Start by exploring how individuals evaluate the value of a tool, then investigate whether organizational context affects this relationship.
What theories do these papers use?
Technology evaluation perspective (illustrative)
This illustrative material relates individual evaluations of technology to intention to use. It is not a verified finding from a real paper.
Example project · all papers, passages and analyses are illustrative
Application source located · original theoretical source not independently verifiedWhat do the model relationships mean?
Candidate framework · requires reviewThe example model relates perceived usefulness to intention to use. The diagram does not establish causality.
The example model relates perceived usefulness to intention to use. The diagram does not establish causality.
What could you investigate next?
Could organizational support affect this relationship?
A direction for further reading; the illustrative corpus cannot establish novelty.
Counterevidence and limits
Check whether the same relationship has already been studied, including null or contradictory findings.
What to check next
Look for organizational support, facilitating conditions and technology use.
Compare the papers
Read theory explanations, model relationships and candidate GAPs. Open a citation to inspect the original PDF page and passage.
Other theory and model references
Reference structures are starting points. Their sources do not establish suitability or validate your modified model.
TPB · predictive-path teaching diagram
Five predictive paths independently expressed from Ajzen (1991), Figure 1. A teaching subset, not the original figure or a complete theory reproduction.
For understanding intention and prediction of a specific behavior. The predictive value of perceived control depends on its correspondence with actual control; arrows do not establish causality in your study.
Scope and omissions
Omits the three bidirectional relationships among antecedents rather than converting them into causal paths. Retains the dashed perceived-control → behavior path. No belief layer, feedback, later extensions or new constructs are added.
The theory of planned behavior
Figure 1, p. 182; discussion pp. 181–185. Author source: https://people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.diag.html
Structure exercise · mediation
Generic drawing exercise: X → M → Y, with X → Y retained. Not a named classic theory or an established mediation effect.
Requires theory, temporal order, study design and statistical assessment; a diagram alone cannot establish a causal mechanism.
Scope and omissions
Placeholder constructs without an original theory or empirical evidence; define and source them before use.
TAM · 1989 Management Science version
解释人们为什么愿意接受和使用一项技术，把技术评价转化为可研究的认知构念。
Davis 1989 MISQ主要验证PU/PEOU测量；不能把其他TAM版本的态度、意向全路径图归到这篇论文。使用意愿也不等于接受职位意愿。
Scope and omissions
保留Figure 2六类节点与八条路径，独立重新排版。图形来源是Management Science三作者论文；MIS Quarterly单作者论文作为PU/PEOU测量来源，二者不混同。不添加TAM2或UTAUT构念。
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw (1989), Management Science, Figure 2, p.985. Primary PDF: https://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/DavisBagozzi.pdf
Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology
Journal / publisher bibliographic record only
Full evidence and scope
Blank or image-only pages are not fully analyzed. GAPs refer to imported materials and do not establish field-wide novelty.
Example paper A · technology evaluation · 10/10 readable pages · 1/1 analysis segments