BYOD Adoption Model Validation by Experts

Transcription

1 (International Journal of Computer Science & Management Studies) Vol. 7, Issue 01 ISSN (Online): BYOD Adoption Model Validation by Experts Saima Nisar 1 and Wan Rozaini bt Sheik Osman 2 1,2 School of Computing, College of Arts and Science, Universiti Utara Malaysia, UUM, 06010, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia 1 saimaanisar@gmail.com, saima_nisar@ahsgs.uum.edu.my Publishing Date: July 1, 2017 Abstract The rationale of the proliferation of mobile devices and cloud applications, mobile computing is superseding the internet computing swiftly. The use of mobile devices is drastically enhancing the mobility, quality of life, access to information and efficiency of the health system. Because of it, employees bring and use their personal mobile devices for personal and professional work. This phenomenon is known as Bring your own device (BYOD). This research paper determines the factors for theoretical model which can affect the intention to adopt BYOD among Pakistani doctors. An intended model before develop, has to be validate earlier. This paper will presents the validation process from the experts on the factors of model. Results from the expert s evaluation will discuss. Keywords: Mobile Devices, BYOD, Health System, Expert. 1. Introduction M Health stands for Mobile Health, mobileenhanced or mobile based solutions that provide health. According to Foundation for the National Institute of Health [1] mhealth is the delivery of medical care services through mobile communication devices. The presence of mobile devices everywhere in the world increase the possibilities to enhance the healthcare by providing innovative healthcare services with ICT to the farthest reaches of the world. Healthcare system needs the mobility of doctor s and their communication with other people [2]. The system of healthcare is extremely mobile in nature. It including various locations of a clinic such as inpatient wards, emergency departments, clinics, outpatient services, laboratories, intensive care units (ICU), and operation theatres [, 4, 5]. The healthcare organization involved the vast movement of doctors also, cooperation and communication between different doctors, including their co-workers and patients [2]. The aim of this study is to explore key factors that influence doctor s intention to adopt BYOD and validate the model. There is a lack of knowledge in this field in developing countries especially in Pakistan. To fill this gap and to identify the factors, the literature review was done and proposed the conceptual model. Prior to developing the proposed model the adoption factors has to identify and has to be validated. The expert validation is one of the methods that can be utilize to validate the propose model [6] [7]. 1.1 Bring Your Own Device Bring your own device (BYOD) was first recognized by Ballagas et al., [8] at UBICOMP in This concept is often referred to as BYOD and refers to using one s own personal mobile device for non-personal or work-related activities. BYOD can bring modification to the healthcare services by increasing communication and coordination, increase real-time access to the data, implement integrative workforce processes which is very crucial in today s healthcare environment [9]. According to Figure 1 the mobility plan that is joined with organisation's strategy and IT which produce those outcomes that run the organisations to its goal and success [10]. 1

2 (International Journal of Computer Science & Management Studies) Vol. 7, Issue 01 ISSN (Online): accepting the invitation a consent form was sent to them. In the phase II, they look into the proposed factors, terms used, and the logical of the connections and flow of all of the components. They also ensure that the proposed model and survey instrument is readable. Figure 1: Use of BYOD Handheld computers and mobile devices provide instant access to vast amounts and types of useful information for health care professionals. Their reduced size and increased processing speed have led to the rapid adoption in healthcare [11]. Handheld computers or Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) offer portable and unobtrusive access to clinical data and relevant information at the point of care [12].With personally owned devices, healthcare professionals save time by choosing what factor works well for them without conforming to a one-size fit all standard [1]. The widespread adoption of mobile devices in healthcare institutions, while beneficial, can create security concerns for doctors. Doctor s security risk perception is related to multiple subjective beliefs which would indirectly impact their behavior intention in both using the devices and adopting security controls in the workplace [14]. 2. Methodology Expert s validation is a significant way to improve the quality of the work. In this study expert s validation involves academicians of international universities. This study performs a two phase activity as describes in Figure 2. These activities involve two phases, in phase I the process of identifying the experts were done. In this phase the selection of individuals to validate is usually based on the individual s expertise with the topic to be studied and then an invitation was send to them. After Figure 2: Methodological activities The details of both phases are discussed in next subsection. 2.1 Expert Identification The 5 invitations were sent to the identified experts through . Out of the 5 experts, accepted to join. This number of the experts is sufficient as supported by [15]. These experts were selected based on the following criteria [6]. The details are given below in Table 1. The expert should have PhD qualification The expert should have academic/teaching experience in the field of BYOD or Health Information Technology or Computer Science related area The field of expertise should be in BYOD or Health Information Technology or Computer Science related area. 2

3 (International Journal of Computer Science & Management Studies) Vol. 7, Issue 01 ISSN (Online): Table 1: Experts Identification Expert Gender Education 1 Male PhD 2 Male PhD Male PhD Field of Expertise BYOD, Health IT Medical Systems Networking (DICOM, PACS, HL7), Medical Imaging Video Security Health Information Technology Affiliations Hochschule Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences Kent State University Metropolitan College of New York (MCNY) These experts represent different fields of expertise from different international academic institutions. This is important for this study to have established suggestions and comments. As for the educational and professional background, two of them are professors and Ph.D. doctors, and one is associate dean with Ph.D. 2.2 Evaluation Procedure questionnaire. The format of the questionnaire is adopted from [6, 7]. The questionnaire includes five questions questioning regarding the relevance of the proposed factors included in the conceptual model, understanding of the proposed factors, terms used in the proposed model, connections and flows of all of the components, and readability of the proposed conceptual model. Experts were also asked some questions related research expertise, and the university affiliation. Further, experts were urged to address their additional remarks in the given instrument. Analysis and Preliminary Results Once the data is collected, there is a need to obtain the summary level. One approach to compiling data into a pattern that can be simply to generate a frequency distribution within a table. The other way to record the data are clustered column charts and the tabulation. It can provide a simple and reliable way to explain the different frequency of responses. The collected data were recorded in Table 2 based on the evaluation of questionnaire. Q1. Table 2: Experts evaluation frequency Items Definitely not Relevant Frequency (n =) Somewhat Relevant Definitely Relevant The proposed survey item in the proposed conceptual model The evaluation plan was formed for the usability testing of the variables that were identified for the designing of the conceptual model. During the evaluation process, was adopted as the means of communication. An invitation was sent to the experts. After confirming their participation as a expert, an official appointment letter, with the consent form were sent. The design of the proposed conceptual model and survey instrument was attached via . An ample time was provided to them to evaluate the factors, model and complete the given questionnaire for evaluation. The main instrument used for expert evaluation is a Q2. Performance Expectancy Effort Expectancy Social Influence Facilitating Conditions Hedonic 1 2 Motivation Price Value 1 2 Intention Adopt BYOD to The proposed survey item in the proposed conceptual model

4 (International Journal of Computer Science & Management Studies) Vol. 7, Issue 01 ISSN (Online): Perceived Vulnerability Perceived Severity Self-Efficacy Q. The terms are easy to understand Q4. The connections and flows of all the components are logical Q5. Overall, the conceptual model is readable All experts acknowledged that the proposed factors included in proposed conceptual model are relevant also they acknowledged that the proposed model includes logical connections, flows, and reasonable terms, and it is understandable. The results are plotted in the clustered column charts in Figure and Figure 4 which provide a straightforward and valuable way to illustrate the different frequency of response. Figure 4: Relevancy of the Proposed Factors in the Conceptual Model However, the results reveal that expert 1 not sure on two factors which are Hedonic Motivation, and Price Value. In addition, the expert 1 also gives his feedback on survey instruments. Expert 2 needs clarification on a context of research, he wants to discuss briefly on video conference. The researchers mutually decided and fix the appointment for a video conference with expert 2. On Sunday 28th of February 2016 at 11 am according to Malaysian standard time the researchers did a video conference on WebEx with meeting number A sample of WebEx invitation is attached in Figure 5. Figure : Flows and Connections, Readability, and Terms of the Model Figure 5: Video Conference Invitation from Expert 2.1 Experts Suggestions Experts comments are recorded in this study as depicted in Table. 4

5 (International Journal of Computer Science & Management Studies) Vol. 7, Issue 01 ISSN (Online): Experts Expert 1 Expert 2 Table : Experts Suggestions Comments I suggest not to code all questions from 1 to 7 (and explain the meaning of the numbers every time again), but use visual coding like to +++ or even That saves a slot of space as you only need to explain the meaning once and is easier to interpret for the informant. PE1 to PE5 I will find this phrase relates to the future and thus is hard to answer. Probably better to phrase it as I expect BYOD services to be SI2: Informants only rarely acknowledge that other people influence their behavior. Maybe use "Influential people in my organization think that using BYOD services would be good" SI: also hard to answer. "Prefer" is a difficult word in a professional context. Venkatesh (2012) was assessing voluntary use in a private context. Thus their questions were phrase differently. You probably need to adjust to the professional context. HM1-: Terms like "Fun", Joy" or Entertaining" do not belong into a professional healthcare environment IAB: Questions ask for continuous use. However, the preceding questions asked for adoption. This is a logical contradiction I suggest to ask for different vulnerabilities instead: Losing data, comprising data privacy of patients, introducing viruses into the corporate network etc. PS 1-: same issue as PV. (severe, serious, significant). Add one negative hypothesis and see the other side of view as well SI 1-: Use Supervisor or Hospital s Administration instead of People who are important to me. HM: Use Different Motivation rather than Fun and Entertaining PV: Add different types of Vulnerability such as Security and Privacy 4. Conclusion and Future Work This article presents the ongoing research regarding the identification of factors which can affect the intention to adopt BYOD. Earlier to develop a model the identification of factors has to be performed. This research article proposed the evaluation process of the proposed conceptual model by experts evaluation process which includes internationa experts. From the experts evaluation and dissucssion, In efforts to present a greater impact and improving the readability, the conceptual model will be improved and redesign based on the comments from the experts as illustrated in Table. Acknowledgments The researchers would like to thanks to the all experts for their validation, suggestions and cooperation in this study. References [1] FNIH, Foundation for the National Institute of Health.. [2] A. S. Mosa, I. Yoo, and L. Sheets, A Systematic Review of Healthcare Applications for Smartphones, BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 67, [] R. Pryss, N. Mundbrod, D. Langer, and M. Reichert, Supporting medical ward rounds through mobile task.pdf.crdownload, Inf. Syst. E-bus. Manag., vol. 1, no. 1, pp , [4] G. Fitzpatrick and G. Ellingsen, A review of 25 years of CSCW research in healthcare: Contributions, challenges and future agendas, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW: An International Journal, vol. 22, no pp , 201. [5] K.-W. Su and C.-L. Liu, A Mobile Nursing Information System Based on Human- Computer Interaction Design for Improving Quality of Nursing, J. Med. Syst., vol. 6, no., pp , [6] N. Aziz, A. A. Mutalib, and S. M. Sarif, Expert Review on Conceptual Design Model of Assistive Courseware for Low 5

6 (International Journal of Computer Science & Management Studies) Vol. 7, Issue 01 ISSN (Online): Vision (AC4LV) Learners, Int. J. Conceptions Manag. Soc. Sci., vol., no. 2, pp , [7] S. Bocconi, S. Dini, L. Ferlino, C. Martinoli, and M. Ott, ICT Educational Tools and Visually Impaired Students: Different Answers to Different Accessibility Needs, LNCS, vol. 4556, pp , [8] R. Ballagas, J. Sheridan, and M. Rohs, BYOD: bring your own device, [9] O. F. Roca, BYOD, gamification & high definition innovations for telemedicine, CATAI Ed., no. November, pp , [10] I. Song, Driving Business Value with BYOD, 201. [11] S. Mickan, J. K. Tilson, H. Atherton, N. W. Roberts, and C. Heneghan, Evidence of effectiveness of health care professionals using handheld computers: a scoping review of systematic reviews, J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 15, no. 10, p. e212, 201. [12] Y.-C. Lu, Y. Xiao, A. Sears, and J. a. Jacko, A review and a framework of handheld computer adoption in healthcare, Int. J. Med. Inform., vol. 74, no. 5, pp , [1] A. Martin, Corporate Response to Bring Your Own Device ( BYOD ), Utica College, [14] A. Alexandrou and L.-C. Chen, The Security Risk Perception Model for the Adoption of Mobile Devices in the Healthcare Industry, in Proceedings of Student-Faculty Research Day, CSIS, Pace University, pp [15] T.-R. Chang, E. Kaasinen, and K. Kaipainen, Persuasive Design in Mobile Applications for Mental Well-Being, in International Conference on Wireless Mobile Communication and Healthcare, 2012, pp