2.1 INTRODUCTION OF FOOD PANDAFood Panda is an online food ordering. In 2012, Food Panda group was founded by Ralf Wenzel, Benjamin Bauer and also Felix Plog. Food Panda group are known as global mobile food delivery which is their service allows the users or consumers to select and place the order via mobile application and websites. The head quarter of Food Panda group is in Berlin, Germany.Food Panda process begin when the users or consumers starts to order their foods. All the details will send directly to the restaurants that link to Food Panda and then they will deliver the foods to their customers. People who want to have this service can check it out in the mobile application or websites to know more about it. It is because; Food Panda group just focusing their business only by using websites and mobile application. Food Panda receive an order via mobile applications and websites. The customers will order the food by entering their postcodes and browsing for food choice. So it will help the customers to choose what they want and select the food based on that particular restaurant’s menu. The restaurant will receive the order after the customers make their own choice and they will deliver the order in estimated delivery time. Last but not least, the customers will be experience an online food ordering by using mobile application and also websites. They do not have to go to that restaurant to buy a food. They just need to make an ordering through the mobile phone and make a payment through online banking. It is very fast and quickly business service between a customers and the restaurant. 2.2 TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL ON FOOD PANDA APPLICATIONThis chapter consists of five parts which include perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, compatibility, risk and also behavioral intention that will lead to the level of acceptance in using Food Panda’s application among the customers and users in Malaysia. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) actually known as an information systems theory that people will accept and use this technology in their life.From this model, it shows that the people can get the knowledge and getting something new in order to implement and make good decision towards the new application. This study is to get know on how many Food Panda’s application users are known and familiar with this application and able to use it regularly in their daily life. Not so many people are able to try the new application especially the application that is related to the food ordering system. They are afraid and hardly attract with the application that they are not familiar with. Nowadays, Malaysian is able to accept all the technology use in Malaysia. They are trying to accept all the new things that will be use with the technology or gadget. But, for them accept all the new application especially Food Panda, it become a bit hard and difficult for them because they do not familiar with all of it. In the other countries they may be very familiar with the food application, but not in Malaysia. All this things will take some time to be acceptable and to be familiar with it. Sometimes, the new application that is just same like new trend. When the new application is release or introduce, people will find and install it into their mobile phone and quickly use it. But for the people who are not getting the information or any knowledge about that new application, they will ignore and do not take part with it. It is because they feel uncomfortable and afraid to use the new application. Even though it may help people to easily their lifestyle, they also might be afraid and unsure to use the application. They should and need to have some knowledge to encourage them to use this application. 2.3 PERCEIVED USEFULNESSFood Panda application user’s probably will gain their food ordering experience because of the usefulness of this application. This application is actually determines the user’s perception of behavior that could lead to the actual purchase. In the context of user acceptance of food application, perceived usefulness could be because of the acceptance of application towards the consumers so that they will use this application in their daily life. This will improve their quality time and this application also could give the benefits to the users. In the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) theory, one of the most important elements influencing the usage and acceptance of the technology is perceived usefulness. According to Davis (1993), perceived usefulness can be defined as “the degree to which an individual trust that using a certain specific system can encourage his or her performance of job”. The owner of the Food Panda application should be able to enhance the job performance in order to enable users to accomplish their tasks more quickly with increasing productivity and effectiveness on the job making. So, it will help the owner of the Food Panda application become easier to do their job.Davis (1986) was proved the effects of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use to provide more results by estimating these two constructs separately. Perceived usefulness is affected by perceive ease of use from what Davis (1986) were found before. Other than that, according to Wu and Wang (2005) mentioned that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use sprightly can influence attitude toward behavioral intention. Davis (1986) explains using as being a function of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use towards an attitude. He explains that attitude is significant to determine whether the potential user are actually use or not. Food Panda application is a source of the information about all the products of food for Food Panda customers. According to Kima et, al. (2014), all the information that have been viewed were act as a motive that related to usefulness and to be more specific, the information is really important to influence the attitude and behavioral intention. By using Food Panda application, it shows that the consumers have a trust and willing to use this application in order for them to make food ordering. Furthermore, perceived usefulness also will increase the job performance when it comes to the prospective user’s subjective probability of using a specific application system (Davis et al., 1989; Islam et al., 2013; Davis, 1989). Islam et al. (2013) determines that the usefulness is the perception of the behavior in order to gain specific rewards. 2.4 PERCEIVED EASE OF USE Based on Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) study, the perceived ease of use is influences by the self-efficacy. According to Moores (2012), the extent to which the system user believes that they have capability to use the system is reflects to the self-efficacy. The self-efficacy can be measured by the opinion, the skills, and also by the objective ability. So from that situation, it can be conclude that the more skills and experience with the application people use, the more they believe they are able to cooperate with the system. Then, the less skills and experience with the application people use, the less they believe they are able to cooperate with.Moreover, according to Davis (1993) the definition of perceived ease of use is “the degree to which an individual trust that using a certain specific system can be free of physical and mental effort. The ability and the effort expectancy affects perceived ease of use based on the TAM’s research (Lee & Song, 2013; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Moqbel, 2012). Perceived ease of use exerts positive feedback on perceived usefulness. “Perceived ease of use is to have a powerful direct accoutrement on perceived usefulness, since all are being same which it becomes simple and easy to use in order to enlarged job performance for the user.” (cited in Davis, 1986: 26). There are two instruments to understand the elements of perceived ease of use by which it influences intention. Firstly, according to Davis et al. (1989) and Venkatesh (2000) perceived ease of use has direct and indirect consequences via perceived usefulness. Secondly, the users should defeat for acceptance, adoption and usage of a system because it is an initial hurdle. Besides that, Wu and Wang (2005) had studied that perceived ease of use effects behavioral intention to use indirectly and indirectly effects intention to use through perceived usefulness. In addition, Islam et al. (2013) was argue that perceived ease of use is not more important to understand the user intention to adopt a particular system, which contradicts to the previous studies of Mafe, Blas and Tavera-Mesi (2010). This result could change the depending on the research of context and the other factors. 2.5 COMPATIBILITYCompatibility is the degree to which using Food Panda application is perceived with existing socio cultural values and beliefs also past and present needs of potential users for this application. Food Panda application also are aligned with the potential user’s current needs, existing values and also new experience. From that, by using this application, it will help people or consumer to be more prepared on the new technology that will realise their needs. They will become more efficient by using this application because this application is create to the consumer for them make a good choices of food.Normative or cognitive compatibility specifying to compatibility with what people feel or think about innovation, and practical or operational compatibility referring to compatibility with what people do are the two types of compatibility that explained by Tornatzky and Klein (1982). Tornatzky and Klein explained in details on the definition that defined by Rogers (1962), indicating compatibility as the degree to which using an innovation is perceived as consistent with existing sociocultural values and beliefs, past and present moments and also needs of potential adopters (Karahanna, Argwal and Angst, 2006, p. 126-127). Other than that, compatibility are able to exist or work together in combination without problems or any conflict that would be in the state of being compatible in which two or more things in one time. Other than that, the compatibility also can be test either this Food Panda application could give the good feedback to the consumer or not in order to fulfil the consumer or user’s needs. Compatibility is one of the key variables in diffusion of innovation theory. By using this application, the consumer will meet their needs of ordering the foods regularly based on their wants. So from that, this application will help the consumer or the users able to interact with the Food Panda application through the mobile phone or technology. 2.6 RISKRisk is something potential of gaining or losing. It can be gain or lost when the people who are able to accept the negative or positive risk towards what they were doing for. Based on this application, it shows that some people are able to use this Food Panda application because of their knowledge and experience. Some people do not even know this food application in order for them make an ordering without need them to be in the restaurant. Risks are actually can be planned and also unplanned. According to Kim, Ferrin and Rao (2008), risk is an individual’s trust about the hidden unpredictable outcomes from the online interactions. Food Panda application applies an on-line service to interact and communicate with their customers or the users. This situation will conduct some risk while the food are deliver to the customer or it might be complicated while make an ordering in that application for those who are not familiar with it. For example, if they do not being familiarize with this application, they might be not know how to use it. According to Al-Gahtani (2011) in on-line services, the relationship between the consumers and e-retailers are unpredictable of the on-line services consume uncertainty around the delivery and the service given. Sometimes, the perceived risk could reduce the perceptions of behavioral control from the consumers. It is because; the consumers mostly do not like to take any risk in what they are doing. So, to be safe they will not using the application especially in order for them to use and practice this food application in their daily life. But sometimes for people who are very busy and do not have so much time to go out to buy a food, they absolutely will use this Food Panda application without thinking any risk they will face after that. 2.7 BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONBehavioral intention or intention could be describing in many definition. For example, Islam et al. (2013) used a definition that was used by Ajzen (1991) and Mafe et al. (2010) before. The definition they used was “intention is assumed to attract the motivational or spirit factor that influence the behavior, they indicate on how people willing to try and how much effort they planning to achieve, in order to be in a positive behavior” (2013:826). Behavioral intention act as dependent variable in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) theory and also called as acceptance. Behavioral intention can be defined as an individual’s judgement or individual’s evaluation of their target on some things either it is good or not. Behavioral intention shows that when people have believes on their selves, they will be more confident in what they are doing such as use this application well. It also depends on their own self to make a move towards new technology and new technology. According to Saricam (2014), attitude, indirect and direct influence of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are determined by the behavioral intention that acts as the factor that predicts the usage of the technology. From the behavioral intention, it shows the feedback either it become negative or positive from the consumers or users about this study which is Food Panda application. From the cost-effectiveness, it directly influences behavioral intention which refers to what consumers give the feedback when evaluating the benefits against costs (Pagani, 2004). Furthermore, according to Venkatesh (2000), behavioral intention is attached with perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness as the subsequent attitude is connected with it. REFERENCESAjzen, I. (1991) ‘The Theory of Planned Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes’, vol. 50 no. 2, pp. 179-211. Al-Gahtani, S.S. (2011), “Modeling the electronic transactions acceptance using extended technology acceptance model”, Applied Computing and Informatics, Vol. 9, pp.47-77.Davis, F.D. (1993) ‘User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475-487.Davis, F.D. (1989) ‘User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models’, Management Science, vol. 35, pp. 982-1003.Davis, F.D. (1986) ‘A technology acceptance model for empirally testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results’ (Doctoral dissertation), Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Islam Z., Cheng Low, P.K. and Hasan, I. (2013) ‘Intention to use advanced mobile phone services (AMPS)’, Emerald, vol. 51 no. 4; doi: 10.1108/00251741311326590.Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R. and Angst, C. M. (2006) ‘Reconceptualizing Compatibilty Beliefs in Technology Acceptance Research’, MIS Quarterly, vol. 30 no. 4, pp. 781-804. Kim, D.J., Ferrin, D.L., & Rao, H.R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision support systems, 44(2), 544-564.Kima S. C., Yoonb, D. and Han E. K. (2014) ‘Antecedents of mobile app usage among smart phone users, Journal of Marketing Communications; doi: 10.1080/13527266.2014.951065.Lee, J. & Song, C. (2013). Effects of trust and perceived risk on user acceptance of a new technology service. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(4), 587-598.Mafe, C.R., Blas, S. S. and Tavera-Mesias, J. F. (2010) ‘A comparative study of mobile messaging services acceptance to participate in television programmes’, Journal of Service Management, vol. 21 no. 1, pp. 69-102.Moores, T.T. (2012). Towards an integrated model of IT acceptance in healthcare. Decision Support Systems, 53, 507-516.Moqbel, M. (2012). Understanding workplace adoption of social networking sites: Employers’ perspective. Studies in Business and Economics, 16(2), 37-54.Pagani, M. (2004) ‘When Usefulness Does Not Matter: Affective Versus Cognitive Components in the Adoption of Mobile TV Services’, International Journal of Mobile Marketing, vol. 6, pp. 5-27. Rogers, E. M. (1962) ‘Diffusion of Innovations’ (1st ed.), The Free Press, New York. Saricam, C. (2014) ‘Acceptance of apparel private sale sites by consumers: application of original and extended technology acceptance model’, The Journal of The Textile Institute; doi: 10.1080/00405000.2014.962289.Tornatzky, L. G. and Klein, K. J. (1982) ‘Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption-Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Findings’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 29 no. 1, pp. 28-45.Ventakesh, V. (2000) ‘Determinates of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model’, Information Systems Research, vol. 11 no. 4, pp. 342-365.Wu, J. and Wang, S. (2005) ‘What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model’, Elsevier, doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.07.00.