Technology Assessment and Adoption Models: A Comparative Analysis in Emerging Technology Contexts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20983/culcyt.2026.2.3e.2Keywords:
emerging technologies, technology adoption, technological readiness, usability, motivationAbstract
The objective of this research is to compare the scope and limitations of four approaches used in technology evaluation and adoption: the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the System Usability Scale (SUS), Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), and the ARCS motivational model. A descriptive-comparative documentary study was conducted, considering the purpose, dimensions, advantages, limitations, and utility of each approach regarding emerging technologies. The results highlight key differences in the aspects evaluated: TRL focuses on technical readiness; TAM, on user acceptance; SUS, on perceived usability; and ARCS, on motivation-related factors. Areas of complementarity were also identified, as relying on a single perspective may be insufficient to fully evaluate a technology. Based on this comparison, a conceptual framework is proposed to organize the contributions of all four approaches and their relationship with decision making in technology adoption. As this was a conceptual analysis, it was necessary to evaluate its application in real-world contexts and specific technologies. Ultimately, the findings suggest that selecting or combining these approaches can broaden the insights available for evaluating emerging technologies and better support decisions regarding their selection, implementation, and adoption.
Downloads
References
J. C. Mankins, “Technology readiness levels: A white paper”, NASA, 1995.
B. Östlund et al., “Interactive robots for health in Europe: Technology readiness and adoption potential”, Front. Public Health, vol. 11, art. 979225, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.979225.
B. D. Trump, J. Trump, D. Antunes, J. Palma-Oliveira y J. Keisler, “Fusing technology readiness levels (TRLs) and safe-by-design (SbB) for guiding investment in emerging technologies”, Environ. Syst. Decis., vol. 45, art. 45, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10669-025-10027-0.
F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Q., vol. 13, n.º 3, pp. 319-340, sept. 1989, doi: 10.2307/249008.
J. W. Y. Lee, J. Y. Tan y F. Bello, “Technology Acceptance Model in medical education: Systematic review”, JMIR Med. Educ., vol. 11, art. e67873, 2025, doi: 10.2196/67873.
J. Brooke, “SUS: A ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale”, en Usability Evaluation in Industry, P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. Weerdmeester y I. L. McClelland, eds. Londres: Taylor & Francis, 1996, pp. 189-194.
H. Åvik Persson, C. Castor, N. Andersson y M. Hylén, “Swedish version of the System Usability Scale: Translation, adaption, and psychometric evaluation”, JMIR Hum. Factors, vol. 12, art. e64210, 2025, doi: 10.2196/64210.
J. M. Keller, “Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design”, J. Instr. Dev., vol. 10, n.º 3, pp. 2-10, 1987, doi: 10.1007/BF02905780.
A. Kumar et al., “Gamified learning and assessment using ARCS with next-generation AIoMT integrated 3D animation and virtual reality simulation”, Electronics, vol. 12, n.º 4, Art. n.º 835, 2023, doi: 10.3390/electronics12040835.
V. Venkatesh y F. D. Davis, “A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies”, Manage. Sci., vol. 46, n.º 2, pp. 186-204, 2000, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
A. Bangor, P. T. Kortum y J. T. Miller, “An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale”, Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact., vol. 24, n.º 6, pp. 574-594, 2008, doi: 10.1080/10447310802205776.
J. M. Keller, Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach. Nueva York, NY, EUA: Springer, 2010, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3.
B. Sauser, D. Verma, J. Ramirez-Marquez y R. Gove, “From TRL to SRL: The concept of systems readiness levels”, presentado en Conf. Syst. Eng. Res. (CSER), Los Angeles, CA, EUA, abr. 7-8, 2006, art. 126.
S. K. Sharma et al., “Unlocking the potential of smart technologies: Addressing adoption challenges”, Inf. Syst. Front., vol. 25, n.º 4, pp. 1293-1298, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10796-023-10408-3.
M. M. Queiroz y S. Fosso, “A structured literature review on the interplay between emerging technologies and COVID-19—Insights and directions to operations fields”, Ann. Oper. Res., vol. 335, n.º 3, pp. 937-963, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-04107-y.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Beatriz Alvarado Robles, Víctor Alonso, Alma G. Rodríguez, Francesco García
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Todos los contenidos de CULCYT se distribuyen bajo una licencia de uso y distribución “Creative Commons Reconocimiento-No Comercial 4.0 Internacional” (CC-BY-NC). Puede consultar desde aquí la versión informativa de la licencia.
Los autores/as que soliciten publicar en esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes: a) los/las autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra; y b) se permite y recomienda a los/las autores/as agregar enlaces de sus artículos en CULCYT en la página web de su institución o en la personal, debido a que ello puede generar intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de su obra publicada.
