A Study on Kitchen Equipment Adoption Using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in School Canteen: A Conceptual
Framework
Nadia Liana Mohd Karim1*, Arnieyantie Abd Hadi1, Syarifah Atifah Syed Hamzah1, Putri Dahlia Ab Rashid1, Noor Saliza Salmi1
1 Faculty of Hotel & Tourism Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Pulau Pinang, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 15 February 2022 | Published: 1 March 2022
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ijares.2022.4.1.1
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Literatures on food safety have widely accepted that one of the reasons leading to food poisoning cases is the mishandling of foods to proper storage and temperature. The said problems require appropriate kitchen equipment to ensure the abuse is kept at bay. In order to probe into the food handlers’ intention to use the equipment, this paper proposes an adapted Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to answer this query. The related constructs for independent variables include perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and willingness to invest. Questionnaires will be distributed among school canteen food handlers using established TAM items that will be modified to suit the setting of the study. The results of this study will indicate the intention to adopt the kitchen equipment among school canteen food handlers.
Keywords: Technology Acceptance Model, School Canteen Technology, Kitchen Equipment ___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Foods served in school canteen are the interest of many – students, parents, ministries, public and also the operators themselves. Through records, half of the reported foodborne disease were associated with either institutions or schools (Soon, Singh, & Baines, 2011). Food safety researchers delved deep and wide to explain the factors to safe food handling in a school canteen operation. Results from previous studies consistently suggested knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) as well as the effect of training programs on food handlers (Suryani, Sutomo, & Aman, 2019; Husain, Muda, Jamil, Hanafi & Rahman, 2016; Aziz, & Dahan, 2013) were among the factors that most frequently affected food safety. On top of that, researches also indicated that the risk of food safety is positively related to the usage of proper working equipment such as food thermometer, refrigerators, and hot-holding equipment to maintain safe food temperatures (Al-Kandari, Al-Abdeen, & Sidhu, 2019; McFarland, Checinska, Rasco, &
Smith, 2019; Rohit, Moos, Meldrum, & Young, 2019; Dominianni, Lane, Ahmed, Johnson, McKelvey, & Ito, 2018). However very little study has been done on this dimension of food safety in regards to the level of equipment adoption among school canteen.
It has been addressed in previous studies and food handling text books about the importance of foods to be handled and stored within safe temperatures (Al-Kandari, Al-Abdeen, & Sidhu,
2019). Investigations from food poisoning cases have also indicated mishandling of foods to the proper temperature as one of the leading causes (Ncube, Kanda, Muzeketwa, Chiripamberi,
& Madondo, 2020; Taha, Osaili, Saddl, Al-Nabulsi, Ayyash, & Obaid, 2020). Keeping food in check to the temperature danger zone (TDZ) has always been the rule of thumb in ensuring food safety (Ricci, Martelli, Razzano, Cassi, Lazzi, Neviani, & Bernini, 2020). These are the indicators to the imperativeness in adopting proper kitchen equipment in food operation.
However there are little literatures probing into the intention to use technology in food operation (Ham, Kim, & Forsythe, 2008; Park, 2006). The technology in this paper refers to the types of kitchen equipment that aids with proper temperature ambience for foods according to its phases. Results from existing literature in food safety suggest the need for food operations to adopt proper equipment usage to support food safety (Margoulas, 2017). On the other hand, research on operators perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are scarce to help with the understanding of intention to use the equipment.
Hence this study aims to understand the intention to use kitchen equipment in Malaysian public school canteen. This will be achieved by assessing the perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and willingness to invest among school canteen operators.
2. Literature Review
Kitchen Equipment and Food Safety
Modernization of food preparation from the 1800’s to the current date has witnessed improvements in various fields including numerals aspects of ideologies, trends, as well as technological advancements (Almanza, Byrd, Behnke, Ma, & Ge, 2017). The advancement of kitchen equipment also proved how the quality of food safety, food access, nutrition, and food choice can be elevated with its adoption and usage (Bonciu, 2018). Studies on modern kitchen equipment suggested that there is a positive relationship between the adoption and usage of kitchen equipment with the level of food safety on top of other qualities such as sustainability and sensorial quality (Bonciu, 2018; Almanza, Byrd, Behnke, Ma, & Ge, 2017). In fact, kitchen equipment was proposed to be the leading feature being incorporated in cookbooks alongside food safety knowledge and cleaning advancement (Almanza, Byrd, Behnke, Ma, & Ge, 2017).
In order to ensure appropriate temperature controls throughout food processing and production, food handlers must adopt the usage of kitchen equipment that is proper for cooking, hot and cold storage and temperature measurement (Almanza, Byrd, Behnke, Ma, & Ge, 2017).
Technology Acceptance Model
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by Davis (1989) is a widely used model to assess users’
acceptance towards technology. Initially developed for the usage in information technology field, the model was later accepted across different field as the basis to acceptance model among its target user including robotic devices, medical devices and alternative fuel vehicles (Koul, & Eydgahi, 2018; HFM Latip, AH Omar, TM Jing, A Shahrom, 2017; Jansson, Marell, and Nordlund, 2010). It was also widely accepted and adopted to study various fields in hospitality and tourism (Park, Park, & Heo, 2018). The model (Figure 1) proposed that users’
perceived ease of use will influence the perceived of usefulness of the technology. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use affect users’ attitudes and in turn influence the intention to use the technology (Ham, Kim, & Forsythe, 2008).
Figure 1: Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989)
Conceptual Framework and Propositions
Figure 2 is the conceptual framework that will be used by this study. The basic TAM is incorporated with perceived affordability as one if the independent variables. It is modified as such to fit the context of this study.
Perceived Usefulness
Perceived usefulness was found to be a factor that hindered the acceptance of technology more than its perceived ease of use (Park, Park, & Heo, 2018). The imperativeness of usefulness has consistently been agreed upon by various researches (Bhatiasevi & Yoopetch, 2015). It is the measurement of the degree to which a respondent would indicate whether the studied technology would benefit his or her job performance or not (Park, Park, & Heo, 2018; Davis, 1986). In the context of kitchen equipment, perceived usefulness indicates the food handlers’
assumed experience or experience in literal that kitchen equipment does provide functionality in the operation of a school canteen.
H1: There is a relationship between perceived usefulness with the intention to use kitchen equipment.
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework
Perceived Ease of Use
The decision for a person to accept a technology is greatly impacted with its initial performance (Ghazizadeh, Lee, & Boyle, 2012). Perceived ease of use is affected by both physical and mental effort while using the technology (Davis, 1986). If the user perceived the technology to be easily operated at the early stage of usage, that early experience will influence positively
Perceived Usefulness
Perceived Ease of Use
Intention to Use
Perceived Usefulness
Willingness to invest
Intention to Use Kitchen Equipment Perceived Ease of Use
towards the final intention to use. As a new technology is easily handled or managed by users, it will be less intimidating and consequently will encourage the users to adopt the usage of the technology in their related activities (Moon, & Kim, 2001).
H2: There is a relationship between perceived ease of use with the intention to use kitchen equipment.
Willingness to invest
Although TAM has been proved to be reliable by number of studies (Koul, & Eydaghi, 2018), it was also deemed “simple” and it was suggested that future researcher to test other external factors alongside the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Igbaria, Guimaraes, &
Davis, 1995). Incorporation of the financial factor which is measured by the willingness to invest as one of the antecedents in the model is a step of improvisation following the suggestion by previous studies on TAM. The willingness to invest is regarded as being the organizational determinants of external factors (Figure 3) but instead of influencing the perceived usefulness and/or perceived ease of use, the financial factor will be tested alongside the original independent variables.
The cost of equipment is one of the expenditure weights in the installation of food safety program (Tompkin, 1995). Financial consideration is deemed as one of the factors that could hamper the intention to use a certain type of technology (Davis, 1993). Even more so if the technology costs a huge amount of money. It was emphasized by Cato (1998) that willingness to invest financially has been one of the struggles for food businesses in the pursuit of implementing food safety programs. This situation was even more apparent among small food businesses. This notion stemmed from the fear of not making profit in short term that could put the operators out of business (Hessing, Schneider, Gutierrez, Silverberg, Gutter, & Schneider, 2020; Adalja, & Lichtenberg, 2018).
Figure 3: Determinants of external factor for TAM (Igbaria, Guimaraes, & Davis, 1995)
However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has advised that prevention cost will worth the otherwise detrimental aftermath (FDA, 2014). Loses caused by food safety issues could spanned in various aspects including foodborne illness burden, loss of productivity, and medical expenses among other (Scharff, 2012). Costly investment would make it up to the people and organisation especially if the technology is able to elevate the productivity of the operation generally (Ivanov, & Webster, 2019).
Organizational (resources allocation, training, instruction)
System Characteristics (quality of system) Individual
(political influences, org. factions,
tasks given)
H3: There is a relationship between willingness to invest with the intention to use kitchen equipment.
Method
Data for the study will be collected by self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire will include three measures: perceived usefulness of kitchen equipment (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989), perceived ease of use of kitchen equipment (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989), and willingness to invest in kitchen equipment. The adopted questions will be rephrased accordingly specifically by incorporating the element of kitchen equipment in place of the items used by the previous researchers. The instrument will adapt five-point Likert-scale assessment where respondents will indicate their preference for the items. The questionnaire will be revised based on feedback received from the pilot test. A total of 100 questionnaires will be distributed to randomly selected public school canteen operators. Data will be processed using SPSS data analysis software.
3. Discussion and Conclusion Implication of Study
At the end of this study we will better understand the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of kitchen equipment among school canteen food handlers and its effects on the intention to use. On top of that, the study will also learn about the willingness to invest and its relationship with the intention of use. This variable is an external factor added to the original model in order to adapt to the setting of the study which is school canteen operators.
The result from this study will practically increase the depth of findings in the food service aspect on users’ perceptions about the adoption and usage of kitchen equipment. As noted by the previous studies, there were little literature on school canteen in regards of kitchen equipment acceptance and usage. The outcome of this study will contribute to the current information from food handlers ends and also help with the literature on more recent types of kitchen equipment.
The completion of this study will also contribute to the theoretical aspect especially on the literature of the utilization of TAM to wider fields other than information technology. TAM has been widely used for social media, online learning, intranet and software acceptance. It has also been used for tangible items such as robots, cars and medical device. Hence this study will take TAM application into kitchen equipment usage acceptance in school canteen and probe into food service aspect further.
Future Research
The results from this study will indicate the perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and the willingness to invest in kitchen equipment among school canteen operators. Future study can extend the study to a more elaborated TAM model by including mediating variables such as types of foods or food handlers background in interfering the effect of independent variables with the intention of usage.
References
Adalja, A., & Lichtenberg, E. (2018). Produce growers’ cost of complying with the Food Safety Modernization Act. Food Policy, 74, 23-38.
Al-Kandari, D., Al-abdeen, J., & Sidhu, J. (2019). Food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices of food handlers in restaurants in Kuwait. Food control, 103, 103-110.
Almanza, B. A., Byrd, K. S., Behnke, C., Ma, J., & Ge, L. (2017). Cookbooks in US history:
How do they reflect food safety from 1896 to 2014?. Appetite, 116, 599-609.
Araújo, W. M., Zandonadi, R. P., Tenser, C. M., Farage, P., & Ginani, V. C. (2019). Importance and level of adoption of food safety tools in foodservices. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 17(5), 415-434.
Aziz, S. A. A., & Dahan, H. M. (2013). Food handlers’ attitude towards safe food handling in school canteens. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, 220-228.
Bhatiasevi, V., & Yoopetch, C. (2015). The determinants of intention to use electronic booking among young users in Thailand. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 23, 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.12.004
Bonciu, E. (2018). Food processing, a necessity for the modern world in the context of food safety: a Review. Annals of the University of Craiova-Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series, 47(1), 391-398.
Cato, J. C. 1998. “Economics of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) programmes.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://
nsgd.gso.uri.edu/haccp/flsgph98002.htm
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems. Cambridge, MA.
Dominianni, C., Lane, K., Ahmed, M., Johnson, S., McKELVEY, W. E. N. D. Y., & Ito, K.
(2018). Hot weather impacts on New York City restaurant food safety violations and operations. Journal of food protection, 81(7), 1048-1054.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2014. “FSMA Proposed Rule for Focused Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food against Intentional Adulteration.” Accessed June 20, 2015. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/ FSMA/ucm378628.htm Ghazizadeh, M., Lee, J. D., & Boyle, L. N. (2012). Extending the Technology Acceptance
Model to assess automation. Cognition, Technology & Work, 14(1), 39-49.
Ham, S., Kim, W. G., & Forsythe, H. W. (2008). Restaurant employees' technology use intention: Validating technology acceptance model with external factors. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 17(1-2), 78-98.
Hessing, A., Schneider, R. M. G., Gutierrez, A., Silverberg, R., Gutter, M. S., & Schneider, K.
R. (2020). The Cost of Food Safety. EDIS, 2016(1), 5-5.
HFM Latip, AH Omar, TM Jing, & A Shahrom (2017). A Questionnaire-based Approach on Technology Acceptance Model for Integrated Multiple Ankle Technology Device on Patient Psychology. Sains Humanika, 9(3-2).
Husain, N. R. N., Muda, W. M. W., Jamil, N. I. N., Hanafi, N. N. N., & Rahman, R. A. (2016).
Effect of food safety training on food handlers’ knowledge and practices. British Food Journal.
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.
Ivanov, S., & Webster, C. (2019). Economic fundamentals of the use of robots, artificial intelligence, and service automation in travel, tourism, and hospitality. In Robots, Artificial intelligence, and service automation in travel, tourism and hospitality.
Emerald Publishing Limited.
Jansson, J., Marell, A., & Nordlund, A. (2010). Green consumer behavior: Determinants of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(4), 358–370. https://doi. org/10.1108/07363761011052396
Koul, S. & Eydgahi, A. (2018). Utilizing technology acceptance model (TAM) for driverless car
technology adoption. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation 13(4):37-46 DOI:
10.4067/S0718-27242018000400037
Margoulas, A. (2019). Don’t let bad bacteria soring forward. Retrieved March 17, 2021 from https://foodsafety.gov./blog/2017/03/bad-bacteria.html.
McFarland, P., Checinska Sielaff, A., Rasco, B., & Smith, S. (2019). Efficacy of food safety training in commercial food service. Journal of food science, 84(6), 1239-1246.
Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & management, 38(4), 217-230.
Ncube, F., Kanda, A., Muzeketwa, D., Chiripamberi, V., & Madondo, M. C. (2020). Risk factors for food poisoning among self-catering university students. International journal of environmental health research, 1-11.
Park, K., Park, N., & Heo, W. (2018). Factors Influencing Intranet Acceptance in Restaurant Industry: Use of Technology Acceptance Model. International Business Research, 11 (10), 1.
Park, K. (2006). User acceptance of the intranet in restaurant franchise systems: An empirical study (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).
Ricci, A., Martelli, F., Razzano, R., Cassi, D., Lazzi, C., Neviani, E., & Bernini, V. (2020).
Service temperature preservation approach for food safety: microbiological evaluation of ready meals. Food Control, 115, 107297.
Rohit, C., Moos, M., Meldrum, R., & Young, I. (2019). Comparing Infrared and Probe Thermometers to Measure the Hot Holding Temperature of Food in a Retail Setting. Food Protection Trends, 39(1), 74-83.
Scharff, R. (2012). Economic Burden from Health Losses Due to Foodborne Illness in the United States. Journal of Food Protection 75(1), 123–31
Soon, J. M., Singh, H., & Baines, R. (2011). Foodborne diseases in Malaysia: A review. Food Control, 22(6), 823-830.
Suryani, D., Sutomo, A. H., & Aman, A. T. (2019). The factors associated with food safety practices on food handlers in primary school canteens. Unnes Journal of Public Health, 8(1), 1-9.
Taha, S., Osaili, T. M., Saddal, N. K., Al-Nabulsi, A. A., Ayyash, M. M., & Obaid, R. S. (2020).
Food safety knowledge among food handlers in food service establishments in United Arab Emirates. Food Control, 110, 106968.
Tompkin, R. B. (1995). The Use of HACCP for Producing and Distributing Processed Meat and Poultry Products. In HACCP in Meat, Poultry and Fish Processing, edited by A.
M. Pearson and T. R. Duston, 72–80. London: Blackie Academic and Professional.
