2005) or procedures (Kumar and Uzkurt, 2010). Innovativeness, is also central to understanding how professionals behave towards innovative services/products (Hurley, Hult, and Knight, 2005); it is a professional characteristic that has a major impact on their work (Jaakkola and Renko, 2007). Physicians, in particular, as noted by Glass and Rosenthal (2004) and Carter and Chitturi (2009) are not always potential innovators. What’s more they are a diversified group of professionals in terms of their approach towards technology; some of them are not technologically literate (Mitchell et al, 1996) and express a resistance to change in the work processes in which they are involved (Bhattacherjee and Hikmet, 2007) while others have significant familiarity with new technologies (Ford, McAlearney, Phillips, Menachemi and Rudolph, 2008). Notwithstanding, they all are highly educated and capable in learning new things (Mitchell et al, 1996), so innovativeness is expected to positively influence their perceptions, to the extent that the innovative service fits in their practice or improves their image (Ajami and 2013). On top of that, innovativeness is regarded as a determinant of innovation’s perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998; 1999). Finally, as previously stated, physicians are autonomous professionals whose purchase decisions are similar to those of a company’s buying center (Brown et al 2012). Like industrial managers, it is through innovativeness that they evaluate a new service and devise solutions to problems and challenges within their profession (Hult, Hurley and Knight, 2004). The professionals that are in general more innovative will be more likely to purchase innovative products and services irrespective of their perceptions of the innovation characteristics (Yi et al, 2005). On the grounds of the previous discussion, it is reasonable to formulate the following research hypotheses:
2005) or procedures (Kumar and Uzkurt, 2010). Innovativeness, is also central to understanding how professionals behave towards innovative services/products (Hurley, Hult, and Knight, 2005); it is a professional characteristic that has a major impact on their work (Jaakkola and Renko, 2007). Physicians, in particular, as noted by Glass and Rosenthal (2004) and Carter and Chitturi (2009) are not always potential innovators. What’s more they are a diversified group of professionals in terms of their approach towards technology; some of them are not technologically literate (Mitchell et al, 1996) and express a resistance to change in the work processes in which they are involved (Bhattacherjee and Hikmet, 2007) while others have significant familiarity with new technologies (Ford, McAlearney, Phillips, Menachemi and Rudolph, 2008). Notwithstanding, they all are highly educated and capable in learning new things (Mitchell et al, 1996), so innovativeness is expected to positively influence their perceptions, to the extent that the innovative service fits in their practice or improves their image (Ajami and 2013). On top of that, innovativeness is regarded as a determinant of innovation’s perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998; 1999). Finally, as previously stated, physicians are autonomous professionals whose purchase decisions are similar to those of a company’s buying center (Brown et al 2012). Like industrial managers, it is through innovativeness that they evaluate a new service and devise solutions to problems and challenges within their profession (Hult, Hurley and Knight, 2004). The professionals that are in general more innovative will be more likely to purchase innovative products and services irrespective of their perceptions of the innovation characteristics (Yi et al, 2005). On the grounds of the previous discussion, it is reasonable to formulate the following research hypotheses: