Article Sidebar

Submitted
June 8, 2022
Accepted
January 12, 2023
Published
February 15, 2023
Download
Full text PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 294 Download : 360

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The millennial generation is closely related to the Industrial Revolution 4.0, which focuses on digitalization and automation patterns in human life. There are six main barriers: usage perception barriers, perceived value barriers, risk barriers, tradition barriers, image barriers, and perceived cost barriers. Therefore, the role of universities is needed in encouraging the millennial generation to create more contemporary innovations. This study aims to analyze the negative impact of internal and external barriers that affect the low innovation of the millennial generation. The research method is quantitative exploratory, with a total sample of 274 respondents from various private universities in Semarang City. The sampling method used purposive sampling, and the data collection technique used a survey with a questionnaire designed in certain procedure. Analysis of research results using multiple linear regression, which in principle can address the hypothesis statistically and comprehensively. The results of this study are usage perception barriers, perceived value barriers, risk barriers, tradition barriers, image barriers, and perceived cost barriers have a negative significant effect on the low innovation level of the millennial generation. The importance of this research is to encourage university administrators to facilitate students to develop self-competence and create creative innovations.

Keywords

Innovation millennial generation private university digital-based information

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Febrianur Ibnu Fitroh Sukono Putra, Awanis Linati Haziroh, Risanda Alirastra Budiantoro, Selvia Puji Lestari, Tiara Daffa Arsanda

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 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-ShareAlike 4.0 International 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).
How to Cite
Putra, F. I. F. S., Haziroh, A. L., Budiantoro, R. A., Lestari, S. P., & Arsanda, T. D. (2023). AMOBA: Innovation barriers of the millennial generation. Asian Management and Business Review, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.20885/AMBR.vol3.iss1.art1
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Álvarez, R., & Crespi, G. A. (2015). Heterogeneous efects of financial constraints on innovation: Evidence from Chile. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 711–724. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu091
  2. Badri, M. (2019). Adoption of innovation online transportation application in post-millennial generation in Pekanbaru City. Jurnal Penelitian Komunikasi dan Opini Publik, 23(2), 115–128.
  3. Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2017). Why so serious? Gamification impact in the acceptance of mobile banking services. NOVA IMS – Information Management School, New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, 27(1), 118–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-10-2015-0295
  4. Berraies, S., Ben Yahia, K., & Hannachi, M. (2017). Identifying the effects of perceived values of mobile banking applications on customers. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(6), 1018–1038. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-09-2016-0137
  5. Chen, H.-S., Tsai, B.-K., & Hsieh, C.-M. (2018). The effects of perceived barriers on innovation resistance of hydrogen-electric motorcycles. Sustainability, 10(6), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061933
  6. Dedehayir, O., Ortt, R.J., Riverola, C., Miralles, F. (2017). Innovators and early adopters in the diffusion of innovations: A literature review. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(08), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617400102
  7. Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G.R., Pillai, K.G., Kenning, P., & Schütte, R. (2015). Consumer trial, continuous use, and economic benefits of a retail service innovation: The case of the personal shopping assistant. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12241
  8. Franceschinis, C., Thiene, M., Scarpa, R., Rose, J., Moretto, M., & Cavalli, R. (2017). Adoption of renewable heating systems: An empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory. Energy, 12(5), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.060
  9. Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, 25(4), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.2307/1905380
  10. Heidenreich, S., Wittkowski, K., Handrich, M., & Falk, T. (2015). The dark side of customer co-creation: Exploring the consequences of failed co-created services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0387-4
  11. Im, S., Mason, C.H., Houston, M.B. (2007) Does innate consumer innovativeness related to new product/service adoption behavior? The intervening role of social learning via vicarious innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-006-0007-z
  12. Jin, C.-H. (2013). The effects of individual innovativeness on users’ adoption of internet content filtering software and attitudes toward children’s internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 2(9), 1904–1916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.009
  13. Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Ray, A., Bala, P. K., & Khalil, A. (2021). Innovation resistance theory perspective on the use of food delivery applications. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 34(6), 1746–1768. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-03-2020-0091
  14. Tan, E., & Leby Lau, J. (2016). Behavioural intention to adopt mobile banking among the millennial generation. Young Consumers, 17(1), 18-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-07-2015-00537
  15. Lingelbach, D., Patino, A., & Pitta, D.A. (2012). The emergence of marketing in Millennial new ventures. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211206384
  16. Moldovan, S., Steinhart, Y., & Ofen, S. (2015). “Share and scare”: Solving the communication dilemma of early adopters with a high need for uniqueness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.001
  17. Moorthy, K., Ling, C.S., Fatt, Y.W., Yee, C.M., Yin, E.C.K., Yee, K.S., & Wei, L.K. (2017). Barriers of mobile commerce adoption intention: perceptions of generation X in Malaysia. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762017000200004
  18. Nygrén, N. A., Kontio, P., Lyytimäki, J., Varho, V., & Tapio, P. (2015). Early adopters boosting the diffusion of sustainable small-scale energy solutions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 4(6), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.031
  19. Ortiz-Villajos, J.M. (2017). Forms of innovation throughout time: insights from the British business elite. Innovation, 19(4), 428–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2017.1359102
  20. Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P., & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2017). Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 134-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.014
  21. Purwanto, E., Sjarief, R. & Anwar, C. (2021). The effect of the innovation resistance factors on the digital fishery platform acceptance in developing country. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 11(5), 507–518.
  22. Qin, H. & Prybutok, V.R. (2008). Determinants of customer-perceived service quality in fast-food restaurants and their relationship to customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Quality Management Journal, 15(2), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2008.11918065
  23. Radziwon, A., & Bogers, M. (2019). Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 573-587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.021
  24. Ridgway, N.M., Dawson, S.A., & Bloch, P.H. (1990). Pleasure and arousal in the marketplace: Interpersonal differences in approach-avoidance responses. Marketing Letters, 1(2), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435297
  25. Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F. Jr, Cheah, J.H., Becker, J.M., & Ringle, C.M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3), 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003
  26. Susanto, P., Hoque, M.E., Hashim, N.M.H.N., Shah, N.U., & Alam, M.N.A. (2022). Moderating effects of perceived risk on the determinants–outcome nexus of e-money behaviour. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 17(2), 530–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-05-2019-0382
  27. Terjesen, S., & Patel, P.C. (2017). In search of process innovations: The role of search depth, search breadth, and the industry environment. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1421-1446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575710
  28. Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, A., & Olesen, A. (2010). Consumer responses to ecolabels. European Journal of Marketing, 44(12), 1787–1810. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011079882
  29. Urala, N., & Lahteenmaki, L. (2007). Consumers’ changing attitudes towards functional foods. Food Quality and Preference, 18(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.06.007
  30. Venkatraman, M.P. (1991). The impact of innovativeness and innovation type on adoption. Journal of Retailing, 67(1), 51–67.
  31. Wadi, D.A., & Nurzaman, M.S. (2020). Millennials behaviour towards digital waqf innovation. International Journal of Islamic Economics and Finance (IJIEF), 3(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.18196/ijief.3232
  32. Yang, Q., Shen, Y., Foster, T., & Hort, J. (2020). Measuring consumer emotional response and acceptance to sustainable food products. Food Research International, 13(1), 108-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.108992
  33. Yoon, B., & Chung, Y. (2018). Consumer attitude and visit intention toward food-trucks: Targeting millennials. Journal of Food Service Business Research, 21(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2017.1368807
  34. Zhang, X., Yu, P., Yan, J., & Spil, I.T.A.M. (2015). Using diffusion of innovation theory to understand the factors impacting patient acceptance and use of consumer e-health innovations: A case study in a primary care clinic. BMC Health Services Research, 1(5), 55-71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0726-2
  35. Zhao, L., Lee, S.H., & Copeland, L.R. (2019). Social media and Chinese consumers’ environmentally sustainable apparel purchase intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(4), 855-874. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-08-2017-0183