Configuration Analysis of Technology Readiness, Technology Acceptance, and Public Satisfaction Regarding Continued Induction Stove Use in Indonesia

Retno Wulan Damayanti (1), Haryono Setiadi (2), Dicka Korintus Kurnianto (3), Nisa Aqilla Ellenahaya Entifar (4)
(1) Industrial Engineering Study Program, Sebelas Maret University, Jebres, Surakarta, Indonesia
(2) Center of Technology Development and Industrial Collaboration, Institute for Research and Community Service, Sebelas Maret University, Jebres, Surakarta, Indonesia
(3) Industrial Engineering Study Program, Sebelas Maret University, Jebres, Surakarta, Indonesia
(4) Smart Green Technology Engineering Department, Pukyong National University, Republic of Korea
Fulltext View | Download
How to cite (IJASEIT) :
Damayanti, Retno Wulan, et al. “Configuration Analysis of Technology Readiness, Technology Acceptance, and Public Satisfaction Regarding Continued Induction Stove Use in Indonesia”. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, vol. 14, no. 2, Apr. 2024, pp. 428-3, doi:10.18517/ijaseit.14.2.19010.
In 2022, Indonesia began the energy conversion pilot project from Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) stoves to induction stoves in Surakarta. Before the program is scaled up, it is vital to conduct an in-depth analysis of the technology readiness, technology acceptance, and user satisfaction to assess program continuity. This research aims to identify what configuration of aspects of technology readiness, technology acceptance, and satisfaction will produce continuance intention and the necessary conditions of continuance usage intention. This study involved 412 conversion program participants in five districts in Surakarta, Indonesia. Utilizing fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), four solution configurations that lead to high continuance intention and four for low continuance intention were obtained. Generally, nearly all conditions must be maintained at a positive level to produce high continuance intention, especially innovativeness, and satisfaction. The research has theoretical and practical implications, including satisfaction having the greatest impact on configurations and the quality of the conversion program, in which the induction stove and its service program must become the main focus to ensure satisfaction. Clear policies and wider socialization must be conducted to enhance people’s awareness and trust. To boost sustainability and continuity, synergistic cooperation between stakeholders and the creation of a better environment for induction stove implementation must also be established. Future research should conduct a longitudinal study approach to strengthen the analysis of a long-term induction stove conversion program.

D. F. Hakam, H. Nugraha, A. Wicaksono, R. A. Rahadi, and S. P. Kanugrahan, “Mega conversion from LPG to induction stove to achieve Indonesia’s clean energy transition,” Energy Strateg. Rev., vol. 41, no. April, p. 100856, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2022.100856.

M. I. al Irsyad, T. Anggono, C. Anditya, I. Ruslan, D. G. Cendrawati, and R. Nepal, “Assessing the feasibility of a migration policy from LPG cookers to induction cookers to reduce LPG subsidies,” Energy Sustain. Dev., vol. 70, pp. 239–246, 2022, doi:10.1016/j.esd.2022.08.003.

T. Anggono, I. Ruslan, C. Anditya, D. G. Cendrawati, and M. I. A. Irsyad, “Assessing the feasibility of migration policy from LPG stoves to induction stoves in Indonesia,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 1041, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1041/1/012039.

F. Afridi, S. Debnath, and E. Somanathan, “A breath of fresh air: Raising awareness for clean fuel adoption,” J. Dev. Econ., vol. 151, no. May, p. 102674, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102674.

A. Altouni, S. Gorjian, and A. Banakar, “Development and performance evaluation of a photovoltaic-powered induction cooker (PV-IC): An approach for promoting clean production in rural areas,” Clean. Eng. Technol., vol. 6, p. 100373, 2022, doi:10.1016/j.clet.2021.100373.

Y. Yudiartono, J. Windarta, and A. Adiarso, “Sustainable Long-Term Energy Supply and Demand: The Gradual Transition to a New and Renewable Energy System in Indonesia by 2050,” Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 419–429, 2023, doi:10.14710/ijred.2023.50361.

Y. S. Kashtan et al., “Gas and Propane Combustion from Stoves Emits Benzene and Increases Indoor Air Pollution,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 57, no. 26, pp. 9653–9663, 2023, doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c09289.

N. Wang, H. Tian, S. Zhu, and Y. Li, “Analysis of public acceptance of electric vehicle charging scheduling based on the technology acceptance model,” Energy, vol. 258, p. 124804, 2022, doi:10.1016/

K. Rowston, M. Bower, and S. Woodcock, The impact of prior occupations and initial teacher education on post-graduate pre-service teachers’ conceptualization and realization of technology integration, vol. 32, no. 5. Springer Netherlands, 2022. doi:10.1007/s10798-021-09710-5.

I. Park, D. Kim, J. Moon, S. Kim, Y. Kang, and S. Bae, “Searching for New Technology Acceptance Model under Social Context: Analyzing the Determinants of Acceptance of Intelligent Information Technology in Digital Transformation and Implications for the Requisites of Digital Sustainability,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14010579.

G. M. Silva, Á. Dias, and M. S. Rodrigues, “Continuity of Use of Food Delivery Apps: An Integrated Approach to the Health Belief Model and the Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model,” J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex., vol. 8, no. 3, 2022, doi:10.3390/joitmc8030114.

D. Legramante, A. Azevedo, and J. M. Azevedo, “Integration of the technology acceptance model and the information systems success model in the analysis of Moodle’s satisfaction and continuity of use,” Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 467–484, 2023, doi:10.1108/IJILT-12-2022-0231.

M. El-Masri, K. Al-Yafi, and M. M. Kamal, “A Task-Technology-Identity Fit Model of Smartwatch Utilisation and User Satisfaction: A Hybrid SEM-Neural Network Approach,” Inf. Syst. Front., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 835–852, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10796-022-10256-7.

T. A. Salim, M. El Barachi, A. A. D. Mohamed, S. Halstead, and N. Babreak, “The mediator and moderator roles of perceived cost on the relationship between organizational readiness and the intention to adopt blockchain technology,” Technol. Soc., vol. 71, no. August, p. 102108, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102108.

W. Chiu and H. Cho, “The role of technology readiness in individuals’ intention to use health and fitness applications: a comparison between users and non-users,” Asia Pacific J. Mark. Logist., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 807–825, 2021, doi: 10.1108/APJML-09-2019-0534.

G. Wang and C. Shin, “Influencing Factors of Usage Intention of Metaverse Education Application Platform: Empirical Evidence Based on PPM and TAM Models,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 24, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su142417037.

N. Hayat, A. Al Mamun, A. A. Salameh, M. H. Ali, W. M. H. W. Hussain, and N. R. Zainol, “Exploring the smart wearable payment device adoption intention: Using the symmetrical and asymmetrical analysis methods,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, 2022, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.863544.

H. Dong, H. Wang, and J. Han, “Understanding Ecological Agricultural Technology Adoption in China Using an Integrated Technology Acceptance Model—Theory of Planned Behavior Model,” Front. Environ. Sci., vol. 10, no. June, pp. 1–11, 2022, doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.927668.

T. T. Nguyen, T. C. A. H. Nguyen, and C. D. Tran, “Exploring individuals’ adoption of COVID-19 contact-tracing apps: a mixed-methods approach,” Libr. Hi Tech, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 376–393, 2022, doi: 10.1108/LHT-06-2021-0180.

S. Fu, K. Xue, M. Yang, and X. Wang, “An exploratory study on users’ resistance to mobile app updates: Using netnography and fsQCA,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 191, no. April, p. 122479, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122479.

M. Cheng and H. Y. Chong, “Understanding the Determinants of Blockchain Adoption in the Engineering-Construction Industry: Multi-Stakeholders’ Analyses,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 108307–108319, 2022, doi: 10.1109/access.2022.3213714.

M. M. Korjani and J. M. Mendel, “Fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Challenges and applications,” 2012 Annu. Meet. North Am. Fuzzy Inf. Process. Soc. NAFIPS 2012, no. January 2015, 2012, doi: 10.1109/NAFIPS.2012.6291026.

E. de Diego Ruiz, P. Almodóvar, and I. D. del Valle, “What drives strategic agility? Evidence from a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA),” Int. Entrep. Manag. J., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 599–627, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11365-022-00820-7.

C. C. Ragin, The Comparative Method:Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, vol. 53, no. 9. California, USA: University of California Press, 2014. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

J. P. Campillo, M. R. Martínez, and P. C. Ibáñez, “Utility of fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) methodology to identify causal relations conducting to cooperative failure,” CIRIEC-Espana Rev. Econ. Publica, Soc. y Coop., no. 107, pp. 197–225, 2023, doi:10.7203/CIRIEC-E.107.21888.

M. S. Huang, C. C. Liao, Z. F. Li, Z. R. Shih, and H. W. Hsueh, “Quantitative Design and Implementation of an Induction Cooker for a Copper Pan,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 5105–5118, 2021, doi:10.1109/access.2020.3046713.

T. Kitajima et al., “Measurement of Intermediate Frequency Magnetic Fields Generated by Household Induction Cookers for Epidemiological Studies and Development of an Exposure Estimation Model,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 19, no. 19, 2022, doi: 10.3390/ijerph191911912.

J. Paudel, A. Sharifi, and G. D. Khan, “What are the drivers of sustainable energy transition? Insights from an empirical analysis of household preferences for electric induction cooking in Nepal,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 417, no. June, p. 138021, 2023, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138021.

I. E. A. IEA, “An Energy Sector Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions in Indonesia,” 2022. doi: 10.1787/4a9e9439-en.

A. Valarezo et al., “Resilient clean cooking: Maintaining household clean cooking in Ecuador during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Energy Sustain. Dev., vol. 74, no. April, pp. 349–360, 2023, doi:10.1016/j.esd.2023.03.018.

P. Arora, I. H. Rehman, R. Suresh, A. Sharma, D. Sharma, and A. Sharma, “Assessing the role of advanced cooking technologies to mitigate household air pollution in rural areas of Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India,” Environ. Technol. Innov., vol. 20, p. 101084, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.eti.2020.101084.

D. Chanchani and P. Oskarsson, “‘If the gas runs out, we are not going to sleep hungry’: Exploring household energy choices in India’s critically polluted coal belt,” Energy Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 80, no. December 2020, p. 102181, 2021, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102181.

Y. Lin and Z. Yu, “Extending Technology Acceptance Model to higher-education students’ use of digital academic reading tools on computers,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 20, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00403-8.

C. Wang et al., “An empirical evaluation of technology acceptance model for Artificial Intelligence in E-commerce,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 8, p. e18349, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18349.

P. Raman and K. Aashish, “Gym users: an enabler in creating an acceptance of sports and fitness wearable devices in India,” Int. J. Sport. Mark. Spons., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 707–726, 2022, doi:10.1108/IJSMS-08-2021-0168.

M. Aboelmaged, I. Ali, and G. Hashem, “Mobile apps use for wellness and fitness and university students’ subjective wellbeing,” Inf. Dev., no. May 2022, 2021, doi: 10.1177/02666669211020498.

C. Jayawardena, A. Ahmad, M. Valeri, and A. A. Jaharadak, “Technology acceptance antecedents in digital transformation in hospitality industry,” Int. J. Hosp. Manag., vol. 108, no. October 2022, p. 103350, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103350.

M. A. Kwarteng, A. Ntsiful, L. F. P. Diego, and P. Novák, “Extending UTAUT with competitive pressure for SMEs digitalization adoption in two European nations: a multi-group analysis,” Aslib J. Inf. Manag., 2023, doi: 10.1108/AJIM-11-2022-0482.

V. Uren and J. S. Edwards, “Technology readiness and the organizational journey towards AI adoption: An empirical study,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 68, no. March 2022, p. 102588, 2023, doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102588.

M. J. Hasheem, S. Wang, N. Ye, Zu. Farooq, and H. M. Shahid, “Factors influencing purchase intention of solar photovoltaic technology: An extended perspective of technology readiness index and theory of planned behaviour,” Clean. Responsible Consum., vol. 7, no. March, p. 100079, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.clrc.2022.100079.

A. Alharbi and O. Sohaib, “Technology Readiness and Cryptocurrency Adoption: PLS-SEM and Deep Learning Neural Network Analysis,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 21388–21394, 2021, doi: 10.1109/access.2021.3055785.

N. Salari, “Electric vehicles adoption behaviour: Synthesising the technology readiness index with environmentalism values and instrumental attributes,” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., vol. 164, no. July, pp. 60–81, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2022.07.009.

E. Negm, “Internet of Things (IoT) acceptance model – assessing consumers’ behavior toward the adoption intention of IoT,” Arab Gulf J. Sci. Res., 2023, doi: 10.1108/AGJSR-09-2022-0183.

A. Mishra, A. Shukla, N. P. Rana, W. L. Currie, and Y. K. Dwivedi, “Re-examining post-acceptance model of information systems continuance: A revised theoretical model using MASEM approach,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 68, no. August 2022, p. 102571, 2023, doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102571.

H. AlDreabi, N. Halalsheh, M. N. Alrawashdeh, A. M. Alnajdawi, R. O. Alsawalqa, and M. Al-Shboul, “Sustainable digital communication using perceived enjoyment with a technology acceptance model within higher education, in Jordan,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, no. December, 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1226718.

Y. W. Chang and J. Chen, “What motivates customers to shop in smart shops? The impacts of smart technology and technology readiness,” J. Retail. Consum. Serv., vol. 58, no. October 2020, p. 102325, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102325.

D. Gligor and S. Bozkurt, “FsQCA versus regression: The context of customer engagement,” J. Retail. Consum. Serv., vol. 52, no. March 2019, p. 101929, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101929.

Y. Hongxiong and Y. Yue, “Configuration analysis of the influencing factors of design standardization in China’s building industrialization - Qualitative Comparative Analysis based on (fsQCA) fuzzy set,” J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 2220–2231, 2022, doi:10.1080/13467581.2021.1972809.

N. Nistor, D. Stanciu, T. Lerche, and E. Kiel, “‘I am fine with any technology, as long as it doesn’t make trouble, so that I can concentrate on my study’: A case study of university students’ attitude strength related to educational technology acceptance,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 2557–2571, 2019, doi:10.1111/bjet.12832.

Y. Liang, G. Zhang, F. Xu, and W. Wang, “User Acceptance of Internet of Vehicles Services: Empirical Findings of Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and Fuzzy Sets Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA),” Mob. Inf. Syst., vol. 2020, 2020, doi: 10.1155/2020/6630906.

L. Wang, Z. Wang, X. Wang, and Y. Zhao, “Explaining consumer implementation intentions in mobile shopping with SEM and fsQCA: Roles of visual and technical perceptions,” Electron. Commer. Res. Appl., vol. 49, no. October 2020, p. 101080, 2021, doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2021.101080.

T. Nitlarp and T. Mayakul, “The Implications of Triple Transformation on ESG in the Energy Sector: Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Findings,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 5, 2023, doi:10.3390/en16052090.

M. Xiang et al., “Configuration Path Study of Influencing Factors on Health Information-Sharing Behavior among Users of Online Health Communities: Based on SEM and fsQCA Methods,” Healthcare, vol. 11, no. 12, p. 1789, 2023, doi: 10.3390/healthcare11121789.

A. Sukhov, M. Friman, and L. E. Olsson, “Unlocking potential: An integrated approach using PLS-SEM, NCA, and fsQCA for informed decision making,” J. Retail. Consum. Serv., vol. 74, no. May, p. 103424, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103424.

C. H. Jin, “Predicting the Use of Brand Application Based on a TRAM,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 156–171, 2020, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2019.1609227.

T. Kim and W. Chiu, “Consumer acceptance of sports wearable technology: the role of technology readiness,” Int. J. Sport. Mark. Spons., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 109–126, 2019, doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-06-2017-0050.

I. A. Aditya et al., “Understanding service quality concerns from public discourse in Indonesia state electric company,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 8, p. e18768, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18768.

D. G. Kassa et al., “Patients’ perception of the outpatient pharmaceutical service quality in hospital pharmacies with auditable pharmaceutical transactions and services in ethiopia: A cross-sectional study,” BMJ Open, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1–9, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042853.

L. He and C. Li, “Continuance intention to use mobile learning for second language acquisition based on the technology acceptance model and self-determination theory,” Front. Psychol., vol. 14, no. June, pp. 1–11, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1185851.

T. Hariguna, A. Ruangkanjanases, B. Bin Madon, and K. M. Alfawaz, “Assessing Determinants of Continuance Intention Toward Cryptocurrency Usage: Extending Expectation Confirmation Model With Technology Readiness,” SAGE Open, vol. 13, no. 1, 2023, doi:10.1177/21582440231160439.

K. K. Tiwari, S. Bhougal, and S. Kumar, “A general class of estimators in stratified random sampling,” Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 442–452, 2023, doi:10.1080/03610918.2020.1859537.

S. Bhushan, A. Kumar, S. A. Lone, S. Anwar, and N. M. Gunaime, “An Efficient Class of Estimators in Stratified Random Sampling with an Application to Real Data,” Axioms, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 576, 2023, doi: 10.3390/axioms12060576.

J. F. Hair Jr, M. Wolfinbarger, A. H. Money, P. Samouel, and M. J. Page, Essentials of business research methods. Routledge, 2015.

C. C. Ragin and S. Davey, “User’ s guide to fuzzy-set / Qualitative Comparative Analysis,” no. July. University of California Press, p. 62, 2017.

R. . Damayanti, B. Hartono, and A. . Wijaya, “Complexity, Leadership, and Megaproject Performance: A Configuration Analysis,” J. Ind. Eng. Manag., vol. 9, no. 2, p. 10, 2021.

I. O. Pappas and A. G. Woodside, “Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 58, no. January, p. 102310, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310.

D. E. Wibowo, “Ewuh Pakewuh Cultural Reconstruction to Equal Consumer Protection,” Bestuur, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2020, doi:10.20961/bestuur.41395.

A. Kuswaya and S. Ma’mun, “Misinterpretation of patience: An analytical study of nerimo concept within Indonesian Muslim society,” Indones. J. Islam Muslim Soc., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 153–176, 2020, doi: 10.18326/ijims.v10i1.153-176.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
    2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
    3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).