In section one, qualitative analysis, a difference between companies offering service or goods was apparent. Service providers intend to increase PEOU through educational tools and easy-to-use applications; while goods merchants increase PU by offering the Bitcoin benefits of low cost transactions for their customers. When combined with the quantitative findings of section two, the users’ perspective, it can be argued that the service providers are not changing the actual usage of Bitcoin as an increase in PEOU does not significantly influence intent to use. On the other hand, the merchants focusing on increasing PU by touting the cost saving benefits of buying internationally in Bitcoin can affect the intent to use and thus actual usage.
It can be also be argued that although tools purely aimed at increasing PEOU do not significantly affect intent to use there is a correlation with PEOU and PU. Thus if Bitcoin can be made so easy to use it will carry on impacting intent. Further, companies that increase PEOU through training do not only target PEOU singularly but can also awaken the realisation of usefulness of Bitcoin simultaneously, thus producing a dual effect on both PEOU and PU.
Finally, external variables of: highest level of education attained (edu); and average time spent on the internet (internet-time) was shown to have no significant effect on PEOU. This suggests that regardless of the potential for training or exposure it will have no effect on the PEOU an individual experiences. One implication is that the sample tested is not segmented by (edu) or (internet-time) therefore companies can target other demographics with more success.
Next section: https://jl00282.wordpress.com/mba-dissertation-part-3/conclusions/company-versus-customer-perspective-perceived-usefulness-pu/
The New Exchange 