A Study on Accepting Intention to the Intelligent Unmanned Stores - The Case study of Q-Shop Intelligent Unmanned Store

• Main Authors: Sue-Hui Chen, 陳素惠
• Other Authors: Shu-Hao Chang
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2010
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/93556397666476630747

碩士 === 嶺東科技大學 === 行銷與流通管理研究所 === 98 === In order to assist domestic logistic service providers control the new consumption type that new technology brings. The Ministry of Economic Affairs Commercial Department tie in with the Executive Yuan’s "Technology-based service industry flagship projects ", initiate “ Set up the logistic industry intelligence store experiment demonstration point ”.Also, guide domestic industry OK convenience store build " the Q-Shop intelligent unmanned store" . In which the Q-Shop intelligent unmanned store this kind of new selling, consumption, and logistics whether consumer can accept？It is most important question which this research institute would like to discuss. The purpose of this study is to understand point of views of the potential consumers for the intelligent unmanned store and their willingness to accept it. Technology Acceptance Model is the main research framework in this research, joins trialability, compatibility and observability as the external variables in the Rogers’s innovative features, and aims the potential consumers in Taichung area for the sampling object, the sampling method mainly using the questionnaire survey procedure, collecting the related consumer data. .A total of 500 questionnaires were issued, 435 were collected, after sifting out the invalid questionnaires, a total of 397 are valid. The efficient response rate is 79.4%. The results showed, the potential consumers for the intelligent unmanned store of each factor to evaluate, between common and agreed, this also means that the potential consumers don’t repel to the intelligent unmanned store this kind of new industry, and no strong identification. Moreover, this research is analyzed by AMOS reflect there are no significant difference between trialability and perceived ease of use, compatibility and perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and attitude, attitude and behavior intention. The other assumptions are significant (trialability and perceived usefulness, compatibility and perceived ease of use, observability and perceived usefulness, observability and perceived ease of use, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, perceived usefulness and behavior intention). The results provided to the relevant industry in the management and recommendations.