Chapter 1: The Research Problem

1.1 Background of the Study

According to Amromin & Chakravorti (2009), the demand for small denomination

currencies such as coins and small bills are declining when it comes to certain kinds transactions.

For this reason, cashless transactions, utilizing electronic currency known as e-wallets, have been

booming for the past ten to fifteen years. The use of e-wallets, that would be within smart cards,

help in eliminating the need for money in micro-transactions that are particularly prevalent around

the campus. It would help reduce the risk of losing physical money and allow easier access to

financing for students within and outside the campus. This would also help the vendors and service

providers by being able to provide faster and more efficient transactions. However, the use of such

would result in various security risks such as leaked data and hacking. The technology within the

smart cards can be augmented by applying the only recently developed technology known as

blockchain.

The use of blockchain technology in securing data is essential to reduce the risk of falsified

and fraudulent data by storing the financial data that come with the e-wallets in ‘blocks’ that

require the approval of each side of the transaction known as a node in order to be included in the

‘chain’ of accounting ledgers in a decentralized network that is available to the users. In an article

by Orcutt (2015), it would be hard for attackers to manipulate the data within the system because

they would need to break into the encryption for every block and do it for every block in the chain

which requires massive computing power. Another reason to use blockchain technology is to

increase the efficiency of the transaction made using the smart card. The data stored for every

1
transaction would be readily available to the users and would potentially eliminate the need for

traditional point of sale systems and thus reduce expenses that come with it.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

In this study, the proponents would seek to understand the factors that affect technology

acceptance of De La Salle University with smart cards supported by blockchain technology as the

new technology. Given the rising number of educational institutions using this type of technology

around the world, how would the Lasallian community accept the use of smart cards using

blockchain technology?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this study is to determine the technology acceptance or intention

to use of the Lasallian community with smart cards supported by blockchain technology. The

study also aims to fulfill these specific objectives:

1. To what extent does technology readiness affect intention to use.

2. To what extent does technology readiness affect perceived usefulness.

3. To what extent does technology readiness affect the impact of perceived usefulness

on intention to use.

4. To what extent does technology readiness affect perceived ease of use.

5. To what extent does technology readiness affect the impact of perceived ease of use

on intention to use.

6. To what extent does perceived usefulness affect intention to use.

2
 7. To what extent does perceived ease of use affect intention to use.

8. To what extent does perceived ease of use affect perceived usefulness.

9. To what extent does perceived ease of use affect the impact of perceived usefulness

on intention to use.

10. To gather personal insights from the interviewees concerning the survey and the results

thereof.

1.4 Theoretical Framework

This study is rooted on four relevant theories. The Theory of Reasoned Action promulgated

by Ajzen & Fishbein (1977) discusses why human beings behave the way that they do. From this,

stems the Technology Acceptance Model by Davis (1989) which discusses how a person would

adopt a certain new technological innovation within their respective lives. Merging with this is

Bandura’s social cognitive theory which proposes that humans behave the way they do when they

observe it from an outside source, may it be family, friends, or media. The researchers hope to

ground their study with the concepts of the theories stated above so that the resulting theoretical

model would be useful to educational institutions especially here in the Philippines as technology

is rapidly growing to become an all consumptive aspect in the field of education. In order to do

this, the starting point of this study is the understanding of human- technology interaction [Dix,

Finlay, Abowd, & Beald (2004)].

3
1.5 Operational Framework

Putting into mind the theoretical framework given above, this study aims to determine the

feasibility of the use of smart cards in De La Salle University.

Figure 1.1 Operational Framework

As in figure 1.1 above, a latent variable called technology readiness is presented. This

represents the ability of people to adapt to new technology (Parasuraman, 2000). With that being

said, technology readiness is therefore an individualistic characteristic. Presented above is also the

four dimensions under technology readiness. Namely they are: (1) optimism - a positive view of

technology and a belief that it offers people control, flexibility, and efficiency in their lives; (2)

innovativeness - a tendency to be a technology pioneer and thought leader; (3) discomfort - a

perceived lack of control over technology and feeling of being overwhelmed by it; and (4)

insecurity - distrust of technology, stemming from skepticism about its ability to work properly

and concerns about its potential, harmful consequences (Parasaruman & Colby, 2015, p.60). In

4
this study, technology readiness is deemed as an external variable. This variable then affects a

single person’s perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use when it comes to technology as

stated by the 1989 model of Technology Acceptance by Davis. In relation, technology readiness

also also affects a person’s intention to use the new technology as promulgated by the study of

Tugas & Tullao (2017).

In summary, this specific model explains why a person would accept or reject technology

from the viewpoint of technology-specific characteristics. In accordance with the model proposed

by Tugas (2017), this research study also employs the use of human specific characteristics such

as technology readiness as stated above since technology acceptance is a behavior that is affected

by learning, individual differences, and personality traits.

1.6 Assumptions of the Study

This study was conducted with the following assumptions in mind:

1. The responses to the questions asked to the students and faculty of De La Salle University

about the perceived ease of use, the perceived usefulness, and the technology readiness of smart

cards and blockchain technology is deemed to be truthful and is a stable authority of individual

differences and beliefs; and

2. The responses according to their differences and beliefs about the use of of smart cards and

blockchain technology are also assumed to be truthful representations of their acceptance to this

new type of technology.

These assumptions were ensured by the inconspicuousness of the respondents and the

confidentiality of their respective responses.

5
1.7 Research Hypotheses

The study adapts the Technological Acceptance Model by Davis et al. (1989) in the

context of De La Salle University in the Philippines. The study aims to explore 10

hypotheses. The following hypotheses have been determined:

1. For the Intention to Use (ITU) of Smart Cards and Blockchain Technology in De La

Salle University:

𝐻𝐻1 : The use of smart cards supported by blockchain technology is not feasible

to use in De La Salle University.

𝐻𝐻1 : The use of smart cards supported by blockchain technology is feasible to

use in De La Salle University.

2. For the relationship between Technology Readiness (TR) and Intention to Use (ITU):

𝐻𝐻2 : Technology Readiness (TR) does not significantly affect Intention to Use

(ITU).

𝐻𝐻2 : Technology Readiness (TR) significantly affects Intention to Use (ITU).

3. For the relationship between Technology Readiness (TR) and Perceived Usefulness

(PU):

𝐻𝐻3 : Technology Readiness (TR) does not significantly affect Perceived

Usefulness (PU).

𝐻𝐻3 : Technology Readiness (TR) significantly affects Perceived Usefulness

(PU).

6
4. For the relationship between Technology Readiness (TR) and the impact of Perceived

Usefulness (PU) on Intention to Use (ITU):

𝐻𝐻4 : Technology Readiness (TR) does not significantly affect the impact of

Perceived Usefulness (PU) on Intention to Use (ITU).

𝐻𝐻4 : Technology Readiness (TR) significantly affects the impact of Perceived

Usefulness (PU) on Intention to Use (ITU).

5. For the relationship between Technology Readiness (TR) and Perceived Ease of Use

(PEOU):

𝐻𝐻5 : Technology Readiness (TR) does not significantly affect Perceived Ease of

Use (PEOU).

𝐻𝐻5 : Technology Readiness (TR) significantly affects Perceived Ease of Use

(PEOU).

6. For the relationship between Technology Readiness (TR) and the impact of Perceived

Ease of Use (PEOU) on Intention to Use (ITU):

𝐻𝐻6 : Technology Readiness (TR) does not significantly affect the impact of

Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) on Intention to Use (ITU).

𝐻𝐻6 : Technology Readiness (TR) significantly affects the impact of Perceived

Ease of Use (PEOU) on Intention to Use (ITU).

7. For the relationship between Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Intention to Use (ITU):

𝐻𝐻7 : Perceived Usefulness (PU) does not significantly affect Intention to Use

(ITU).

𝐻𝐻7 : Perceived Usefulness (PU) significantly affects Intention to Use (ITU).

7
8. For the relationship between Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Intention to Use

(ITU):

𝐻𝐻8 : Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) does not significantly affect Intention to Use

(ITU).

𝐻𝐻8 : Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) significantly affects Intention to Use (ITU).

9. For the relationship between Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness

(PU):

𝐻𝐻8 : Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) does not significantly affect Perceived

Usefulness (PU)

𝐻𝐻8 : Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) significantly affects Perceived Usefulness

(PU)

10. For the relationship between Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and the impact of

Perceived Usefulness (PU) on Intention to Use (ITU):

𝐻𝐻10 : Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) does not significantly affect the impact of

Perceived Usefulness (PU) on Intention to Use (ITU).

𝐻𝐻10 : Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) significantly affects the impact of Perceived

Usefulness (PU) on Intention to Use (ITU).

8
1.8 Significance of the Study

Educational institutions - Firstly, students would benefit from this study through which

every monetary transaction of the students around the campus will be cashless which will promote

safety, convenience and cleanliness. They would also benefit from the added security of their

personal records due to the blockchain technology to be implemented.

Professors are would also find convenience in the study. They may use the smart card to store parts

of their salaries, that will keep their salary safe and convenient in spending on small items such as

printing of school materials and others menial things. They would also benefit from the use of

blockchain technology through the incorruptible records of their respective students.

The blockchain technology will promote accountability and reliability of the transactions inside

the campus. This would make the performance of the administrators more effective and efficient.

This would also increase integrity within numerous departments.

Financial institutions - Institutions such as banks, money lenders and money transferors

would be able to determine the feasibility of implementing a contactless smart card system which

would facilitate financial transactions. Moreover, the study would provide them some insight on

the perception of end users on the potential shift towards an advanced system and abandoning

traditional methods. This would allow them to consider the view of end users as they develop and

execute the system. Moreover, these institutions would gain the benefit of security contributed by

blockchain technology.

Service Providers - Service providers, particularly, businesses such as retail stores and

restaurants would realize the benefits of having a contactless smart card system in place. Carrying

9
out cashless transactions prevent the risks and problems connected to handling cash such as theft,

misappropriation, and falsification among others.

Regulators - Various regulatory agencies such as the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)

and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would gather insight on the new technology

which could help them in tailoring regulations that would oversee the smooth and efficient

operation of the system in the future. The BIR would be assured of the integrity of data pertaining

to smart card transactions due to blockchain technology. Simultaneously, the SEC would be able

to enforce policies that would govern and advise businesses in facilitating smart card transactions.

Future Researchers - This study may serve as the basis of the future researchers in their

research endeavors. They may use the study as the foundation of other studies that would further

explore the subject of smart card applications in different contexts. They may opt to add more to

the current study or create a whole new study concerning other aspects of smart cards.

1.9 Scope and Limitations

The scope of this study would encompass the LaSallian community. The study may come

across unavoidable limitations such as upcoming undergraduate and graduate students that would

not be considered. This study would also include faculty members who are entrusted with

administrative and non-administrative duties for they are potential users of the technology as well.

People within the DLSU who are also not considered are the blue collar workers within due to the

language barrier that exists between the researchers and the supposed respondents. Another

limitation would be the lack of knowledge or contact of the respondents with smartcards and/or

blockchain technology that would diminish the usefulness of their response.

10
1.10 Definition of Terms

Avoiders High degree of resistance and low degree of motivation

when it comes to technology-related beliefs (Parasaruman &

Colby, 2015).

Blockchain “An incorruptible digital ledger of economic transactions

that can be programmed to record not just financial

transactions but virtually everything of value.” (Tapscott A.

& Tapscott D., 2016)

Discomfort Being overwhelmed by technology (Parasaruman & Colby,

2015).

De La Salle University (DLSU) This pertains to De La Salle University- Manila which is

situated at 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila City, Philippines

Explorers The people who have a high degree of motivation and low

degree of resistance when it comes to new technology.

Feasibility The possibility of comprehensive user acceptance of the

Technology in the study

Hesitators The people who have low levels of innovativeness

(Parasaruman & Colby, 2015).

Innovativeness The tendency to become a technological pioneer and

leader (Parasaruman & Colby, 2015).

Intention to Use The degree to which a person has formulated plans to do or

not to do a behavioral thing (Lala, 2014).

11
Lasallian Community This encompasses the undergraduate students, the graduate

students and the faculty, holding both administrative and

non-administrative duties, of De La Salle University -

Manila.

Optimism A positive view of technology (Parasaruman & Colby,

2015).

Perceived Ease of Use “The degree to which the prospective user expects the

target system to be free of effort” (Davis et al., 1989, p.985).

Perceived Usefulness “The prospective user’s subjective probability that using a

specific application system will increase his or her job

performance within an organizational context” (Davis et al.,

1989, p.985).

Smart Cards “Cards incorporating one or more integrated circuits within

its thickness. Smart cards are also often called chip cards or

integrated circuit (IC) cards.” (Hendry, 2007)

Technology As a whole it includes “both material and non-material

things” (Mick & Fournier, 1998, p. 124), Specifically, it

pertains “to artificial things, and more particularly modern

machines; artificial things that (a) require engineering

knowledge for their design and production, and (b) perform

larger amounts of operations by themselves” (Joerges, 1988,

p. 221).

Technology Acceptance Model This is a model that strives to provide an explanation as to

12
 why people accept new technology within their lives while

also explaining user behavior (Davis et al., 1989). This

model is also theoretically justified and is based on the

theory of reasoned action.

Technology adoption inhibitors This includes the discomfort and insecurity dimensions of

technology readiness.

Technology adoption motivators This includes the optimsm and innovativeness dimensions

of technology readiness.

Technology readiness This is the “people’s propensity to embrace and use new

technologies for accomplishing goals in home life and at

work” (Parasuraman, 2000, p. 308). It could also be viewed

as a construct which is an “overall state of mind resulting

from a gestalt of mental enablers and inhibitors that

collectively determine a person’s predisposition to use new

technologies” (Parasaruman, 2000, p. 30)

13
 Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature

Figure 2.1 Literature Map

2.1 Introduction

“The customer is always right” is a quote always heard in a consumer heavy environment.

This principle is present in the case of a business-to-consumer (B2C) electronic commerce (e-

commerce) relationship. The consumer’s decision revolves around the decision whether to accept

the transition from the traditional physical point-of-sale (PoS) to the ever-growing online market

[Pavlou, 2003]. An explanation of this thought behavior would be the theory of reasoned action,

developed by Ajzen & Fishbein (1977), which was made to examine the extent that a person would

undergo an expected action. The theory then applied to the context of technology acceptance

produced the Technology Acceptance Model developed by Davis et al. (1989). The model

describes how users (consumers) accept and utilize newly introduced technology with various

14
factors, most notably the Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease-of-Use. In this study, the

researchers aim to utilize the model made by Davis et al. (1989) as a means to determine the

compatibility of smart cards using blockchain technology in DLSU.

Hendry (2007) defined smart cards as “cards incorporating one or more integrated circuits

within its thickness. Smart cards are also often called chip cards or integrated circuit (IC) cards.”

(p.17). Smart cards have been implemented in common activities in various forms. Most notably,

smart cards are fashioned as electronic wallets which house the consumer’s balance as a convenient

way of transacting with vendors that offer such service. Smart cards have been seamlessly

integrated in common activities that people have become accustomed and dependent on it. In a

study by Sauveron (2009, p.70), he stated that ‘‘new technologies have changed the business

models and pushed the smart cards towards new domains and to a world where they will integrate

lots of new functionalities’’. As revolutionary the technology may be, there is a need to upgrade it

to conform to the needs of its users. Islam (2012) identified three ranges that would increase the

value of a technology as making an application more secure, efficient, and user friendly. This

research suggests the use of blockchain technology as a means to alleviate the security risk posed

by smart cards such as information leaks, data manipulation, and fraud. Blockchain Technology

may be implemented as data storage for the information gathered through the proposed smart

cards.

2.2 Theory of Reasoned Action

The Theory of Reasoned Action was developed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1977). Its objective

is to examine the factors that affect consciously intended behaviours (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). It

states that a person’s actual behavior comes from his behavioral intention which is the extent to

15
which a person plans to do a said action or not (Lala, 2014). This intention stems from the person’s

attitude and society’s perceived subjective norm toward the said action. A person’s attitude, which

encompasses human emotions about the perceived action, emanates from his personal beliefs and

evaluations (Davis et al, 1989). While subjective norm is the person’s outlook on how society

would judge his actions (Davis et al, 1989) , this comes from normative beliefs and external

motivations for a person to comply to societal rule. This thought process is depicted in figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Theory of Reasoned Action – TRA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975)

For the Theory of Reasoned Action to be effective, the belief construct should be changed

in order to cater to the research on hand. Davis et al. (1989), advises researchers who tackle this

theory to first and foremost inquire about the assumed important beliefs each subject has with

regards to the investigation at hand. With this, the most common responses will thus be deemed

as the salient beliefs of the sample population partaking in this study.

This theory encompasses uncontrollable environmental variables and controllable

interventions and its influence of behavioral intention (Davis et al., 1989). Davis et al. (1989), also

16
stated that this theory may lack things called as “external variables”. This includes other external

and internal pressures that may also affect a person’s behavior.

2.3 Technology Acceptance Model

From the Theory of Reasoned action above, Davis (1986) developed a model which would

pertain to the acceptance of various technology by potential users. This became known as the

Technology Acceptance Model. This model aims to provide researchers an explanation as to how

technology would be accepted through the roots of supported theories and prudent analysis. It

would also give a prediction and a basis for further identification as to why certain technology

would be accepted or rejected by its potential users.

The conceptual framework for this model states that a stimulus would bring about a

response from an organism. The stimulus in question is the system features and capabilities of the

studies technology and the organism would be the user’s motivation to use such a system (Davis

et al, 1989). This would then garner a response which is the actual system use by the user in

consideration. This framework is shown on figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Conceptual Framework for Technology Acceptance Model

Davis, in his 1986 model, speculated that a person’s attitude towards a specific system is a

major factor as to if the probable user would actually want to use the system. A person’s attitude

17
on the other hand is affected by his perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the system.

On August 1989, Davis modified the Technology Acceptance Model. He now included the new

construct, intention to use. The Technology Acceptance Model now became more parallel to the

ideas provoked by the Theory of Reasoned Action. The new model is shown below on figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4: Technology Acceptance Model (1989)

On September of the year 1989, Davis reconstructed the model once more and removed

the attitude construct. Thus, this meant that the two factors which is perceived usefulness and

perceived ease of use will now directly affect the user’s behavioral intention. This newer model is

shown on figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5: Technology Acceptance Model (September 1989)

18
 Four years later, on the year 1993, Davis then added a new feature to the external variables

construct, System Design. System design became the new stimuli that affects the two variables

which are perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Thus, narrowing down such stimuli to

the characteristics of a system’s design. This is shown on figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6: Technology Acceptance Model (1993)

In the year 2000, Davis and Venkatesh paired up to form a revised yet strongly supported

model. It now included social influence factors such as subjective norm, voluntariness, and image,

and cognitive instrumental processes such as job relevance, output quality, and result

demonstrability. These additional factors were speculated to highly influence a user’s level of

acceptance. This supported albeit new model is shown in figure 2.7.

19
Figure 2.7: Technology Acceptance Model of Venkatesh and Davis (2000)

The latest mainstream Technology Acceptance Model was envisioned by Venkatesh,

Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003). It was called as the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of

Technology. It encompassed eight main models namely the theory of reasoned action, the

technology acceptance model, the motivational model, the theory of planned behavior, a model

combining the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior, the model of PC

utilization, the innovation diffusion theory, and the social cognitive theory. This united model is

presented on figure 2.8.

20
Figure 2.8: Technology Acceptance Model (2003)

2.4 Social Cognitive Theory

Bandura (1989) proposed this theory in order to hypothesize that humans in general. He

observed children and how they copy the actions that they were shown or accustomed to from the

adults around them. This also included the idea of reinforcement and how a person would

continuously repeat the said action if positive reinforcement were to be given to him. This is called

observational learning and is now being used as the bridge between the traditional learning and

cognitive learning approaches. For Bandura (1989), there are four mediational processes for

learning, such as attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation.

21
2.5 E-wallet or Smart Cards

2.5.1 General Impact on Modern Society

The advent of electronic wallets or smart cards paved the way for multiple advantages to

society. Financial transactions facilitated by smart cards consume significantly less amount of time

in contrast to traditional payment methods. Financial institutions are also benefited since losses

caused by lost or stolen cards are reduced. Moreover, end users, particularly individuals and

merchants, are capable to make or receive payments from anywhere around the globe (Labrou,

Agre, Molina and Chen, 2004).

Furthermore, smart cards have a wide variety of purposes in our society. The general

purpose of a smart card includes authentication, data storage and data processing. Smart cards

have numerous exclusive uses for generic functions, particularly for industry sectors such as

financial services and health insurance. (Arami, Koller, & Krimmer, 2004). Singapore was one of

the countries which implemented the use of nationwide general-purpose smart cards. The common

use of the Singapore smart card is for paying public transportation fees, specifically, their Light

Rail Transit (LRT), Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), and public buses. The other uses of the technology

also serve as a concession card for students in a nationally recognized educational institute. The

most recent development of the smart card is that it expanded the use of the card to pay for car

parks starting with three malls. (EZ-Link Pte Ltd., 2018)

Smart card technology cannot be confined to merely facilitating financial transactions since

it has a wide range of utility. Pelletier, Trepanier & Morency (2011) covered several aspects of

smart card data use in the context of public transit and uncovered that aside from its fare collection

function smart card systems are useful for providing data to planners and researchers. Moreover,

22
they enumerated portability, security, open platform, and memory management as the four key

characteristics of smart cards which enable their flexibility. Similarly, the versatility of smart cards

is supported by Mohammed, Ramili, Prakash and Daud (2004). Their study provided the direction

of smart card technology, stating the emergence of multi-application smart cards capable of

performing a variety of functions.

2.5.2 Use in Educational Institutions

Smart cards found their niche in educational institutions, especially in universities and

colleges. “E-purses” in which prepaid cash is stored are appropriate for high-volume

micropayments which usually occur in a campus setting. They are capable of automating

transactions such as paying for public transport, cafeteria meals, library printing, vending machine

goods, internet access, and retail items. Tertiary institutions are progressing towards multi-

application smart cards which extend to fees, examinations, and attendance as well as health and

academic records (Murphy, Lee, & Swinger, 2011).

Kosba, Miller, Shi, Wen, & Papamanthou (2016) identified numerous benefits with the

implementation of a smart card in a school system such as ease of processing, security,

convenience, increased visibility, and enablement. The system also contributes cognition,

functionality, usability and satisfaction (Wan, Zeng, & Liang, 2013).

The use of electronic wallets or smart cards has been increasingly adopted by educational

institutions. In fact, the development of an electronic wallet system for a tertiary institution in a

developing country has been explored by Fashoto, Uzoka, & Mabayoje (2016). They created a

prototype using an online platform that would allow instant transfer of money between two users

which turned out to be viable.

23
 It is essential to note that the perception of students towards smart card technology play a

significant role in its successful implementation. Rana (2017) surveyed a sample of students in

Lucknow City and found that majority prefer to use electronic wallets over conventional modes of

payment. The study reports that these technological advancements are well-received by the

academic community.

However, students’ perspective of smart card technology can be affected by several factors.

Lee, Cheng, & Depickere (2003) surveyed students who have never used a university smart card

and students who had more than a year’s experience with the university smart card system in

Singaporean and Australian universities. They discovered that the compatibility construct

prevailed wherein the adoption of the system was relative to its social acceptance. There has to be

a congruence between the system and the students’ environment. Visibility and relative advantage

are key factors in aiding the adoption process of smart card systems. Tangible benefits and valuable

characteristics make the system more favorable. The studies of Taherdoost (2017) and Ho, Wang

& Yen (2015) employed similar methods and concluded the same ideas. Usefulness, security, ease

of use, social norms, and environmental concern indeed pose a positive influence on the adoption

of smart card technology in universities. Murphy et al. (2011) revealed that the preference of

students for smart cards differed across different demographics. Their inclination was influenced

by whether they were male or female, an international or domestic student, and an undergraduate

or postgraduate student. The study showed that each segment had varying levels of understanding

on the system and different needs being catered to by the system which impacted their views. Some

appreciated the system more than the others.

24
 2.5.3 Regulatory Environment

A smart card is a technology which involves a plastic card with an embedded

microprocessor to initiate electronic data messages, which is commonly used for personal

identification and financial transactions. The general law that legitimized the electronic data

messages is RA 8792 of Electronic Commerce Act which was enacted primarily to recognize the

use of electronic transactions both commercial and non-commercial. The law also includes

penalties of fine and imprisonment for unauthorized access, such as hacking and implantation of

viruses, to the server of information.

The Philippines does not have a specific law that constraints the implementation of smart cards,

however, the implementers must be knowledgeable of regulations which should protect the users,

such as RA 10173 of Data Privacy Act. The law provides an enumeration of sensitive personal

information such as the individual’s education, health, age, et. al., and the law also provides a

guideline of mandatory notification in case of breach of information.

2.5.4 Security of Technology

Emerging systems are designed to incorporate security mechanisms with the use of

complex encryption technology (Singh, Kumar and Gupta, 2018). Zheng, Yang, Shi, & Meng

(2016) documented the development of a smart card payment scheme that is able to meet the

necessary security requirements. However, there are also articles which address the risks and issues

in using smart cards. At the initial onset of the use of smart cards the primary concern of society

are the vulnerabilities attributed to the system, specifically those pertaining to its security. This has

changed given that various protocols are being implemented that fortify the smart card systems

currently in place. Leng (2009) outlined the possible attacks on smart cards and the corresponding

25
countermeasures. The most common categories of attacks are reverse engineering, invasive

attacks, side-channel attacks, and software attacks. Each of these encompass different disruptions

and intrusions of the system. He also introduced security mechanisms used in smart card

technology. For instance, preventing fault induction attacks - a type of side-channel attack that

allows the perpetrator to reset data, randomize data, or modify operation codes, involves shielding

wherein a mesh of wires is placed above a chip in order to make it harder to breach the internal

parts of the central processing unit.

2.6 Blockchain Technology

2.6.1 General Impact on Modern Society

Tapscott A. & Tapscott D. (2016), authors of the book Blockchain Revolution, defines

Blockchain as “an incorruptible digital ledger of economic transactions that can be programmed

to record not just financial transactions but virtually everything of value.”. It is already

implemented in various fields such as business, economics, and medicine. The benefits of a

blockchain can be categorized to security, anonymity, longevity, transparency, immutability and

global ecosystem simplification (Hericko, Holbl, Kamisalac, Kosic. & Turkanovic (2018)).

Established cryptocurrency systems such as Ethereum embrace the idea of running arbitrary user-

defined programs on the blockchain, thus creating an expressive decentralized smart contract

system (Kosba, Miller, Shi, Wen, & Papamanthou, 2016). The feature of a blockchain is that it is

decentralized which solves the trust issues that most consumers have with companies. This solves

it in that the information would not be owned by a particular party, rather the rights to the

information is distributed among its users which allows accountability for the changes any party

26
makes. This shows that the relevance of blockchain as a means of data security measure that would

outclass the current systems set in place.

In an accounting perspective, the use of blockchain as a distributed ledger, allows for the

advancement of the accounting profession in a technology standpoint (Carlozo, 2017). Smith

(2018) identified the paramount use for blockchain technology in an audit firm is the reduction of

costs in the lag of verification of data that would be solved by the concurrent update capability of

the use of blocks. There is a need for accounting professionals to be updated on the technological

innovations that may significantly alter the system already in place. Auditing is susceptible to

technology lags that may entail a reduction of the efficiency and credibility of the work done by

auditors. Ultimately, this leads to the assurance that auditors provide to clients being diminished

(Smith, 2018).

2.6.2 Use in Educational Institutions

The application of blockchain on educational institution have been rarely covered in

comparison with the numerous researches on other fields. The research that cover the field of the

academe focus on the application of blockchain using student data and tackling the security issues

inherent in educational institutions [Duan, Ziong, & Liu (2017), Gilda, & Mehrotra (2018), Arenas

& Fernandez (2018) Hericko et. al (2018)]. CredenceLedger, a proposed permissioned blockchain

project by Arenas & Fernandez (2018), reasoned that the accessibility of forged documents is just

reason for applying all digital documentation of invaluable student data. On the other hand, Duan,

Zhong & Liu (2017), proposed a blockchain applying both quantitative and qualitative learning

outcomes that aims to render greater autonomy towards the learning process and giving more

control to students/learners. Hericko et. al (2018), proposed EduCTX, a higher education credit

27
platform based on blockchain technology similar to Duan, Zhong & Liu (2017) however

expanding the scope of the proposed project with a greater focus on third-party users of such data.

The proposed Hyperledger program by Gilda & Mehrotra (2018) fortifies the authorization

protocols of a blockchain while utilizing the accessibility benefits of the technology for the benefit

of parents, school staff, and analysts.

2.6.3 Regulatory Environment

Blockchain technology has started to be used in several business transactions globally. As

the technology continues to flourish, major economic group of countries have started to scrutinize

the technology for regulations in order to protect the users. Chen (2018), breakdown the

regulations set by major economic countries. European Union has enacted General Data Protection

Regulation (GDPR), the law highlights the person's’ right to be forgotten which allows a person

to completely erase its record from an internet source, this regulation could challenge the

decentralization of users in a blockchain. While the trend in East Asia is to allow the blockchain

to operate without restriction first, then the regulations would follow if problems occur. In contrast,

the USA regulates the blockchain first, before allowing for operation.

The Philippines has yet to enact a regulation for blockchain technology. However, the

general trend is similar to smart cards which is primarily to protect the consumers rights. As

reported by Helms (2018), Cagayan Economic Zone Authority (CEZA) were currently crafting

rules which would prevent scams such as Ponzi Scheme. Moreover, as reported by De Leon (2018),

the intermediaries are the ones that must be regulated to protect the users, instead of regulating the

blockchain itself which might stun the implementation and innovation of a possible disruptive

technology.

28
2.7 Technology Acceptance Factors of E-wallets, Smart Cards, and Blockchain

Technology

2.7.1 Technology Readiness

Parasaruman and Colby (2015), described Technological Readiness as the magnitude of

the ability of humans to adapt new technologies in their lives. With this being said, several

applications of e-wallets, smart cards, and blockchain technology could be seen domestically

within the Philippines as well as abroad. An example of this would be how De La Salle

University’s libraries employ the use of GCash as of August 2018. GCash is regulated by Bangko

Sentral ng Pilipinas and is a mobile money service that is able to let a person buy load, purchase

items, send and receive money, pay bills, and more using Globe, TM, or any other network (GCash,

2018). This is an example of a so-called e-wallet. With the technology stated above, it is safe to

say that e-wallet technology is now being rampantly used in the Philippines (Ng-Lim, 2018) and

has reached educational institutions like DLSU.

The Philippines also employs the beep™ card which is a stored value smart card. This card

allows the users to pay for urban rail transport, bus fares, toll fees, purchases at convenience stores,

meals at fast food chains, movie tickets, and clothing and accessories (Zoleta, 2018). This smart

card is operated by AF Payments Inc and is now widely distributed and circulated around Metro

Manila. Thus, smart cards are already technologically available in the Philippines.

As for blockchain technology, numerous countries domestically and abroad already

employ this kind of technology. In Japan, PATRON leads the way for global use of cryptocurrency.

While, on the marketing spectrum of the business world, ADBIT token is the first blockchain

powered media planning and buying platform in the world. Other notable global companies on the

29
rise are TraDove, Celsius Network, Menlo One, GameFlip, Buddy, DACC, Goldilock and FCoin

(Rossow, 2018). The Philippines, on the other hand, has several companies utilizing blockchain

technology which are gaining traction in the financial world. Betur Inc., which operates coins.ph,

an online trading forum for e-commerce, and Bloom Solutions, which operate on remittance

services using blockchain technology, are some notable companies which give users the ability to

use blockchain technology in the country.

With this being said, the technology involved in this study is virtually certain to be ready for use

and dispersed to the public, which includes the subjects of this study. Technological wonders such

as e-wallets and smart cards with the boom of blockchain technology will indeed make a difference

in the daily lives of its users (Ramhey, 2018).

2.7.2 Perceived Usefulness

Smart cards are evidently perceived to be useful given the number of its capability of providing

several opportunities to improve societal transactions and increase the efficiency of users in

different fields. Allen & Murray (2016) stated that several agencies within a region can be

integrated into single regional system. For the public transportation sector, smart cards are

powerful enough to allow the comparability of estimates across longer periods of time and to infer

relevant rates such as turnover rates, trip rates, and proportion of linked trips (Bagchi & White,

2005). Maitra (2017) confirms the positive implications on perceived usefulness of multi-

functionality associated with smart cards. Even though smart card awareness appeared to be low

among respondents in India, majority of them reacted positively to the multi-application usage of

smart cards.

30
 Although, there are studies which show that there are reservations with embracing smart

card technology completely. Basera’s (2018) study acknowledged the risk with regards to

transacting in virtual cash. Similarly, according to Al-Alawi & Al-Amer (2006), majority of people

consider that having all information about an individual condensed in a single card could pose

dangers to the privacy of people. Singh, Kumar & Gupta (2018) as well as Taherdoost, Sahibuddin

& Jalaliyoon (2011) conclude that security mechanisms motivate consumers to accept new

technology, particularly, smart cards. They view the strict implementation of security measures to

add value to smart cards as well as their usefulness. Chatterjee & Bolar (2018) emphasize the same

points by ascertaining that trust and perceived risk are related or antecedent to perceived

usefulness. Thus, necessitating the reduction of uncertainties surrounding smart card technology.

Studies also exhibit that perception on the usefulness of smart cards varied among different

types or classes of people. Singh & Rana (2017) surveyed a sample of the labor force in India and

subsequently discovered that the adoption of digital payment is affected by the customer’s

educational attainment. A person who has finished tertiary education is deemed to be

knowledgeable regarding technology and is thus more inclined to use the smart cards. Furthermore,

it was found that people from the metropolitan areas, particularly, Delhi is populated with people

of high education level – leading to the conclusion that urban areas tend to have a greater

acceptance and perceived usefulness of smart card technology.

Blockchain technology, on the other hand, has numerous uses for society in general. Smith

(2018), stated that blockchain technology’s ability to update information across borders would

greatly affect the level of integrity of numerous transactions. It could be used in different sectors

of business and finance. With innovations like blockchain technology, the scope of uses is

inexhaustive.

31
 2.7.3 Perceived Ease of Use

Smart cards provide convenience and maximum security to the users. The prevalent

application of the smart card in our society was due to its inherent easy access and usage, which

could minimize the frustration of carrying multiple cards and failing to remember access codes.

(Islam, 2012) In a study conducted by Zahari & Othman (2013) for restaurants, it revealed that the

usage of the technology implemented were due to the perceived ease of use and perceived

usefulness

A study conducted by Venkatesh (2000) found that the person beliefs regarding a

technology is the strongest determinant of perceived ease of use regardless on whether the person

have experienced the specific technology. Although the study conducted by Geetha (2017) showed

that the respondents are in favor of using smart cards because of its perceived ease of use, it pointed

out that security remains to be the respondents’ major concern. Similarly, Basera (2018) study on

the SMEs showed that, in general, the respondents have a perception that a transaction in a virtual

currency as risky, and that they are not well informed on the ease of using a virtual cash for

transactions in their business. Thus, necessitating an action to increase the awareness and security

of the smart cards. A study of Al-Alawi & Al-Amer (2006) based in Bahrain, suggested to increase

the awareness of the smart cards, through a visit to universities to enlighten young generations, the

use of newspapers, road banners, televisions, Internet and other medias, provide guidelines for

usage and advantages of the smart card, and provide assurance of security of their personal

information.

32
2.8 Operational Cases of Using Smart Card Technology in Educational Institutions

Smart cards have a multitude of uses and are operational throughout several universities

around the globe. Murphy, Lee, and Swinger (2011) illustrated concrete cases wherein smart card

technology have been utilized in tertiary institutions in Australia. For instance, Deakin University

in Sydney started using smart cards in July 1999 so that students and staff can pay for campus

meals, library printing, Internet access, and retail items. Card users are able to carry out functions

such as checking their balances online, viewing transaction histories, and deactivating lost cards.

The university later improved the system in 2002 by implementing a program to enhance card

awareness and use. This by offering “buy 5, get 1 free” on vending machine purchases and 10%

drink discounts every happy hour as promotional schemes to increase the use of smart cards.

Meanwhile Edith Cowan University, located in Perth, implemented contactless smart cards in

January 2007. Their version of the smart card goes beyond mere identity verification within the

university but also allows students to use the card in Perth’s public transport network. It also

enables students to pay for photocopying services and inject funds into their cards using the

Internet.

In the United States, particularly, the University of Arizona proceeded to using contactless

smart cards in 2007. Previously, it used magnetic stripe cards, but this proved to be prone to

damage and demagnetization as a result of wear and tear from usage. It later fortified its smart

cards in 2012 by equipping them with higher security encryption. The university’s smart cards are

multi-purpose, boasting many functions which act as a form of identification but also a mode of

carrying banking and electronic wallet transactions in on and off-campus sites (Ho, Wang, & Yen,

2015). The University of Central Florida also successfully launched smart cards in 1998 which

paved the way for discounts and benefits to students. Smart cards were mainly used for the

33
following purposes: student identification, entrance to facilities, and e-purses for consumption

(Wu, Chen, & Hsieh, 2011). The same is true for Washington University wherein smart cards serve

as an ID card that permit entrance to campus facilities and enable transactions (Lee, Cheng, &

Depickere, 2003).

On the other hand, in the Central University of Hong Kong, more than one smart card system is

operational. The institution introduced the Octopus card which is a form of debit card and acts as

payment method for copying, laser printing, and overdue fines (Wu, Chen, & Hsieh, 2011).

2.9 Research Synthesis

The researchers of this study based their findings on the Theory of Reasoned Action

promulgated by Ajzen and Fishbein (1975). From this theory, comes the Technology Acceptance

Model published mainly by Davis from 1989 to 2003. This is the model that would connect the

Theory of Reasoned Action to the use and acceptance of technology and technological innovations

within potential users.

From then on, the researchers had collated studies pertaining to the use of smart cards and

e-wallets and how it affects the general society and more importantly, educational institutions. The

major impacts of this technology would come in the the form of consumers and suppliers alike,

the capability to financially transact anywhere and anytime (Labrou, Agre, Molina and Chen,

2004). In an educational setting, Miller, et al. (2017) stated how smart card in a school system

would benefit students, staff and faculty alike in order to improve processes such as ease of

processing, security, convenience, increased visibility, and enablement.

Relating to this, there was also a pursuance of knowledge relating to blockchain technology

and how it could tie up to the use of e-wallets and smart cards. These studies were aimed to explain

34
how the innovative blockchain technology works and how it could work within the general society

and especially in educational institutions as well. Blockchain is a way to ensure records have

integrity through the use of digitalization and the feat that it records everything of value rather than

just financial transactions (Tapscott A. & Tapscott D., 2016). On a worldwide scale, this type of

technology would be greatly affecting the fields of business, finance, and accountancy. In an

educational institution, on the other hand, covers mostly on how blockchain technology would

affect the security of student data and the data within such institutions [Ziong, & Liu (2017), Gilda,

& Mehrotra (2018), Arenas & Fernandez (2018)].

In order to combine the use of the Technology Acceptance Model with the new findings of

the impacts of smart cards, e-wallets, and blockchain technology, the researchers also took time to

see if such technologies are technologically ready for use, how useful they are, and how these

technologies are easy to use. The use of smart cards and e-wallets are visibly rampant already

around Metro Manila and its technology is clearly within reach. As for blockchain technology,

there are now numerous Philippine companies employing this technological innovation, thus

giving it a level of technological readiness within the country. The perceived usefulness of smart

cards, e-wallets and blockchain technology, on the other hand is discussed above on how they

would impact the world with the use of such applied sciences. Lastly, the perceived ease of use of

these technologies would always depend on the level of technological understanding of the target

users as stated by Venkatesh (2000).

35
2.10 The Research Gap

Since several studies have been conducted on the topics of e-wallets and smart cards, all of

these said studies have been very vague as to the location of their said research. There is a lack of

study on the technological acceptance and use of e-wallets and smart cards on Philippine

educational institutions, particularly universities. There is an inadequacy for the feasibility for the

use of e-wallets and smart cards in the Philippines. Thus, there is a need to further delve into these

topics and discussions. There is also a scarcity on studies that uses blockchain technology as part

of the accounting processes of a user in terms of his data privacy and security.

Therefore, all the points stated above would be the research gap that the group intends to

fill. The study would then mostly focus on the uses and benefits of each type of technology in the

Philippine setting especially on educational institutions and gauge how prospectives users would

accept such technologies.

36
 Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter discusses the research design to be used, the population and sample that would

be tested, the procedures that will be performed to gather data, and the statistical and data analysis

tools that will be executed in order to assess the data.

3.1 Research Design

This study will be a causal and explanatory research utilizing latent variables that enables

the researchers to determine if the use of contactless cash cards through blockchain technology

would be deemed useful and convenient inside the campus of De La Salle University.

3.2 Population

The researchers used the data made available in the De La Salle University website

(https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/inside/) to gather the population for the study. The research would be

considering the population of the academic staff, which comprises of 874 faculty members. It

would also consider 10,055 undergraduate students, and 3,732 graduate students. The study would

not cover the total population of clerical workers employed at De La Salle University - Manila due

to the nature of their work lacking direct contact with the proposed system.

3.3 Sampling Design

The research would be utilizing Slovin’s Formula [fig. 3.1] with a margin of error of 5%

towards the population of undergraduate students, faculty, and graduate students. The table below

shows the breakdown of the population and the sample size to be used.

37
 𝐻
𝐻=
1 + 𝐻𝐻2
Figure 3.1: Slovin’s Formula

Whereas:

n = Number of Samples

N = Total Population

e = Error Margin / Margin of Error

GROUP POPULATION PERCENT OF TOTAL SAMPLE SIZE

Undergraduate Students 11,706 65% 245

Graduate Students 5,208 29% 110

Faculty 1,112 6% 22

TOTAL 18,026 100% 377

Figure 3.2: Sample size

38
3.4 Research Data Gathering Procedures

In order to gather the data to be used for the research, the following steps will be undertaken:

a. Distribute survey questionnaires to sample population

The researchers will distribute survey questionnaire, made using the Google Forms

platform, through online distribution. This questionnaire would be used to gather data from the

sample population of undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty members of De La

Salle University.

The research group conceived a survey questionnaire founded on questions from

Parasuraman & Colby (2015), Venkatesh & Davis (2000), Tugas (2017), and Erdogmus & Esen

(2011).

The survey questionnaire included the following components:

1. Cover page;

2. Technology readiness (16 items) - adapted from TRI 2.0 of Parasuraman & Colby (2015);

3. Ethical perception (3 items) - adapted from Parasuraman & Colby (2015);

4. Technology acceptance (12 items) - adapted from TAM2 of Venkatesh & Davis (2000); an

item from Erdogmus and Esen (2011); an item from Tugas (2017); and

5. Demographics (4 items) - age, gender, academic program or department, and number of

units earned in De La Salle University.

The survey includes 32 questions all in all. Each question is answered by applying Likert’s

five-point scale except for the four demographic questions. In accordance to the suggestions of

Parasuraman and Colby (2015), the responses would be making use of alphabetic equivalents in

order for there to be a reduced risk of response bias.

39
 Construct Measures (Items on the Questionnaire) Number of Items
Technology Readiness Adapted from Parasuraman and Colby (2015) 16
A. Optimism (Items 1, 8, 9, and 16)
B. Innovativeness (Items 2, 7, 10, 15)
C. Discomfort (Items 3, 6, 11, 14)
D. Insecurity (4, 5, 12, 13)
Ethical Perception Adapted from Parasuraman and Colby (2015) 3
Items 9, 13, 16
Perceived Usefulness Adapted from Venkatesh and Davis (2000) 4
Items 18, 19, 23, 26

Perceived Ease of Use Adapted from Venkatesh and Davis (2000) 4

Items 20, 21, 24, 25

Intention to Use Adapted from Venkatesh and Davis (2000) 4

Items 17 and 22
Adapted from Erdogmus and Esen (2011)
Item 27
Adapted from Tugas (2017)
Item 28
Demographics Age (Item 29); Gender (Item 30); Academic 4
Program or Department (Item 31); and NUmber
of Units earned (Item 32)

b. Interview the focus group

The researchers would contact members of the Lasallian community that would not be

included in the questionnaire sample, to interview after the results of the survey. There will be ten

interviewees to be included in the sample. The data gathered information would provide the

researchers with the person’s personal insights regarding the study supplemented by their

expertise. The interview would also provide the researchers with the observations based on the

perspective of the respondents at a professional level.

40
3.5 Statistical Tools

3.5.1 Structural Equation Modeling

Partial Least Square - Structural Modelling (PLS-SEM) is a multivariate statistical tool that

is used to test latent variables, such as an existing concept and theory. It is a combination of a

multiple regression analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. The main objective of a PLS-SEM

is to assess the complex causal relationship of observable variable to latent variables, and one

latent variable to another latent variable. A PLS-SEM is composed of two parts; the structural

model and the measurement model. The measurement model presents the relationship between the

latent variables and the observable variable, while the structural model presents the relationship

between the latent variables.

3.5.1.1 Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple regression analysis is used in determining whether the dependent variables

is predicted by two or more independent variables. The standalone use of multiple

regression analysis only considers the observable variables and it could not be used for

assessing the latent variables. Multiple regression analysis is part of the comprehensive

framework of the structural equation modelling. The result of multiple regression analysis

would support in determining the significant relationship between the paths of the

variables.

3.5.1.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Factor Analysis tests a structural model which provides the causal relationship

between the latent variable and observable variable. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

41
 is composed of two parts (1) the measurement model and (2) the structural model. Factor

analysis is the measurement model part of SEM. In confirmatory factor analysis, a priori

research and predetermined variables would be tested and confirmed using another set of

sample population. In contrast with exploratory factor analysis, which aims to uncover a

latent variable from an observable variable. Moreover, included in confirmatory factor

analysis is construct validity, which tests the reliability of the relationship between the

latent constructs.

3.5.2 Methodology Map

Figure 3.3: Methodology Map

42
3.6 Data Analysis Tools

The data analysis would be composed of two parts: 1. Descriptive statistics; and 2.

Inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics is used to describe, show and summarize data that have

been collected, which would provide a better visualization of the data.

Inferential statistics is used to draw a conclusion from the sample data that have been

collected. The inferential statistics in this research is composed of two parts: 2.1. Analysis of

variance for the control variables; and 2.2 structural equation modelling for the path model.

Furthermore, the structural equation modelling is composed of two parts: 2.2.1 measurement

model and; 2.2.2 structural model. The measurement model provides the relationship between the

latent variable and observable variable. The measurement model is composed of two parts: 1.

Formative model which is the outer model of the exogenous latent variables; and 2. Reflective

model which is the outer model of the endogenous latent variables. As shown in the methodology

map, the indicators of “Technology Readiness” is from x1 to x16 which is composed of optimism,

innovativeness, discomfort and insecurity, and the indicators of “Perceived usefulness” is from

x17 to x20. The error terms, e1 to e4, is connected to the endogenous observable variables, x25 to

x28. In contrast, the latent variable that only explains other latent variables does not have an error

term.

The structural model presents the relationship between the constructs, and the magnitude

of the relationship between the constructs. As shown in the methodology map, distinct in this path

model is the direct effect of technology readiness to the perceived usefulness, perceived ease of

use, and intention to use, and at the same time, the indirect effect of technology readiness to the

intention to use from the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.

43
 The control variables would be analyzed through Excel using the analysis of variance

(ANOVA) and the structural equation modelling would be analyzed using the WarpPls version 6.

In order to test the internal consistency and reliability of the data, the researcher used Cronbach

alpha. Lastly, the researcher tested the construct validity which is composed of two parts: 1.

Convergent validity and; 2. Discriminant validity. The convergent validity would be tested using

average variance extracted and the discriminant validity would be tested using the cross loadings

of the indicators.

44
 CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS

4. 1. Profile of Participants

There was a total of three hundred ninety (390) participants, all of which come from De La

Salle University-Manila. Two hundred fifty-two (252) of the respondents were undergraduate

students, one hundred thirteen (113) were graduate students, and twenty-five (25) were members

of the faculty. The types of participants are further elaborated in the subsequent sections below.

4. 2. Data Collection Report

Based on the survey questionnaire, there were a total of thirty-two (32) items comprised of

four (4) items for the demographics, sixteen (16) items of technology readiness, four (4) items for

perceived usefulness, four (4) items for perceived ease of use, and four (4) items for intention to

use. After gathering the data, the researchers ran a reliability test and a construct validity before

conducting the structural equation modelling.

Table 4.1
Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted (Unadjusted)
Variables Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Average Variance
Reliability Extracted (AVE)
Intention to Use 0.82 0.88 0.66
Perceived Ease of Use 0.81 0.88 0.64
Perceived Usefulness 0.80 0.87 0.63
Technology Readiness 0.80 0.83 0.26

The researchers ran Cronbach’s Alpha, and composite reliability for the test of internal

consistency and reliability. The Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability is above the

acceptable threshold of 0.70, as seen in Table 4.1, rendering the data reliable. After testing the

45
reliability, the researchers ran the construct validity comprised of convergent validity using

average variance extracted, and the discriminant validity using cross loadings of its indicators.

Table 4.2
Initial Cross Loadings Result
IU PEOU PU TR
D1 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.37
D2 0.06 0.14 0.13 0.30
D3 0.06 0.08 0.13 0.29
D4 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.26
IS1 0.20 0.25 0.18 0.39
IS2 0.19 0.14 0.17 0.38
IS3 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.45
IS4 0.30 0.32 0.22 0.55
IU1 0.75 0.48 0.53 0.47
IU2 0.83 0.65 0.59 0.47
IU3 0.80 0.59 0.53 0.57
IU4 0.85 0.58 0.58 0.49
IV1 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.38
IV2 0.41 0.41 0.39 0.64
IV3 0.42 0.36 0.34 0.67
IV4 0.14 0.17 0.25 0.39
OP1 0.58 0.44 0.40 0.70
OP2 0.48 0.38 0.39 0.70
OP3 0.42 0.32 0.36 0.65
OP4 0.37 0.37 0.28 0.59
PEOU1 0.55 0.79 0.54 0.41
PEOU2 0.60 0.78 0.53 0.48
PEOU3 0.59 0.82 0.59 0.45
PEOU4 0.53 0.80 0.60 0.42
PU1 0.55 0.53 0.80 0.45
PU2 0.45 0.45 0.76 0.41
PU3 0.49 0.54 0.79 0.33
PU4 0.66 0.67 0.82 0.46

46
 The average variance extracted measures the level of explained variance as compared to

unexplained variance. The result of average variance extracted was supported by the cross loadings

of indicators. Cross loading tests each item whether it is reflective of its own construct or more

reflective of another construct. As seen in Table 4.1, on the first run of average variance extracted,

the Intention to Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Perceived Ease of Use were above the 0.50

threshold. However, the score of technology readiness is at 0.26 which is not in the acceptable

level of 0.50. It is seen in Table 4.2, that although the items that pertain to technology readiness is

reflective to its own construct, a total of fourteen (14) items were below the 0.70 threshold. These

were specifically the four (4) items for Discomfort, the four (4) items for insecurity, the three (4)

items for innovativeness, and the two (2) items for optimism. With that, the researchers decided to

remove the items that are below the threshold to maintain the quality of the gathered data. The

iterative process of elimination of items is to remove the lowest score and then check if all the

scores satisfy the 0.70 threshold.

Table 4.3
Adjusted Cross Loading Results

IU PEOU PU TR
IU1 0.75 0.48 0.53 0.45
IU2 0.83 0.65 0.59 0.49
IU3 0.81 0.59 0.53 0.61
IU4 0.85 0.58 0.58 0.51
IV3 0.42 0.36 0.34 0.72
OP1 0.59 0.44 0.40 0.75
OP2 0.48 0.38 0.39 0.78
OP3 0.42 0.33 0.36 0.76
PEOU1 0.55 0.79 0.54 0.36
PEOU2 0.60 0.78 0.53 0.46
PEOU3 0.59 0.82 0.59 0.42
PEOU4 0.53 0.80 0.60 0.37
PU1 0.54 0.53 0.80 0.42

47
 PU2 0.44 0.45 0.76 0.38
PU3 0.49 0.54 0.79 0.30
PU4 0.66 0.67 0.82 0.45

After the removal of twelve (12) items all the scores for cross loading satisfy the 0.70

threshold as seen in Table 4.3.

The researchers tested the internal consistency and reliability again to ensure that the score

is still above the 0.70 threshold. As seen in table 4.4, there is a slight decrease of 0.06 in the

Cronbach’s alpha of technology readiness and a slight increase of 0.01 in the composite reliability

of technology readiness. Moreover, as seen in Table 4.4 there is a great increase from 0.26 to 0.57

in the score of technology readiness in the average variance extracted which drives its score to the

0.50 acceptable level. After testing for the reliability and construct validity, the researchers

conducted the structural equation modeling.

Table 4.4
Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted (Adjusted)
Variables Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Average Variance
Reliability Extracted (AVE)
ITU 0.82 0.88 0.66
PEOU 0.81 0.88 0.64
PU 0.80 0.87 0.63
TR 0.75 0.84 0.57

48
4.3. Data Presentation

4.3.1. Sample Distribution

Distribution of Demographics by Occupation

25
6%

113
29% Undergraduate Students
Graduate Studies Students
Faculty
252
65%

Figure 4.1 Distribution of Demographics by Occupation

The number of respondents needed based on Slovin’s Formula of 245

undergraduate students, 110 graduate students, and 22 faculty were all met. Majority of the

respondents are undergraduate students composing of 62% of the 350 total respondents. The

graduate studies students followed with 113 respondents. On the other hand, the faculty comprises

only a small portion of the participants only 6%. This is due to the fact that there are more

undergraduate students in contrast to the graduate students and faculty members. Moreover, the

number of faculty members is much less in proportion to the students.

The overview of the segmentation of respondents implies that most of the gathered

responses reflect the perspective of full-time students who attend school on a regular basis. These

49
students are subjected to the university’s system daily; thus, they may have garnered enough

insight on the advances that would enhance the system.

4.3.2. Distribution of Undergraduate Students According to ID Number

Distribution of Undergraduate Students by ID Number

20
8%
32
13% 115
107
114 and Below
42%
118
42 117
17%
116

51
20%

Figure 4.2 Distribution of Undergraduate Students According to ID Number

In terms of year level, it can be observed that majority (107 in total) of the undergraduate

students who participated are 115 students. This implies that most of the respondents are in their

fourth year of tertiary education and are most likely to conclude their stay in the university within

the year. After the 115 students are those with identification numbers 114 and below, which

compose the second largest group, with 51 respondents or 20%, of undergraduate students who

responded. They are students who are currently in their fifth year and above. Additionally, they

are those who have stayed in the university for the longest time. Both the 115 as well as the 114

and below students may have substantial opinions since they have been exposed to the university’s

50
system the most. They may have likely formulated an objective perception on the technological

necessities and capabilities of the school. However, they would not be able to enjoy the benefits

of the smart card since they are nearing the end of their stay. The two groups are succeeded by the

ID 118, with forty-two respondents, 117 with thirty-two, and the least number of respondents from

ID 116 with twenty respondents with regards to the number of undergraduate respondents. These

students would be the benefactors of the smart card since they still have a couple of years left in

school.

4.3.3. Distribution of Graduate Studies Students by ID Number

Distribution of Graduate Studies Students by ID Number

3
14 3%
12%
117
17 118
54
15% 116
48%
115
114 and below

25
22%

Figure 4.3 Distribution of Graduate Studies Students by ID Number

About the year level of graduate students, it can be seen that a large portion of respondents

are 117 students; taking up almost half of the figure. ID 117 students have about 2 to 3 years left

before graduating which would give them ample time to use the proposed technology. Subsequent

to the 117 students are the 118, 116, 115, and 114 and below students respectively. The comparably

51
small number of ID 115 and 114 students is due to the fact that most courses offered in graduate

studies only cover 2 to 3 years.

4.3.4. Distribution of Undergraduate Students According to Units Earned

Figure 4.4 Number of Units Earned by Undergraduate Students

The figure shows that most, 98 out of 252, of the undergraduate students have already

earned around 164 to 216 units. This is attributed to the fact that most of the respondents are

comprised of the older year levels, 115 and 114 and below. Similarly, the trend in the number of

units earned is in accordance with the number of respondents per year level; with those who have

0 to 54 units corresponding to the 118 students and those who have 55 to 108 and 109 to 163 units

pertaining to 117 and 116 students.

52
 4.3.5. Distribution of Graduate Studies Students according to Units Earned

Figure 4.5 Distribution of Graduate Studies Students according to Units Earned

It is evident that majority of the graduate respondents have earned 13 to 24 units. They are

followed by those who have earned 0 to 12 units and those who have more than 25 units

respectively. The number of units partially correspond to the year level of the graduate students

since most of them are part-time students and earn units under their discretion. Furthermore,

graduate courses are designed differently and may entail varying number of units and durations to

complete.

53
4.4 Hypothesis Testing

General Hypothesis

Figure 4.6 Frequency of Scores in Intention to Use

Table 4.5
Summary Statistic for Intention to Use
Statistic Value
Mean 3.82
Median 4.00
Mode 4.00
Skewness -1.104
Std. Error of Skewness 0.124
Kurtosis 0.845
Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.247

54
 Figure 4.6 exhibits that most of the respondents lean towards the use of smart cards

powered by blockchain technology. The distribution of the responses as shown on the graph depict

that they are skewed to the left. This means that majority of the responses are concentrated on

options 4 and 5 which signify a willing attitude towards using smart cards. The participants’

intention to use is influenced by several factors which will be dissected in the next sections.

4.4.1 Analysis of Variance for Control Variables

4.4.1.1. Comparison of Intention to Use Scores according to Occupation

Table 4.6
Comparison of Intention to Use Scores according to Occupation
Occupation Mean Rank Pair P-Value

Undergraduate Students 237.97 Faculty 0.744

Faculty 229.74 Graduate Students <0.001

Graduate Students 93.22 Undergraduate Students <0.001

Note. Kruskal-Wallis P-value < 0.001

The researcher tested for the normal distribution of the data using the Kolmogorov-

Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk, if the p-value is less than 0.05 the data set is not normally

distributed. As shown in Table X, the result of Kolmogorov-Smirnov is that 2 out of 3 of the data

set are not normally distributed, while for the Shapiro-Wilk all the data set are not normally

distributed. With that, the researcher decided to use the Kruskal-Wallis to determine on whether

there is a significant difference in answering their intention to use of smart cards in De La Salle

55
University between the means of undergraduate, graduate and faculty, as seen in Table 4.6, the

Kruskal-Wallis p-value is <0.05 thus there is a significant difference in the occupation mean.

Afterwards, Mann-Whitney U-test would identify the specific pairs that has a significant

difference.

As seen in Figure 4.6, the researchers were able to identify that graduate students have a

significant difference in answering their intention to use of smart cards in De La Salle University.

Moreover, as seen in Figure 4.6, graduate students have significantly lower means in intention to

use. Thus, this implies that since the graduate students have evening classes only and spend a

limited amount of time within the campus, they would not be able to enjoy the use of smart cards

as much as the other respondent subgroups. Another reason as to why graduate students may have

lower intention to use is their focus on their day-to-day activities such as their profession and their

time in school is only of secondary focus.

4.4.1.2 Comparison of Graduate Studies Students According to Units

Earned Based on Score of Intention to Use

Table 4.7
Comparison of Intention to Use score of Graduate Studies Students according to Units
Earned
Earned Units (Range) Mean Rank Pair P-Value

0-12 74.11 13-24 Units 0.003

13-24 53.07 >25 Units <0.355
> 25 47.28 0-12 Units 0.008

Note. Kruskal-Wallis p-value < 0.001

56
 The researchers categorized the number of units of the graduate students by year, such that

0-12 units is for the 1st year, 13-24 units for the 2nd year and 25 units and above for the 3rd year.

The result of the test for normality using Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk is that majority

of the data set are not normally distributed as shown in Table X. With the use of Kruskal Wallis

supported by Mann-Whitney U-test, the researchers were able to identify that there is a significant

difference on the intention of use of smart cards for the graduate students having 0-12 units. As

seen in Table 4.7, the graduate students having 0-12 units have a higher mean as compared to those

having 13 units and above. All of this implies that the graduate students that have 0-12 units would

be required to stay longer in De La Salle University and that they would be able to realize the

benefits of the use of smart cards for a longer amount of time compared to the others.

4.4.1.3. Comparison of undergraduate students according to units earned

Table 4.8

Comparison of Intention to Use Scores of Undergraduate Students according to Units

Earned (n=252)

Earned Units (Range) Frequency Mean Rank

0-54 51 139.62

55-108 37 129.64

109-163 36 108.06

164-216 99 121.74

>217 29 138.57

Note. Kruskal-Wallis P-value = 0.253

57
 The researchers classified the number of units of the undergraduate students by year, such

that 0-54 units is for the first year, 55-108 units for the second year and 109-163 units for the third

year, 164-216 for the fourth year, and 217 and above for the fifth year. The researcher identified

that majority of the data set are not normally distributed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-

Wilk as shown in Table X. After running the Kruskal-Wallis, the researchers found out that there

is no significant difference in the intention to use of undergraduate students for the smart card

since the p-value is >0.05. Thus, the researchers would not need to run the Mann-Whitney U-test.

For the students having lower units, it implies that their intention to use is derived from the longer

realization of benefits with the use of smart cards. While for the students having higher units such

as 164-217 units which comprised of the largest group of the respondents, it implies that they

already have a substantial experience in the university system and that they may have likely

developed an idea of the various technological necessities of the university.

4.4.1.4. Comparison of Undergraduate Students and Graduate Studies

Students according to College

Table 4.9

Comparison of Mean Ranks according to College (n=365)

College Frequency Mean Rank

GCOE 45 253.59

CCS 41 248.49

RVR-COB 147 210.84

COS 43 164.28

CLA 51 157.13

58
 SOE 50 145.20

BAGCED 13 101.15

Note. Kruskal-Wallis < 0.001

Table 4.10

Comparison of Mean Ranks of Undergraduate Students according to College

College Pair P-Value

GCOE CCS 0.881

RVR-COB 0.071

COS <0.001

CLA <0.001

SOE <0.001

BAGCED <0.001

CCS RVR-COB 0.112

COS <0.001

CLA <0.001

SOE <0.001

BAGCED <0.001

59
 RVR-COB COS 0.025

CLA 0.006

SOE <0.001

BAGCED <0.001

COS CLA 0.792

SOE 0.414

BAGCED 0.054

CLA SOE 0.548

BAGCED 0.059

SOE BAGCED 0.164

The researchers test the normality assumption using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and

Shapiro-Wilk, as shown in Table x, and found out that majority of the data set are not normally

distributed. Afterwards, the researchers ran the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test on the

respondents’ colleges, which is comprised of faculty, undergraduate students, and graduate

students. With that, the researchers were able to determine that COS, CLA, CED, and SOE has a

significant difference in the intention of use of smart cards based on Table 4.10. As seen in Table

4.9, GCOE, CCS and COB has higher mean rank as compared to COS, CLA, CED, and SOE. This

implies that the college of engineering, sciences and business, who have more computer related

classes, are more likely to have a greater intention to use compared to other colleges.

4.5 Analysis and Implications

60
 The researchers used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to determine the relationship

between variables and the magnitude of the effect of the dependent variable towards the

independent variable. The results of the Technology Acceptance and Technology Readiness

questionnaires are used to measure the Technology Readiness (TR), Perceived Ease of Use

(PEOU), Perceived Usefulness (PU), and Intention to Use (ITU) of the respondents. The P-Value

and T-Stat determines whether there is a significant relationship between variables. The >0.05

threshold is used to determines significance for the P-Value, while the <1.96 threshold is used as

the significance factor for the T-Stat. The thresholds determine whether to reject or fail to reject

the null hypothesis.

After determining on whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis, the researchers use

the Path Coefficient to determine the magnitude of the effect of one variable on another. A positive

path coefficient indicates a positive relationship between variables while a negative path

coefficient indicates a negative relationship.

Table 4.11

Summary of Results on Direct Variables

Hypothesis Variables P- Value T-Stat Path Coefficient
𝐻𝐻2 Relationship between TR and ITU 5.12E-13 7.42 0.33
𝐻𝐻3 Relationship between TR and PU 7.97E-04 3.38 0.19
𝐻𝐻5 Relationship between TR and PEOU 5.68E-14 12.59 0.50
𝐻𝐻7 Relationship between PU and ITU 1.38E-06 4.89 0.28
𝐻𝐻8 Relationship between PEOU and ITU 1.02E-10 6.61 0.35
𝐻𝐻9 Relationship between PEOU and PU 5.68E-14 12.44 0.61

The direct relationships studied by the researchers are those that directly affect Intention to

Use, namely, Technology Readiness (TR), Perceived Usefulness (PU), and Perceived Ease of Use

(PEOU). Every direct relationship stated above has a significant effect with each other. If there is

61
an increase in TR, the researchers expect that there should also be an increase in one’s Intention

to Use (ITU). The same goes for PU and PEOU in its respective effects to ITU. Furthermore, the

researchers also studied the other direct relationships between the variables such as TR to PU, TR

to PEOU, and PEOU to PU. With everything being significant, the researchers also concluded that

within these variables an increase in one would also increase the other. This means that if a person

is more technology ready, he is more likely to have a higher perceived ease of use and higher

perceived usefulness for the new technology. So, with that, it is the same scenario for PEOU to

PU. Once a person has a higher level of perception for the ease of use of the new technology, he

would find it more useful in his life.

With the results of the study showing that Technology Readiness significantly affects

Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Intention to Use, being technology ready is

definitely a factor for a person to be more accepting to new technology. Technology readiness

could be achieved by the role model effect. This could be easily seen in educational institutions,

especially in De La Salle- University. De La Salle University- Manila uses Oracle as their main

enlistment program during the academic year. With this being said, the results imply that De La

Salle University- Manila as a whole is a technology ready campus. The Lasallian Community is

an example where an educational institution is conducive enough to further expose its students and

faculty members to new technology. There are studies that tertiary level teachers who incorporate

the use of technology within the classroom tend to produce more technology ready individuals

[Tahir, et al. 2015]. With faculty members incorporating technology within the classroom, the

students are therefore more optimistic and innovative when it comes to handling new technology.

This would also increase the need for such faculty members to be technology ready themselves.

62
Therefore, with everyone inside the scholastic community having high levels of technology

readiness, technology acceptance would not be far behind.

On the other hand, this research also resulted to the effect that Perceived Ease of Use has

a significant direct impact to Perceived Usefulness and to Intention to Use. This is also supportive

of the studies reviewed (pp. 17-21) and in Larsen’s study (2003) where he tested one hundred and

one studies and sixty-nine came out to be significant as well. In a setting like De La Salle

University- Manila, having as asset that would be easy to use is a significant factor for the intention

of the person to actually use it. This would also give off the impression, according to this study,

that the more people think it is easy to use, the more useful it would be. Therefore, the

administrators of the proposed smart cards should make their system as easy to use as possible in

order for the people to increase their respective intention to use such technology and how they

perceive such new technology to be useful to their lives.

This research also resulted to the significance of the impact of Perceived Usefulness to

Intention to Use. This is in line with other studies such as the study of Davis (pp. 17-21). This

justifies the notion that the perceived usefulness of such technology is a strong determinant of how

a person would intend to use the new technology. In a university setting, making known to the

Lasallian community the benefits of using smart cards using blockchain technology would increase

such perception of usefulness to its perspective users.

Table 4.12
Summary of Results on Indirect Variables
Hypothesis Variables P- Value T-Stat Path Coefficient
𝐻𝐻4 Relationship between TR and the 0.359 0.917 0.00
impact of PU on ITU Relationship
between TR and its indirect impact on
ITU going through PU
𝐻𝐻6 Relationship between TR and the 0.006 2.761 0.27

63
 impact of PEOU on ITU Relationship
between TR and its indirect impact on
ITU going through PEOU
𝐻𝐻10 Relationship between PEOU and the 0.158 1.413 0.00
impact of PU on ITU Relationship
between PEOU and its indirect impact
on ITU going through PU

The indirect relationships studied by the researchers on the other hand are those that

indirectly impact Intention to Use (ITU). Namely these are how Technology Readiness (TR)

effects the impact of Perceived Usefulness (PU) on ITU, how TR effects the impact of Perceived

Ease of Use (PEOU) on ITU, and how PEOU effects the impact of PU to ITU. Of these three

relationships, the results show that only one is significant. This would be how TR effects the impact

of PEOU on ITU. This is contradictory to the findings of Tugas (2017). In that study, he mentioned

that TR moderations increases the magnitude of impact of PEOU to ITU, but it is such a small

effect to be considered as significant. In this study however, a good explanation for this

phenomenon is how every person within the Lasallian Community is already on a certain degree

of technology readiness with the use of systems like AnimoSys and MyLaSalle on a monthly basis.

Therefore, it greatly affects how they perceive the ease of use of the new technology.

The two remaining relationships, namely how TR effects the impact of PU on ITU, and

how PEOU effects the impact of PU to ITU, are both insignificant as to its effects. This could be

supported by the same study by Tugas (2017) stated above. They are both insignificant in both

studies. For both relationships, it implies that Perceived Usefulness is the main indicator in

Technology Acceptance. Any variable that precedes PU does not significantly affect its impact on

ITU. In a study by Subramanian (1994), the inherent ease of use of a proposed technology and due

to this fact, the intention to use or perceived usefulness of such technology would not be affected

64
or is affected but to a significantly less extent. However, in the study of Davis et al. (1992), it was

discovered that PEOU precedes PU rather than as a complement to PU for the determination of

ITU. If people think it is useful enough, it wouldn’t matter if they are technology ready or not. It

is also not significant if the person perceives its ease of use. In the results stated, Perceived

Usefulness trumps all other variables. The implications of this could be that if the new technology

is deemed to be useful and all-encompassing for the financial and time needs of the users, it would

deem PEOU and TR as an insignificant factor for their ITU. Thus, administrators and suppliers of

the smart cards alike should make sure that their products really serve the needs of their proposed

users in order for their products to be actually used and bought.

Table 4.13
Hypothesis Results and Related Objectives Summary Table
Related Objective Hypothesis Decision

To determine the 𝐻𝐻1: The use of smart cards supported by Reject Ho

technology acceptance or
intention to use of the
Lasallian community with
smart cards supported by
blockchain technology
blockchain technology is not feasible to use in
De La Salle University.
𝐻𝑎1: The use of smart cards supported by
blockchain technology is feasible to
use in De La Salle University.

To what extent does 𝐻𝐻2 : Technology Readiness (TR) does not Reject Ho
technology readiness affect significantly affect Intention to Use
intention to use (ITU).

𝐻𝑎2 : Technology Readiness (TR)

significantly affects Intention to Use (ITU).

65
To what extent does
technology readiness affect
perceived usefulness
To what extent does
technology readiness affect
perceived usefulness
To what extent does
technology readiness affect
perceived ease of use
To what extent does
technology readiness affect
the impact of perceived ease
of use
on intention to use.
To what extent does
perceived usefulness affect
intention to use
𝐻𝐻3 : Technology Readiness (TR) does not Reject Ho
significantly affect Perceived
Usefulness (PU).
𝐻𝑎3 : Technology Readiness (TR)
significantly affects Perceived Usefulness
(PU).
𝐻𝐻4 : Technology Readiness (TR) does not Fail to reject
significantly affect the impact of Ho
Perceived Usefulness (PU) on Intention to
Use (ITU).
𝐻𝑎4 : Technology Readiness (TR)
significantly affects the impact of Perceived
Usefulness (PU) on Intention to Use (ITU).
𝐻𝐻5 : Technology Readiness (TR) does not Reject Ho
significantly affect Perceived Ease
of Use (PEOU).
𝐻𝑎5 : Technology Readiness (TR)
significantly affects Perceived Ease of Use
(PEOU).
𝐻𝐻6 : Technology Readiness (TR) does not Reject Ho
significantly affect the impact of
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) on Intention to
Use (ITU).
𝐻𝑎6 : Technology Readiness (TR)
significantly affects the impact of Perceived
Ease of Use (PEOU) on Intention to Use
(ITU).
𝐻𝐻7 : Perceived Usefulness (PU) does not Reject Ho
significantly affect Intention to Use
(ITU).
𝐻𝑎7 : Perceived Usefulness (PU) significantly
affects Intention to Use (ITU).
66
 To what extent does 𝐻𝐻8 : Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) does not Reject Ho
perceived ease of use affect significantly affect Intention to
intention to use Use (ITU).

𝐻𝑎8 : Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)

To what extent does
perceived ease of use affect
perceived usefulness
significantly affects Intention to Use
(ITU).
𝐻𝐻9 : Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) does Reject Ho
not significantly affect Perceived
Usefulness (PU)

𝐻𝑎9 : Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)

significantly affects Perceived Usefulness
(PU)

To what extent does
perceived ease of use affect
the impact of perceived
usefulness
on intention to use
𝐻𝐻10: Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) does Fail to reject
not significantly affect the impact of Ho
Perceived Usefulness (PU) on Intention to
Use (ITU).
𝐻𝑎10: Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)
significantly affects the impact of
Perceived Usefulness (PU) on Intention to
Use (ITU).

To gather personal insights For Validation Only

from the interviewees
concerning the survey and
the
results thereof.

4.5 Focus Group Discussion

The Focus Group Discussion aims to collect the insight of members of the Lasallian

community concerning the results of the data analysis. This would provide the researchers with

additional information concerning their reactions towards the results and compare their answers

with the actual results. There were three focus group discussions done to meet this objective. The

67
three groups represent the definition of the Lasallian Community (Undergraduate Students,

Graduate Students, and Faculty Members) in the study.

In order to validate the findings above, all of the focus group discussions comprised of five

questions. Namely these were all questions that attributed to Intention to Use for that is the final

variable in the Technology Acceptance Model and is the variable that would indicate whether the

Lasallian Community is accepting of the proposed smart cards or not. These were the questions:

1. Are you familiar with the beep card?

2. Are you familiar with bitcoin?

3. If you access to a new smartcard, would you intend to use it?

4. Do you think the use of new smart cards will increase in the future?

5. Would recommend the use of a smart cards that is similar to the new smart card being

proposed to other students and colleagues?

The undergraduate and graduate students’ focus group discussion consisted of 9

participants each. While the faculty members focus group discussion composed of 5 faculty

members. All of the focus groups were adamant as to their replies of an astounding yes to every

question. Therefore, concluding that the results stated above is accurate to if the Lasallian

Community really intend to use the proposed technology. There were some instances though that

the researchers have found puzzling.

While all the results above validated the response of the FGD, there seems to be a lapse of

technology literacy within certain groups. One undergraduate student, three graduate students and

two faculty members did not know what a smart card was. Nevertheless, when the facilitator

mentions the colloquial term for a smart card which is the popular brand of Beep, the confusion

was instantly cleared up. There were also two undergraduate students, five graduate students, and

68
one faculty member that did not know what blockchain technology was and as the same instance

as the preceding question, the facilitator gave the well-known version of blockchain technology

called BitCoin or cryptocurrency and there seemed to be a nod of understanding after that instance.

Another point made was how each of the focus groups had a participant that mentioned

GreenPurse. This was an online payment mechanism also promulgated by Lasalle using the

MyLaSalle webpage in order to pay for fees within the campus. One faculty member stated that if

the mechanism was easier to use, he would have used it more often. This validates the claim of the

researchers on how PEOU directly and significantly affects ITU of new technology. Another

graduate student also mentioned something about the library using GCash as of 2018. She said she

would be willing to use this if they could use the GCash for other things within the campus and

not just the library. This also validates the result we have above which states that PU significantly

affects ITU. As seen in the studies stated on Chapter 2, GCash is an easy to use application where

users need to register online beforehand, therefore making every user technology ready. This just

further validates how PEOU and TR do not significantly affect the impact of PU to ITU.

The focus groups also stated a few ideas where they think the proposed technology would

be more enticing to its prospective users. They proposed that the smart card could also be used in

partner establishments the school as well. They also proposed that the administrators of such

devices would give incentives to its users such as rebates, discounts, and the like.

All in all, whatsoever, the focus group discussion did its job of assuring the researchers of

the claims the results had in this paper. Every result agreed to what all the participants had to say.

69
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

The study conducted presents the factors affecting technology acceptance of the Lasallian

Community with smart cards supported by blockchain technology as the new technology. These

factors are Technology Readiness, Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Intention to

Use which leads to Technology Acceptance. All the factors above play a significant role in the

Lasallian Community’s acceptance of the new smart cards. This study gives insight as to what

70
could make a person accept new technology and how the people administering this new technology

could ease the way for their potential users to accept such technology.

Given that this type of technology is being used in educational institutions like De La Salle

University- Manila, this study answers how the Lasallian Community would accept such smart

cards. The study concluded that the Lasallian Community would accept this technology if they

deem it useful and necessary enough to see it as a value adding asset to their life for Perceived

Usefulness is the defining factor on how a person’s Intention to Use would greatly increase as

well.

In conclusion, the Technology Acceptance of the Lasallian Community with regards to

smart cards supported by blockchain technology is resultingly high. That is because all the factors

that are needed for one to intend to use such technology are present in the Lasallian Community.

The level of Technology Readiness within them is acceptable. Thus, significantly affecting their

Perceived Ease of Use of the new smart cards, which would then in turn give rise to their Intention

to Use. While their belief and hopes of the benefits that this technology would bring to their daily

life would also be spiking up their Perceived Usefulness which also significantly affects their

Intention to Use.

Therefore, it is concluded that introducing new technology to the Lasallian Community is

not a difficult feat. The makings of a person who is willing to adapt new technology is within the

system already. The foundation is set and thus, the only thing left to do is to keep on exposing the

Lasallian Community to new technological creations and introducing this new technology within

the campus for it has been concluded that the Lasallian Community is a conducive space for such

discovery and exploration.

71
5.2. Recommendations

5.2.1. Educational institutions - The results of the study may provide further insight to

educational institutions in contemplating on whether to proceed with building a smart card

technology system. Based on the outcome of the study, educational institutions can consider setting

up smart card technology to facilitate transactions within campus. De La Salle University in

particular may opt to conduct further feasibility studies in order to formally establish the system

within the school due to the fact that the respondents of the study exhibited high levels of intention

to use and technological acceptance which convey that the community is open to adopting smart

cards. It can also be seen that technology readiness and perceived usefulness are significant which

means that the Lasallian community is ready and willing to use smart cards.

After ensuring such willingness, educational institutions may mobilize its researchers to

make an economic feasibility study. The university may conduct a cost-benefit analysis prior to

implementation. This would be a crucial aspect of the process since it is important to determine

whether the benefits of implementing the system would outweigh the costs. In this step it is

essential to facilitate a discussion with suppliers of smart cards, IT department, finance department,

and accounting department to determine the costs. It is important to coordinate with these sectors

since the suppliers of smart cards will provide the system and determine its actual costs; the IT

department is responsible for the future implementation of the system; the finance department is

in charge of procuring and allocating the necessary funds for the project; and the accounting

department is the body recording transactions and collecting money such as tuition fees. Similarly,

a discussion should be facilitated with the various service providers within the school such as

canteens, printing, and photocopying stations to further identify the benefits. It should be assessed

whether or not they would also benefit from the implementation of the system considering that the

72
demand side or their ultimate consumers– the students and professors are willing to use smart

cards.

Furthermore, sufficient financial support is required in establishing the system. Once the

economic feasibility is ensured, institutions can facilitate a bidding process in searching for a

software and programming firm to set up the system. It is essential for educational institutions to

partner and work closely with the chosen software and programming experts so that the system

would be aligned with the institution’s needs. Once a supplier is chosen and the implementation

of smarts cards is ensured, the accounting and IT departments need to be oriented on the system.

They should be knowledgeable on how blockchain technology works considering that this is what

powers the smart cards. Blockchain technology makes use of financial data and records; thus, the

accounting department should know the recording aspect of the system. Contingent plans and

privacy measures for the data recorded should also be made to ensure data security. Meanwhile,

the IT professionals should be trained to use the system and prepare the required maintenance

measures in case of system-related problems.

With regard to the implementation phase, the school’s administration should create rules

and regulations that would guide the use of smart cards. The smart cards should also be publicized

in school to encourage its rampant use. The university could conduct seminars and talks regarding

the fundamentals of the system such as how to use and integrate the smart card system into daily

life in order for the Lasallian Community to fully grasp the usefulness of the proposed new

technology and to increase their perceived ease of use; considering that it was discovered to play

a significant role in the implementation of the system. Conducting technology-related classes is

essential for increasing technology readiness which was found to directly affect intention to use.

In addition, incentives such as discounts can be granted to smart card users which in effect

73
contributes to its perceived usefulness. By doing so, eventually institutions can have a smart card

system in place that each member of the community utilizes, entailing various benefits.

5.2.2. Financial institutions and Service Providers - The results of the study only

represent a small subset of the entire Philippine population. Therefore, it would be advisable for

financial institutions to conduct further research involving more participants in order to fully grasp

the perception of end users and concretely determine if there is potential to shift to a more advanced

system of facilitating transactions. With this, they can gage the need to implement a contactless

smart card system. Similarly, service providers should be more observant in monitoring consumer

behavior and trends with regard to technological advancements so that they can anticipate and

effectively transition towards a smart card system.

Despite this, the results of the study suggest that perceived usefulness and perceived ease

of use of technology is significant. Therefore, banks and service providers should think of ways to

make business transactions more convenient for them as well as the end users. They should be

more open-minded to implementing technological advances that would simplify transactions and

processes. Financial institutions, particularly banks, they can link the credit cards or debit cards of

Lasallians to their respective smart cards. For instance, when paying for tuition the money is

automatically deducted from the account of the user and credited to the bank account of the school.

This method will also be beneficial to the school given that it can collect without physical contact.

Another possible advancement they can implement is a text messaging or notification system that

would alert users whenever their account has been drawn, ensuring transparency and security.

Service providers on the other hand need to train their employees to use the technology considering

that it entails less contract with cash. Moreover, they should collaborate with banks so that the

cash would directly flow into their bank account.

74
 Overall, the two can work closely with La Salle given that there are other La Salle schools

in the country where the technology can be tried and tested. This would help them expand the use

of the technology in the future. The system administrators of the smart cards should also partner

up with different establishments within the campus in order for it to be fully accepted within the

four corners of De La Salle University- Manila.

5.2.3. Regulators - Considering the potential progression towards more technology-driven

systems and the significance of smart card technology usefulness in the study, various regulatory

agencies particularly the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Securities and Exchange Commission

should undergo ample preparation and technological briefing. Preparedness and knowledge on

technological advances, specifically, blockchain technology, are necessary so that it would be

easier to draft suitable regulations that would cater to such changes. The SEC needs to study

blockchain technology thoroughly in order to create rules that would protect the data privacy of

clients and penalize perpetrators. Furthermore, they should determine and set up the requirements

and written agreements to be submitted by banks, users, service providers, and schools so that

supervision and regulation of the system be in facilitated.

Simultaneously, the BIR also needs to learn about the mechanics of blockchain technology

since it is used to record data. With this, it can put the necessary regulatory changes in place given

that transactions would become contactless. It has to come up with a new system that would take

all transactions into account for taxation purposes.

By setting up the appropriate rules and regulations, users will be encouraged to utilize smart

card technology knowing that their rights are effectively protected. With this, it is important for

the rules to be promulgated and communicated through public channels and platforms such as the

regulatory agency’s website as well as traditional media to ensure abidance from everyone

75
involved - suppliers, businesses, and users. Lastly, marketing the system as duly approved and

proven to be safe by the corresponding regulatory bodies would increase the users’ perceived

usefulness and intention to use.

5.3. Areas for Further Research

The research needs to consider and analyze the costs pertaining to the benefits of using this

type of technology. Given that there is an acceptance within the Lasallian Community, the next

step is to decipher whether its benefits exceed the costs of implementing smart cards using

blockchain technology unto every member of the Lasallian Community.

The research also needs to account for the factions of the Lasallian Community that were

not part of this study due to resource and time constraints. These segments are the office personnel,

the maintenance personnel, the security personnel, and the employees who man the canteen, the

photocopy centers, and the like. As they make up a big part of the Lasallian community, their

opinions would also prove to be significant. Thus, the survey used for this research should be

translated to Filipino in order for those who are more comfortable with the language to answer the

questions faithfully.

Future researchers should further this study to acknowledge if the same results arise from

respondents of other universities within the Philippines. They should consider the special

circumstances embedded in every school and how the school reacts to the introduction of new

technology within their campuses.

To support this study, future researchers should conduct an evaluation of the Lasallian

Community’s technology literacy in order to determine the level of familiarity they have pertaining

to new technology and what to call them. This is also to give the university’s administration more

76
information as to whether they should expose the community to newer types of technology, may

it be through seminars, talks, exhibitions, and the like.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, L., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and
review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888

Al-Alawi, A. I., & Al-Amer, M. A. (2006). Young generation attitudes and awareness
towards the implementation of smart card in Bahrain: an exploratory study.
Journal of Computer Science, 2(5), 441-446.

Allen, W. E., & Murray, R. D. (2016). Implementation of Smart Card Automatic Fare
Collection (AFC) Technology in Small Transit Agencies for Standards
Development.

77
Amromin, G., & Chakravorti, S. (2009). Whither Loose Change? The Diminishing
Demand for Small-Denomination Currency. Journal of Money, Credit and
Banking,41(2-3), 315-335. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4616.2009.00207.x

Arami, M., Koller, M., & Krimmer, R. (2004). User acceptance of multifunctional smart
cards. ECIS 2004 Proceedings, 18.

Arenas, R., & Fernandez, P. (2018). CredenceLedger: A Permissioned Blockchain for

Verifiable Academic Credentials. 2018 IEEE International Conference on
Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC).
doi:10.1109/ice.2018.8436324

Bagchi, M., & White, P. R. (2005). The potential of public transport smart card data.
Transport Policy, 12, 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.06.008

Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child

development. Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.

Basera, C. H. (2018) Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use of Plastic Money and the
Resultant Perceived Risk by Small and Medium Enterprises. Journal of Research
in Business and Management, 6(3), 24-30.

Carlozo, L. (2017). Understanding blockchain. Journal Of Accountancy, 224(2), 1.

Chatterjee, D., & Bolar, K. (2018). Determinants of Mobile Wallet Intentions to Use: The
Mental Cost Perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction,
1-11.

78
Chen, Z. L. (2018, June 25). How Should We Regulate Blockchain? It Depends on
Which Country You Ask. Retrieved from
http://fortune.com/2018/06/25/blockchain-cryptocurrency-technology-regulation-
bitcoin-ethereum/

Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.

Davis Jr, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-
user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Davis, F. D., Bagoozi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer
Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science,
Volume 35, 1989, pp. 982-1003.

De Leon, E. A. (2018, August 6). Regulate blockchain ‘actors’ not technology, says
fintech lawyer. Retrieved from http://newsbytes.ph/2018/08/06/regulate-
blockchain-actors-not-technology-says-fintech-lawyer/

Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., & Beale, R. (2004). . Human-computer
interaction. Third Edition. Edinburgh Gate, Essex: Prentice Hall.

Duan, B., Zhong, Y., & Liu, D. (2017, December). Education Application of Blockchain
Technology: Learning Outcome and Meta-Diploma. In 2017 IEEE 23rd
International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) (pp.
814-817). IEEE.

Erdoğmuş, N., & Esen, M. (2011). An Investigation of the Effects of Technology

Readiness on Technology Acceptance in e-HRM. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences,24, 487-495. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.131

79
EZ-Link expands EZ-Pay to car parks. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.ezlink.com.sg/2018/02/ez-link-expands-ez-pay-to-car-parks

Fashoto, S. G., Uzoka, F. M. E., & Mabayoje, M. (2016). Development of e-wallet

system for Tertiary institution in a Developing country. Computer Science &
Telecommunications, 49(3).

GCash (2018). Frequently Asked Question. Retrieved from

https://www.gcash.com/frequently-asked-questions/

Geetha, R. (2017). Financial Literacy And Usage Pattern Of Mobile Wallets Across
Gender Categories In India. Research Journal of Science & IT Management,
6(12), 1-9.

Gilda, S., & Mehrotra, M. (2018, January). Blockchain for Student Data Privacy and
Consent. In 2018 International Conference on Computer Communication and
Informatics (ICCCI) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.

Helms, K. (2018, July 1). Philippines’ Economic Zone Creating Crypto Regulations,
Licensing 25 Exchanges. Retreived from https://news.bitcoin.com/philippines-
economic-zone-creating-crypto-regulations-licensing-exchanges/

Hendry, M. (2007). Multi-application Smart Cards: Technology and Applications. 2nd

ed. UK: Cambridge University Press

Hericko, M., Holbl, M., Kosic, K., & Turkanovic, M. (2018). EduCTX: A Blockchain-
Based Higher Education Credit Platform. IEEE Access,6, 5112-5127.
doi:10.1109/access.2018.2789929

80
Ho, C. W., Wang, Y. B., & Yen, N. Y. (2015). Does environmental sustainability play a
role in the adoption of smart card technology at universities in Taiwan: An
integration of TAM and TRA. Sustainability, 7(8), 10994-11009.

Islam, M. (2012). Effective use of smart cards: A case study of smart cards in Sweden.

Joerges, B. (1988). Technology in everyday life: conceptual queries. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 18(2), 219-237.

Kosba, A., Miller, A., Shi, E., Wen, Z., & Papamanthou, C. (2016). Hawk: The
Blockchain Model of Cryptography and Privacy-Preserving Smart Contracts.
2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). doi:10.1109/sp.2016.55

Lala, G. (2014). The emergence and development of the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM). Marketing From Information to Decision, 13(1), 1.

Labrou, Y., Agre, J., Ji, L., Molina, J., & Chen, W. I. (2004, August). Wireless wallet. In
Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking and Services, 2004.
MOBIQUITOUS 2004. The First Annual International Conference on (pp. 32-41).
IEEE.

Lee, C. H. M., Cheng, Y. W., & Depickere, A. (2003). Comparing smart card adoption in
Singapore and Australian universities. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 58(3), 307-325.

Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. (2003). The Technology Acceptance Model: Past,
Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
12. doi:10.17705/1cais.01250

Leng, X. (2009). Smart card applications and security. Information Security Technical
Report, 14, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istr.2009.06.006

81
Maitra, S. (2017). An Exploratory Study On The User's Perception Of Smart Card In
India. International Journal of Innovations & Advancement in Computer Science,
6(9), 465-473.

Mick, D. G., & Fournier, S. (1998). Paradoxes of technology: Consumer cognizance,

emotions, and coping strategies. Journal of Consumer research, 25(2), 123-143.

Miller, R., Coolings, M., Perkinson, J., Jacob, S., & Ellis, T. (2017). Digital Payments in
Education. The Paytech Revolution Series.

Mohammed, L., Ramili, A., Prakash, V., & Daud, M. (2004). Smart Card Technology:
Past, Present, and Future. International Journal of The Computer, the Internet and
Management,21(1), 12-22.
Murphy, J., Lee, R., & Swinger, E. (2011). Student Perceptions and Adoption of
University Smart Card Systems. International Journal of Technology and Human
Interaction,7(3), 1-15. doi:10.4018/jthi.2011070101

Ng-Lim, A. (2018, October 15). Are you still paying with cash? Retreived from
https://news.abs-cbn.com/business/10/15/18/are-you-still-paying-with-cash

Orcutt, M. (2015, May 20). Bitcoin's Community Faces a Tough Decision about the
Network's Future. Retrieved from
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/537486/leaderless-bitcoin-struggles-to-
make-its-most-crucial-decision/

Parasuraman, A., & Colby, C. L. (2015). An updated and streamlined technology

readiness index:TRI 2.0. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 59-74. DOI:
10.1177/1094670514539730

82
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (Tri): A Multiple-Item Scale
to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies. Journal of Service
Research, 2(4), 307-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001

Parasuraman, A Parsu & Colby, Charles. (2014). An Updated and Streamlined

Technology Readiness Index: TRI 2.0. Journal of Service Research. 18. 60.
10.1177/1094670514539730.

Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and

risk with the technology acceptance model. International journal of electronic
commerce, 7(3), 101-134.

Pelletier, M., Trépanier, M., & Morency, C. (2011). Smart card data use in public transit:
A literature review. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies,19(4), 557-568. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2010.12.003

Rana, S. S. (2017). A Study Of Preference Towards The Mobile Wallets Among The
University Students In Lucknow City. Scholedge International Journal of
Management & Development ISSN 2394-3378,4(6), 46.
doi:10.19085/journal.sijmd040601

Ramhey, K. (2018, February 16). The Impact of Technology On Our Lives Today.
Retrieved from https://www.useoftechnology.com/impact-technology-life-today/

Rossow, A. (2018, July 10). Top 10 New Blockchain Companies To Watch For In 2018.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewrossow/2018/07/10/top-10-
new-blockchain-companies-to-watch-for-in-2018/#729471aa5600

Said, M. N., Tahir, L. M., Ali, M. F., & Zakaria, M. A. (2015). ICT Literacy and
Readiness in Using Computers among Headteachers in their Tertiary Learning

83
 Experiences and School Management Tasks. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(2), 63. doi:10.3991/ijet.v10i2.4405

Singh, P. K., Kumar, N., & Gupta, B. K. (2018). Smart Card ID: An Evolving and Viable
Technology. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED COMPUTER
SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS, 9(3), 115-124.

Singh, S., & Rana, R. (2017). Study of Consumer Perception of Digital Payment Mode.
Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 22(3), 1-14.

Smith, S. S. (2018). BLOCKCHAIN AUGMENTED AUDIT-BENEFITS AND

CHALLENGES FOR ACCOUNTING PROFESSIONALS. Journal of
Theoretical Accounting Research, 14(1).

Subramanian, G. H. (1994). A Replication of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of

Use Measurement. Decision Sciences, 25(5-6), 863-874. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
5915.1994.tb01873.x

Taherdoost, H. (2017). Appraising the Smart Card Technology Adoption; Case of

Application in University Environment. Procedia Engineering, 181, 1049-1057.

Taherdoost, H., Sahibuddin, S., & Jalaliyoon, N. (2011). Smart card security; Technology
and adoption. International Journal of Security, 5(2), 74-84.

Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: how the technology behind
bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. Penguin.

Tugas, F. (2017). Future-proofing the Public Accounting Profession: Developing a Model

of Technology Acceptance for Public Accounting Firms.

84
Tugas, F. & Tullao, T. (2017). Future-proofing the Public Accounting Profession:
Developing a Model of Technology Acceptance for Public Accounting Firms.

Sauveron, D. (2009). Multiapplication smart card: Towards an open smart card?.

Information security technical report, 14(2), 70-78.

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.

Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control,

intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model.
Information systems research, 11(4), 342-365.

Wan, J., Zeng, M., & Liang, L. (2013). Empirical Study on Usability Impact Factors of
Electronic Wallet-One Card Solution within College Students. IBusiness,05(03),
77-85. doi:10.4236/ib.2013.53010

Wu, H. C., Chen, J. W., & Hsieh, C. C. (2011). Creating Added Value for Smart Card
Applications: The University as a Case Study. In The Fourth International
Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI), Gosier,
Guadeloupe, France.

Zheng, X., Yang, L., Shi, G., & Meng, D. (2016). Secure Mobile Payment Employing
Trusted Computing on TrustZone Enabled Platforms. 2016 IEEE
Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA. doi:10.1109/trustcom.2016.0297

Zoleta, V. (2018, September 07). 6 Lesser-Known Uses of Beep Card in the Philippines.
Retrieved from https://www.moneymax.ph/blog/beep-card-uses

Zahari, M. S. M., & Othman, I. R. (2018). Diagnosing TAM Using Factor Analysis.
Asian Journal of Behavioural Studies, 3(11), 55-64.

85
 APPENDIX
1. Questionnaire

Greetings! We are undergraduate students of De La Salle University taking up BS

Accountancy and we are conducting a survey to gauge the Technology Acceptance of the Lasallian

Community for our proposed technology. DLSU provides students with access to advanced and

innovative technology and in line with this, the study proposes a smart card, to be used as a cash

card, supplemented by blockchain technology. We humbly ask for 5 to 10 minutes of your time to

complete our survey. Please indicate how much you agree to the following statements regarding

the proposed technology. Thank you!

Demographic Profile: (Please fill in the blanks)

Name: _______________________________________________
Email: _______________________________________________
ID Number: 118 ___ 117 ___ 116 ___ 115___ 114 & Below ___
Gender: M ___ F___ Prefer not to say ___
Academic Program: _____
Number of Units Earned: _____

86
Technology Readiness*: (1 - Strongly disagree, 2 - Somewhat disagree, 3 – Neutral, 4 -

Somewhat agree, 5 - Strongly agree)

No. Question 1 2 3 4 5

1 New technologies

contribute to a better

quality of life

2 Other people come to me

for advice on new

technologies.

3 When I get technical

support from a provider of a

high-tech product or

service, I sometimes feel as

if I am being taken

advantage of by someone

who knows more than I do.

4 People are too dependent

on technology to do things

for them.

5 I do not feel confident

doing business with a place

that can only be reached

online.

87
6 There is no such thing as a

manual for a high-tech

product or service that’s

written in plain language.

7 I keep up with the latest

technological developments

in my areas of interest.

8 Technology makes me

more productive in my

personal life.

9 Technology gives people

more control over their

daily lives

10 I can usually figure out new

high-tech products and

services without help from

others

11 Sometimes, I think that

technology systems are not

designed for use by

ordinary people

12 Technology lowers the

quality of relationships by

88
 reducing personal

interaction.

13 Too much technology

distracts people to a point

that is harmful

14 Technical support lines are

not helpful because they

don’t explain things in

terms I understand

15 In general, I am among the

first in my circle of friends

to acquire new technology

when it appears.

16 Technology gives me more

freedom of mobility.

Technology Acceptance: (1 - Strongly disagree, 2 - Somewhat disagree, 3 – Neutral, 4 -

Somewhat agree, 5 - Strongly agree)

No. Question 1 2 3 4 5

1 Assuming I have access to a

new smartcard. I intend to

use it.

89
2 Using the new smart card

increases my willingness to

buy my needs in school.

3 Using the new smart card in

school improves my

productivity.

4 My interaction with the

new smart card is clear and

understandable.

5 Interacting with the new

smart card does not require

a lot of my mental effort.

6 Given that I have access to

the new smart card, I

predict I would use it.

7 Using a new smart card

enhances my effectiveness

in my studies.

8 I find the new smart card to

be easy to use.

9 I find it easy to get the new

smart card to do what I

want it to do.

90
 10 I find the new smart card to

be useful in school.

11 The use of new smart cards

will increase in the future.

12 I would recommend the use

of a smart card that is

similar to the new smart

card to other students.

2. Correspondents with Technology Readiness Questionnaire Authors

91
 Eric Jerome Villarosa <eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph>

Technology Readiness Index: Request for Research Questionnaire

6 messages

Eric Jerome Villarosa <eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph> Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 4:48 PM

To: parsu@miami.edu

Dear Prof. Dr. A. Parasuraman,

Greetings from Manila!

I am Eric B. Villarosa, an undergraduate student of De La Salle University in Manila, Philippines. My thesis groupmates, Maria Luisa Cuenca, Vincent Jao, Jayvee Cayabyab, and I, are writing about the "technological readiness of
the De La Salle University community."

We have been following your research papers in technology readiness index (TRI). We find your papers in 2000 (36-item scale) and 2015 (16-item scale) very insightful in terms of method, discussion, and analysis, among
others.

We would like to seek your permission to make the updated and streamline instrument that you came up with available for us to use in furthering our research.

Hoping for your kind consideration, Professor, Thank you.

Sincerely,

Eric Jerome B. Villarosa

Parasuraman, A <aparasur@bus.miami.edu> Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 4:49 AM

To: Eric Jerome Villarosa <eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph>
Cc: Charles Colby <CColby@rockresearch.com>

Hi Eric,

Thanks for reques ng permission to use the Technology Readiness Index (TRI 2.0) scale in your thesis as outlined in your email below. As you are already aware TRI 2.0 is a copyrighted instrument, but Charles Colby
(Founder of Rockbridge Associates and co-developer of TRI 2.0) and I have been gran ng permission for its use in academic research, and waiving the fee typically charged to commercial users. Your email suggests that
your intended use of the scale is for purely academic purposes. Let us know if this is not the case.

By copy of this email to Mr. Colby I am reques ng him to send you the paperwork that you would need to complete to obtain formal permission to use the TRI 2.0 scale. Once the paperwork formali es are completed, you
will have our permission to use the scale and Mr. Colby will send you the scale items and instruc ons. Good luck with your thesis!

Best wishes,

A. "Parsu" Parasuraman

Professor of Marke ng & Holder of the James W. McLamore Chair

University of Miami

Coral Gables, FL 33124-6554

Tel: 305-284-5743/Fax: 305-284-5326

parsu@miami.edu

http://www.bus.miami.edu/thought-leadership/faculty/marketing/parasuraman.html

From: Eric Jerome Villarosa [mailto:eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph]

Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 3:49 AM
To: Parasuraman, A <aparasur@bus.miami.edu>
Subject: Technology Readiness Index: Request for Research Ques onnaire
[Quoted text hidden]

DISCLAIMER AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this e-mail, including those in its attachments, is confidential and intended only for the person(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, you must not read,
copy, store, disclose, distribute this message, or act in reliance upon the information contained in it. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer or system. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of De La Salle University.

Charles Colby <ccolby@rockresearch.com> Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:58 AM

To: "Parasuraman, A" <aparasur@bus.miami.edu>, Eric Jerome Villarosa <eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph>

Hi Eric,

Kindly complete, sign and return the a ached licensing applica on. I will follow up by authorizing your license and providing more informa on on scale administra on. Thank you for your interest!

Regards,

Charles L. Colby 
Principal, Chief Methodologist and Founder

Office: 703 757 5213 ext. 112

10130 G Colvin Run Road, Great Falls, VA 22066

www.rockresearch.com | ccolby@rockresearch.com
92
 Professor of Marke ng & Holder of the James W. McLamore Chair

University of Miami

Coral Gables, FL 33124-6554

Tel: 305-284-5743/Fax: 305-284-5326

parsu@miami.edu

http://www.bus.miami.edu/thought-leadership/faculty/marketing/parasuraman.html

From: Eric Jerome Villarosa [mailto:eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph]

Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 3:49 AM
To: Parasuraman, A <aparasur@bus.miami.edu>
Subject: Technology Readiness Index: Request for Research Ques onnaire
[Quoted text hidden]

DISCLAIMER AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this e-mail, including those in its attachments, is confidential and intended only for the person(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, you must not read,
copy, store, disclose, distribute this message, or act in reliance upon the information contained in it. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer or system. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of De La Salle University.

Charles Colby <ccolby@rockresearch.com> Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:58 AM

To: "Parasuraman, A" <aparasur@bus.miami.edu>, Eric Jerome Villarosa <eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph>

Hi Eric,

Kindly complete, sign and return the a ached licensing applica on. I will follow up by authorizing your license and providing more informa on on scale administra on. Thank you for your interest!

Regards,

Charles L. Colby 
Principal, Chief Methodologist and Founder

Office: 703 757 5213 ext. 112

10130 G Colvin Run Road, Great Falls, VA 22066

www.rockresearch.com | ccolby@rockresearch.com

From: Parasuraman, A <aparasur@bus.miami.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 3:49 PM
To: Eric Jerome Villarosa <eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph>
Cc: Charles Colby <ccolby@rockresearch.com>
Subject: RE: Technology Readiness Index: Request for Research Ques onnaire
[Quoted text hidden]

academictermsconditions.docx
28K

Eric Jerome Villarosa <eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph> Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:06 AM

To: ccolby@rockresearch.com
Cc: aparasur@bus.miami.edu

Good day, gentlemen

Attached are the completed licensing application forms. Sorry for the wait.

Thank you very much.

Best Regards,
Eric Jerome B. Villarosa
[Quoted text hidden]

18 attachments

Scan 3.jpeg
889K

Scan 4.jpeg
899K

93
Scan 1.jpeg
897K
 Thank you very much.

Best Regards,
Eric Jerome B. Villarosa
[Quoted text hidden]

18 attachments

Scan 3.jpeg
889K

Scan 4.jpeg
899K

Scan 1.jpeg
897K

Scan 5.jpeg
1192K

Scan 2.jpeg
1202K

Scan 6.jpeg
883K

Scan 7.jpeg
1186K

Scan.jpeg
1321K

image001.png
7K

image002.png
2K

image003.png
2K

image004.png
2K

image005.jpg
3K

image005.jpg
3K

image004.png
2K

image001.png
7K

image002.png
2K

image003.png
2K

Charles Colby <ccolby@rockresearch.com> Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:39 PM

To: Eric Jerome Villarosa <eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph>
Cc: "aparasur@bus.miami.edu" <aparasur@bus.miami.edu>

HI Eric, you now officially have a license to use the TRI 2.0. Attached is a list of scale items and recommendations on administration.

Regards,

94

Charles L. Colby 
Principal, Chief Methodologist and Founder
 image001.png
7K

image002.png
2K

image003.png
2K

image004.png
2K

image005.jpg
3K

image005.jpg
3K

image004.png
2K

image001.png
7K

image002.png
2K

image003.png
2K

Charles Colby <ccolby@rockresearch.com> Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:39 PM

To: Eric Jerome Villarosa <eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph>
Cc: "aparasur@bus.miami.edu" <aparasur@bus.miami.edu>

HI Eric, you now officially have a license to use the TRI 2.0. Attached is a list of scale items and recommendations on administration.

Regards,

Charles L. Colby 
Principal, Chief Methodologist and Founder

Office: 703 757 5213 ext. 112

10130 G Colvin Run Road, Great Falls, VA 22066

www.rockresearch.com | ccolby@rockresearch.com

From: Eric Jerome Villarosa <eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph>

Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:07 AM
To: Charles Colby <ccolby@rockresearch.com>
Cc: aparasur@bus.miami.edu
Subject: Re: Technology Readiness Index: Request for Research Questionnaire

[Quoted text hidden]

TR Index 2.0 List for Academic Subscribers.docx

32K

Eric Jerome Villarosa <eric_villarosa@dlsu.edu.ph> Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 9:53 AM

To: Charles Colby <ccolby@rockresearch.com>

Greetings,
Acknowledging the receipt of the questionnaire and would email you a copy of our thesis as soon as it is finished. Thank you for your consideration!

Regards, Eric Villarosa

[Quoted text hidden]

10 attachments

image001.png
7K

image002.png
2K

image003.png
2K

image004.png
2K

image005.jpg
3K

image001.png
7K

image002.png
2K

image005.jpg
3K

image004.png
2K

image003.png
2K

95
3. SURVEY RESULTS
- For soft copy only

96