & Hidayat-ur-Rehman, I. (2018). Instructors’
Behavioural Intention to Use Learning Management System: An Integrated TAM Perspective. TEM Journal, 7(3), 513.
Momani, A. M., & Jamous, M. (2017). The evolution of technology acceptance theories. International Journal of Contemporary Computer Research (IJCCR), 1(1), 51-58.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation.
Information systems research, 2(3), 192-222.
Muchran, M., & Ahmar, A. S. (2019). Application of TAM model to the use of information technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.11358.
Muntianah, S. T., Astuti, E. S., & Azizah, D. F. (2012). Pengaruh Minat Perilaku Terhadap Actual Use Teknologi Informasi dengan Pendekatan Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)(studi kasus pada kegiatan belajar mahasiswa fakultas ilmu administrasi universitas brawijaya malang). PROFIT:
JURNAL ADMINISTRASI BISNIS, 6(1).
Nagy, J. T. (2018). Evaluation of online video usage and learning satisfaction: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1).
Nazir, M. (1988). MetodePenelitian. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
Notoatmodjo, S. (2010). Metododologi Penelitian Kesehatan.
Olasina, G. (2019). Human and social factors affecting the decision of students to accept e-learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(3), 363-376.
Paes-Sousa, R., Santos, L. M. P., & Miazaki, É. S. (2011). Effects of a conditional cash transfer programme on child nutrition in Brazil. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89, 496-503.
Pajo, K., & Wallace, C. (2001). Barriers to the uptake of web-based technology by university teachers. Journal of distance education, 16(1).
Parton, N. (1998). Risk, advanced liberalism and child welfare: The need to rediscover uncertainty and ambiguity. The British Journal of Social Work, 28(1), 5-27.
Patry, A. L., & Pelletier, L. G. (2001). Extraterrestrial beliefs and experiences: An application of the theory of reasoned action. The Journal of social psychology, 141(2), 199-217.
Perkins, D. N. (1985). The fingertip effect: How information-processing technology shapes thinking. Educational Researcher, 14(7), 11-17.
Pycroft, A., & Wolf-Branigin, M. (2016). Integrating complexity theory and social work practice; a commentary on Fish and Hardy (2015). Nordic Social Work Research, 6(1), 69-72.
Radnan, P. Y., & Purba, J. T. (2018). The use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) of Mobile Banking. Jurnal Manajemen dan Pemasaran Jasa, 9(2), 283-298.
Rahmawati, R. N. (2019). Self-efficacy and use of E-learning: A theoretical review technology acceptance model (TAM). Amer. J. Hum. Soc. Sci.
Res., 3(5), 41-55.
Rasella, D., Aquino, R., Santos, C. A., Paes-Sousa, R., & Barreto, M. L. (2013).
Effect of a conditional cash transfer programme on childhood mortality: a nationwide analysis of Brazilian municipalities. The lancet, 382(9886), 57-64.
Raso, D., Tungkunanan, P., & Anukulwech, A. (2017). Factors supporting an information technology management: Teachers in primary schools in Thailand. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 12(04), 126-140.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th Eds.) ACM The Free Press (Sept.
2001). New York, 15-23.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach.
Sakala, L., & Phiri, J. (2019). Factors Affecting Adoption and Use of Mobile Banking Services in Zambia Based on TAM Model. Open Journal of Business and Management, 7(03), 1380.
Samaradiwakara, G., & Gunawardena, C. (2014). Comparison of existing technology acceptance theories and models to suggest a well improved theory/model. International technical sciences journal, 1(1), 21-36.
Sanger, M., & Giddings, M. M. (2012). A simple approach to complexity theory.
Journal of Social Work Education, 48(2), 369-376.
Schwab, D. P., & Cummings, L. L. (1976). A theoretical analysis of the impact of task scope on employee performance. Academy of Management Review, 1(2), 23-35.
Shrestha, A. K., & Vassileva, J. (2019). User Acceptance of Usable Blockchain-Based Research Data Sharing System: An Extended TAM Blockchain-Based Study.
arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00079.
Silva, P. (2015). Davis' technology acceptance model (TAM)(1989). In Information seeking behavior and technology adoption: Theories and trends (pp. 205-219): IGI Global.
Stern, D., & Nakata, Y.-f. (1989). Characteristics of high school students’ paid jobs, and employment experience after graduation. Adolescence and work:
Influences of social structure, labor markets, and culture, 189-233.
Sugiyono. (2008). Metode penelitian pendidikan:(pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif dan R & D): Alfabeta.
Sugiyono, D. (2010). Metode penelitian kuantitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Sugiyono, P. (2008). Metode penelitian kuantitatif dan kualitatif dan R&D.
Bandung (ID): Alfabeta.
Sugiyono, P. (2013). Statistik untuk Penelitian. CV. Alvabeta Bandung. In.
Sugiyono, P. (2015). Metode penelitian kombinasi (mixed methods). Bandung:
Alfabeta.
Sugiyono, P. (2017). Metode Penelitian Bisnis: Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, Kombinasi, dan R&D. In: Penerbit CV. Alfabeta: Bandung.
Sunny, S., Patrick, L., & Rob, L. (2019). Impact of cultural values on technology acceptance and technology readiness. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 89-96.
Tarhini, A., El-Masri, M., Ali, M., & Serrano, A. (2016). Extending the UTAUT model to understand the customers’ acceptance and use of internet banking in Lebanon. Information Technology & People.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience.
MIS quarterly, 561-570.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information systems research, 6(2), 144-176.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing:
toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS quarterly, 125-143.
Tibenderana, P., Ogao, P., Ikoja-Odongo, J., & Wokadala, J. (2010). Measuring levels of end-users' acceptance and use of hybrid library services.
International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 6(2), 33-54.
Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on engineering management(1), 28-45.
Turner, A. N., & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Industrial jobs and the worker: An investigation of response to task attributes: Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business ….
Uppal, N., & Mishra, S. K. (2014). Moderation effects of personality and organizational support on the relationship between prior job experience and academic performance of management students. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 1022-1038.
Uppal, N., Mishra, S. K., & Vohra, N. (2014). Prior related work experience and job performance: Role of personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(1), 39-51.
Van den Homberg, M., & Susha, I. (2018). Characterizing data ecosystems to support official statistics with open mapping data for reporting on sustainable development goals. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(12), 456.
Van Maanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organization: Notes on the meaning of careers and socialization. Organizational careers: Some new perspectives, 15-45.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
Walden, D. D., Roedler, G. J., Forsberg, K., Hamelin, R. D., & Shortell, T. M.
(2015). Systems engineering handbook: A guide for system life cycle processes and activities: John Wiley & Sons.
Weerasinghe, S., & Hindagolla, M. C. B. (2018). Technology acceptance model and social network sites (SNS): a selected review of literature. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.
Wijaya, S. W. (2006). Kajian teoritis technology acceptance model sebagai model pendekatan untuk menentukan strategi mendorong kemauan pengguna
dalam menggunakan teknologi informasi dan komunikasi. Prosiding Konferensi Nasional Sistem Informasi. Yogyakarta.
Winarno, S. (1998). Pengantar Penelitian Sosial Dasar Metode Tehnik. Penerbit Tarsito, Bandung.
Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model.
Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221-232.
Yang, Y., Liu, S., & Xie, N. (2019). Uncertainty and grey data analytics. Marine Economics and Management.
Yusuf, M. (2014). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan Gabungan.
Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.
Zmud, R. W. (1979). Individual differences and MIS success: A review of the empirical literature. Management science, 25(10), 966-979.
.
Lampiran 1. Kuesioner Penelitian
KUESIONER PENELITIAN
PENGARUH PENGALAMAN DAN KERUMITAN
TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) TERHADAP PENERIMAAN APLIKASI (E-PKH) DI JAWA TIMUR
Dengan hormat,
Sehubungan dengan akan dilakukannya kegiatan penelitian dalam rangka menyelesaikan program studi S2 Magister Manajemen Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang mengenai Pengaruh Pengalaman Dan Kerumitan Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Terhadap Penerimaan Aplikasi (E-PKH) Di Jawa Timur, maka peneliti memohon kesediaan Bapak/Ibu dan Saudara/i untuk dapat meluangkan waktu mengisi kuesioner ini.
Penelitian ini diharapkan dapat memberikan hasil bermanfaat, oleh karena itu dimohon kesediaan untuk mengisi dan menjawab kuesioner ini dengan sejujur- jujurnya dan sebenar-benarnya. Jawaban yang Bapak/Ibu dan Saudara/i berikan akan dijamin kerahasiaannya dan hanya digunakan untuk kepentingan penelitian ilmiah. Atas kerjasamanya dan kesungguhan Bapak/Ibu dan Saudara/i dalam proses pengisian kuesioner, penelitia mengucapkan terima kasih.
Peneliti
Galuh Andika
Data Responden
Nama :
Jenis Kelamin :
Usia :
Angkatan :
Penempatan Kab/Kota :
Petunjuk Pengisian :
1. Bacalah setiap pernyataan tersebut dengan seksama sebelum menjawab.
2. Anda hanya dapat memberikan satu jawaban di setiap pernyataan.
3. Isilah kuesioner dengan memberi tanda (√) pada kolom yang tersedia dan pilih sesuai dengan keadaan yang sebenarnya.
Keterangan:
SS : Sangat Setuju
S : Setuju
KS : Kurang Setuju S : Tidak Setuju
STS : Sangat Tidak Setuju
NO Pernyataan Keterangan
SS S KS TS STS
Pengalaman
1 Lama waktu bekerja di instansi ini memudahkan
saya dalam bekerja
2 Saya memiliki pengetahuan tentang pekerjaan
yang di berikan
3 Keterampilan yang saya miliki memudahkan
untuk menyelesaikan pekerjaan
4 saya dapat menyelesaikan pekerjaan dengan
efektif dan efisien
Kerumitan SS S KS TS STS
1 Pekerjaan yang sulit dikerjakan akan
menghabiskan banyak waktu untuk
menyelesaikannya
2
Saya mengalami kesulitan dalam
mengintegrasikan hasil pekerjaan ketika pekerjaan yang di berikan itu rumit
3 Sitem aplikasi E-PKH yang kurang stabil
menyebabkan rentan terhadap kehilangan data
4
Terjadinya kerusakan sistem (error system) menyebabkan pekerjaan tidak bisa di selesaikan dengan baik
5
Kesalahan pengguna (human error) sering terjadi ketika pengguna aplikasi E-PKH merasa lelah dan kurang fokus
Persepsi Kegunaan SS S KS TS STS
1 Penggunaan aplikasi E-PKH mampu
meningkatkan kinerja SDM PKH
2 Pengunaan aplikasi E-PKH mampu meningkatkan
produktifitas SDM PKH
3 Penggunaan aplikasi E-PKH mampu
meningkatkan efektifitas kinerja SDM PKH
4
Penggunaan aplikasi E-PKH bermanfaat untuk menyelesaikan pekerjaan dengan cepat dan tepat
Aplikasi E-PKH mempunyai banyak manfaat sehingga membuat pekerja ingin untuk menggunakannya
2
Para pengguna selalu mencoba menggunakan aplikasi E-PKH dengan harapan pekerjaan bisa terselesaikan dengan baik
3 Aplikasi E-PKH akan bermanfaat di masa yang
akan datang
Penggunaan Secara nyata SS S KS TS STS
1 Aplikasi E-PKH sering digunakan untuk
menyelesaikan tugas pokok
2 Penggunaan aplikasi E-PKH digunakan untuk
mendapatkan data yang akurat
Lampiran 2. Hasil Smart PLS
1. Konstruk Validitas dan Reabilitas
2. Uji Multikolinieritas
3. Validitas Discriminant
4. Uji R-square
5. Uji Pengaruh Langsung
6. Uji Pengaruh Tidak Langsung