# Perceived Usefulness of a Mandatory Information System
## 2 Literature Review  
The exploration of information technology (IT) acceptance among users has garnered extensive interest due to the ongoing integration of advanced technologies in organizational frameworks. This significant area of study, attracting attention from both academic and practical domains, focuses on the impact of technology implementation on productivity and organizational efficiency [1; 2]. Recent studies have examined various factors influencing IT adoption, including psychological, technological, and organizational aspects [3; 4]. The technology acceptance model (TAM), notably prominent in this field, emphasizes user acceptance as a crucial indicator of an information system's success [5; 6; 7; 8]. Researchers have extended and adapted TAM to different contexts, highlighting factors such as voluntariness, performance expectancy, and user experience that significantly affect IT acceptance [9]. Additionally, cultural dimensions, particularly uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, and time orientation, also play a role in technology acceptance [10; 11]. The integration of TAM with other frameworks, such as the technology-organization-Environment (TOE) model, has been proposed to provide a more comprehensive understanding of IT adoption [4; 12]. Researchers have applied TAM to various technologies, including artificial intelligence in construction [12], health information technology in developing countries [13], and metaverse-based learning platforms [14]. The COVID-19 pandemic has further accelerated TAM research in higher education [15]. Additionally, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) remains an effective framework for understanding IT acceptance [16; 17]. This comprehensive exploration underscores the critical importance of understanding the multifaceted influences on technology acceptance to enhance productivity and efficiency in organizational settings. In organizational settings where technology use is mandated, understanding user acceptance presents unique challenges [18]. Ref. [19] highlights the complexities of technology acceptance in these mandatory contexts. Here, fostering positive attitudes towards mandated systems is essential, as negative attitudes can lead to underutilization and adverse workplace behaviors. However, TAM's applicability in such settings is debatable, given that it primarily addresses behaviors within the user's voluntary control [20; 21; 22]. Refs. [23; 24] propose that even in mandatory scenarios, the extent of system utilization is shaped by user discretion, organizational enforcement, and individual acceptance variations. Recent studies have explored technology acceptance in mandatory contexts, integrating various models to understand user behavior. The technology acceptance model (TAM) remains relevant but requires adaptation for mandatory settings [25; 26]. Researchers have combined TAM with other frameworks such as Task-Technology Fit (TTF) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to better explain adoption in mandatory scenarios [26; 27; 28; 29]. Factors influencing acceptance include perceived usefulness, ease of use, social influence, and organizational support [30]. Studies have also incorporated self-determination theory to understand motivational aspects [31]. The importance of perceived contingency and user engagement has been highlighted in AI-driven platforms [12; 25]. Additionally, research has examined technology adoption in specific contexts such as agriculture, emphasizing the need for tailored approaches [32]. Recent research on technology adoption in education and healthcare highlights various factors influencing user acceptance and resistance. Studies have explored the role of techno-eustress in IT learning [33], the willingness of students to continue using e-learning platforms [34], and barriers to e-health innovation adoption [35; 36]. Factors affecting technology acceptance include performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence [37].