See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338932071

The Intention to Use E-Commerce Using Augmented Reality - The Case of

IKEA Place

Chapter · January 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-40690-5_12

CITATIONS READS

17 7,425

2 authors:

Carlos Alves José Luís Reis

University of Minho University of Maia
7 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   1,066 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD Thesis View project

Masters Degree - Augmented Reality in E-Commerce View project

All content following this page was uploaded by José Luís Reis on 01 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Intention to Use E-Commerce Using
Augmented Reality - The Case of IKEA Place

Carlos Alves1 and José Luís Reis1,2(&)

1
IPAM, Portuguese Institute of Marketing, Porto, Portugal
carlos@3bc.pt, jreis@ipam.pt
2
Research Unit CEDTUR/CETRAD, ISMAI, Maia University Institute,
Maia, Portugal
jreis@ismai.pt

Abstract. The evolution of technologies stimulates the e-commerce market.

Recently, augmented reality has been creating significant value in the retail
sector. This study aims to analyse an application, IKEA Place, which allows
consumers to shop online using augmented reality technology without the need
for a marker to identify the surface (Markerless Augmented Reality). The model
to evaluate this study was based on the constructs of Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) and other models. The sustainability of the study is exploratory
and involves identifying whether this application aims to create more confidence
and convenience in the acquisition of a product through the support of this
technology. The study was carried out in the North of Portugal, obtaining a
convenience sampling in the Porto and Braga regions. The results concluded
that there are no significant differences based on sociodemographic data, the
operating system used, familiarity with the organization related to the intended
use. In contrast, technology changes have been found to offer consumers more
confidence and convenience of purchase. Significant results were also obtained
in terms of user experience, the preference of this application to make online
purchases over existing channels, the future use of such technologies by users to
purchase a product and the attraction of purchase regarding perceived ease of
use of the application under analysis.

Keywords: Augmented reality
e-commerce
TAM
IKEA Place
Intent to

use

1 Introduction

Virtual Reality (VR) is increasingly present in people’s daily lives, especially in

younger generations such as Gen Z and Millennials through video games. Billinghurst,
Clark and Lee state that one of the greatest opportunities for AR is to use technology
for product marketing, as marketing is intended to capture attention and provide
motivation to learn more about the product and RA technology can be used to create
memorable experiences [1]. The general objective of this investigation is to verify how
the Portuguese user makes a purchase through an augmented reality e-commerce
platform and feels confident and convenient when making this purchase.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Á. Rocha et al. (Eds.): ICITS 2020, AISC 1137, pp. 114–123, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40690-5_12
The Intention to Use E-Commerce Using Augmented Reality - The Case of IKEA Place 115

To achieve the objective of this work, a questionnaire was used for users of IKEA’s
Augmented Reality (AR) application IKEA Place, based on a questionnaire to analyze
the experience of using the application.
This article is made up of a section of outlines which applications IKEA developed
prior to IKEA Place and some related studies that in turn fostered the existence of this
article. Another section presents which constructs are used to design the conceptual
model, which authors address these constructs in their publications and the research
hypotheses that were determinant for the purpose of the study. The Sect. 4 explains the
methodology that was used in the study, including how data were collected and pro-
cessed as well as the characterization of the sample. Section 5 presents the data analyze
and the result discussion of the research hypotheses, finally, the study conclusions are
presented.

2 IKEA and Computer Applications Studies

In 1960 Ingvar Kamprad invented a different concept of furniture, being the first
organization in the industry to push for self-service, excellent design and affordable
furniture for all people [2].

2.1 IKEA Applications

Currently IKEA has 3 applications, IKEA Place, IKEA Catalog APP and IKEA
Store APP. IKEA Place is an application that aims to provide an AR experience by
placing 3D models of your products in a given space and thus allowing you to purchase
these products within the application itself. IKEA Catalog APP is an application
capable of placing the catalog that is printed on paper on a platform such as a tablet or
smartphone, thus allowing for faster product search. The IKEA Store APP is an in-store
app that gives customers the chance to plan their shopping list at home, view product
stock, scan items to add to their store. list, among other features beneficial to the
customer who purchases within an IKEA physical surface [3].
IKEA launched its first AR-based catalog in 2013 with the aim of reducing returns
from online shopping or traditional methods so that, with this new technology, the
customer through their mobile phone can see in real dimensions the products they want
to buy [4].

2.2 IKEA Studies

Of the various studies on IKEA, the study of its catalog using AR from Rese et al. who
analyzed four AR applications in order to understand the acceptance of the technolo-
gies, two of them using markers and two without using them, to point out that the
application of IKEA was in the group of marker applications. Thus, the results obtained
were satisfactory due to the robustness of the technology acceptance model [5].
Recently a study was done on an application of IKEA, IKEA AR, where the main
objective would be to verify the influence of AR on purchase intention. The study
116 C. Alves and J. Luís Reis

states that little is known about whether AR was viable in order to enrich buying
behavior and thus produce favorable results. Through an experimental methodology, it
was analyzed in generation Y where a possible purchase intention was compared
between the IKEA AR application and the existing website at the time. It was con-
cluded that using the IKEA AR application was more useful and enjoyable, providing
higher purchase intentions than the site itself [6]. IKEA discontinued this application
and launched another one about two months after the release of Apple’s ARKit.
The IKEA Place app, launched in September 2017 has over 3,200 products and the
innovation of this app is that it does not require markers to recognize the surface, thus
eliminating the need for a paper catalog and only requiring an Apple iPhone 5s or
higher smartphone with iOS 11 operating system version installed. This application is
so precise that the user can see the texture of the fabrics and with that IKEA wants to
change the paradigm of online shopping, thus creating the ease of decision making and
at the same time creating the milestone as one of the first organizations “selling fur-
niture of the future” [7].
Once installed on an iOS device, the app is intuitive since after the app’s loading
screen, handouts for using it are displayed. To add a new product, press the “+” button
and select the desired product. After that, the surface is mapped through the camera and
the object will appear. Then select where you want to place the object by dragging it to
the selected position.
In March 2018 the IKEA Place Android version was released which allows users to
securely place the 3D renderings in the app. IKEA opens a world of possibilities for
users to use this application on any ARCore compatible device [8].

3 Research Reference Framework and Conceptual Model

This section presents the practical and empirical frameworks, based on the literature
review, as well as the conceptual model for research and data collection.

3.1 Reference Framework and Research Hypotheses

Based on the literature review, the research hypotheses are a response previously
developed to support the research questions, based on studies related to the same theme
[27]. Based on the literature review, the following research hypotheses were defined:
H1. Purchasing confidence is positively related to perceived utility [14, 16, 24, 25].
H1.1. Convenience of purchase is positively related to perceived utility [14, 16, 24,
25].
H1.2. Purchase confidence is positively related to intention to use [5, 14, 16, 19, 20,
22, 24, 25].
H1.3. Convenience of purchase is positively related to intention to use [5, 14–16,
19, 20, 22, 24, 25].
H2. Intention to use is positively related to age [5, 14, 15, 18–20, 22].
H2.1. Intent to use is positively related to Gender [14, 15, 19, 20, 22].
H2.2. Intention to use is positively related to educational level [5, 14, 15, 18–20, 22].
H2.3. Intent to use is positively related to place of residence [5, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22].
The Intention to Use E-Commerce Using Augmented Reality - The Case of IKEA Place 117

H3. Intent to use is positively related to the operating system [5, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22].
H4. Intention to use is positively related to familiarity [5, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22].
H5. Intention to use is positively related to attractiveness of purchase [5, 14, 15, 19,
20, 22, 23].
H6. Ease of purchase is positively related to perceived utility [5, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22,
24, 25].
H7. Perceived utility is positively related to purchase attractiveness [5, 14, 17, 18,
20, 22, 25].
H8. Perceived ease of use is positively related to attractiveness of purchase [5, 14,
16–18, 20, 22, 24].
For the construction of the conceptual model, concepts presented in Table 1 were
obtained from the literature review, which support the research methodology.

Table 1. Main research preferences

Concept Definition Author
Augmented RA, at its core, transforms volumes of data and analysis into [9–13]
reality images or animations that overlap the real world
Perceived Degree from which an individual believes using a system [5, 14–22]
utility improves performance
Perceived The degree to which an individual believes that using a [5, 14–22]
ease of use system requires no effort
Intent to use Degree indicating the extent to which an individual is willing [5, 14–22]
to use a system
Purchase Factor that determines whether a user wants to make a [23]
attractiveness purchase
Convenience Shopping convenience is perceived as the ability to shop [24, 25]
virtually anytime from a variety of locations without visiting
a store
Ease of Avoid physical and emotional difficulties buying from other [24]
purchase channels
Confidence An individual’s willingness to believe in a transaction with [16, 26]
an entity about which he or she feels confident about his or
her intentions

3.2 Conceptual Model for IKEA Place Evaluation

IKEA Place’s evaluation model aims to analyze the experience of using the application
under analysis. The model presented in Fig. 1 is based on several models such as TAM
- Technology Acceptance Model [14, 24], TAM for online shopping [16], TAM 3 [20],
Augmented Reality Interactive Technology TAM [17] and extension of TAM to accept
augmented reality applications [5].
118 C. Alves and J. Luís Reis

Fig. 1. IKEA Place evaluation model

This evaluation model aims to verify the existence of a positive relationship

between the intention to use the application and the following factors: age, gender,
educational level, place of residence, familiarity (if the individual has already bought it
on an IKEA retail area), purchase attractiveness, purchase confidence, and purchase
convenience. As for perceived utility, conclude whether there is a positive relationship
between purchase confidence, convenience of purchase and ease of purchase. Finally,
find out if there is a positive relationship between attractiveness and perceived ease of
use and perceived utility factors.
The databases used to find the articles that support the Research reference frame-
work ar Google Scholar, Science Direct, SCOPUS and ResearchGate. The keywords
used to find the principal articles are augmented reality, interactive marketing, Ikea
augmented reality, TAM, Technology Acceptance Model.
The Intention to Use E-Commerce Using Augmented Reality - The Case of IKEA Place 119

4 Methodology

This paper aims to analyze the use of the IKEA Place application, with the objective of
verifying the intended use, perceived utility and purchase attraction, as well as ana-
lyzing the reactions of those who use it. The analysis of the use of the application was
made observing the respondents to try the application. Simultaneously, an analysis was
performed using a notebook, recording notes on the user experience. After using the
application, respondents answered a questionnaire about their experience of using
applications based on questions from various technology acceptance models.
Based on the questionnaire answered, the information was combined with the
observations made to reach conclusions with the following objectives:
General objective: Check how the Portuguese user makes a purchase through an
augmented reality e-commerce platform and if he feels the confidence and convenience
to make that purchase.
Specific objectives:
(1) Identify whether technology changes offer the online shopper more confidence
and convenience.
(2) Verify that sociodemographic factors influence a user in view of the intention to
use an augmented reality e-commerce application.
(3) Check the influence of the operating system if a user wanted to purchase a product
using an e-commerce application using augmented reality technology.
(4) Identify whether the user after physically knowing a commercial surface could
buy a product online using an augmented reality application from that
organization.
(5) Identify if the user after learning about an augmented reality ecommerce appli-
cation is attracted to buy again using this technology.
(6) Check if the user finds it easier to make a purchase with the support of augmented
reality technology.
(7) Identify if the user finds augmented reality to buy products useful.
(8) Identify whether the augmented reality e-commerce application that is easy to use
makes the user more attracted to buying a product.

4.1 Research Methods and Data Collection Techniques

For this investigation it was used quantitative methodology and qualitative method-
ology, that is, a mixed methodology was made in an exploratory study.
Given the scenario presented, for the research under analysis an exploratory study
was carried out that aims to recognize little studied realities and raise hypotheses for
understanding these realities [27]. Exploratory research aims to provide clarifications
and understandings about the object under study [28].
The data in question were quantitatively related through the data extracted from the
questionnaire based on the constructs of the TAM and other models and studies
obtained through the literature review.
The data collection typology used was a convenience sampling based on primary
data. For data collection the IKEA Place study application was used. The respondent
120 C. Alves and J. Luís Reis

was told that he would have to install the app and add a chair to his environment. The
chair name (Odger) was provided on a sheet if it did not appear on the application’s
“Highlights” screen. The respondent then proceeded to a simulation of buying the
chair. Login data has been provided (by the investigator) to reduce data collection time.
If the respondent’s smartphone was not compatible, the investigator had two pre-
prepared smartphones so that the application could be freely installed.
Data collection based on the qualitative method was based on non-participant
observation. The non-participant observation took place at the time of using the IKEA
Place application, in order to obtain participant’s user experience comments and
annotations.
Another research method that was used as a data collection technique was the
questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed on the Google Forms platform and
made available to respondents after testing the application.

4.2 Sample Characterization

The age group with the highest percentage of respondents was 56.1%, aged 25–34,
followed by 22%, ages 18–24. With the smallest number of respondents were the ages
between 35–44 years, which obtained a percentage of 9.8% followed by the age group
of 45–54 years, with a percentage of 12.2%.
Regarding the gender of the respondents, 47.6% were female and 52.4% were male.
As for academic qualifications, 67.1% hold a bachelor’s degree, 20.7% hold a
Secondary or Vocational Education degree and 7.3% hold a master’s degree. Each of
the PhD, Higher Professional Technical Course and Technological Specialization
Course items hold 1.2% of the sample.
Regarding the place of residence of respondents, it can be analyzed that the vast
majority reside in the Braga area, with a total of 69.5% and the rest in the Porto area
with a total of 30.5% of respondents.
Regarding the operating system, most respondents were iOS users with 58.5% and
41.5% were users of the Android operating system.

5 Analysis and Discussion of Results

For data analysis, we performed a descriptive analysis in order to obtain the values for
the minimum, maximum, average and standard deviation - see Table 2.

Table 2. Descriptive analysis of the data obtained

N Minimum Maximum Average Standard deviation
Ease of use 82 2,48 7,00 6,21 1,11
Perceived utility 82 2,77 7,00 5,73 1,05
Intent to use 82 2,58 7,00 5,55 1,17
Purchase attractiveness 82 2,50 7,00 6,38 0,72
Purchase convenience 82 4,08 7,07 6,59 0,57
Ease of purchase 82 2,00 7,00 6,29 0,78
Purchase confidence 82 3,68 6,93 6,19 0,56
The Intention to Use E-Commerce Using Augmented Reality - The Case of IKEA Place 121

From the information obtained the minimum value in the constructs does not vary
significantly, except for the purchase confidence that has more points and the conve-
nience of buying with two points more than the other constructs. At the maximum
value there is no significant variation because all of these have values close to or equal
to 7. The average ranges between 5.55 and 6.59 points, with a standard deviation close
to 0, which means that the error is not significant.
Based on the research questions, 8 hypotheses were validated and 6 were not
validated. Regarding the objective of verifying whether technology changes can offer
potential online shoppers more confidence and convenience according to hypotheses
H1, H1.1, H1.2 and H1.3, their validity is confirmed as respond clearly to the outcome
of their correlations. Regarding the hypotheses H2, H2.1, H2.2 and H2.3, which relate
the sociodemographic factors, with the intention to use the application under analysis,
no significant differences were found for analysis. Significant age was found only for
the age ranges between 18–24 years and 45–54 years, which is quite significant (.007)
compared to the sample obtained, which is not enough to validate this hypothesis.
Hypothesis H3 demonstrates that based on the operating system used by users,
there was no influence, because although Android has a smaller sample than iOS, both
did not show a significant difference from the intention of using the application under
analysis. The same may be true for hypothesis H4, because users made a purchase on a
retail area, in this case IKEA was not considered valid, because there was no significant
average difference from the intention to use the product. IKEA Place.
The opposite is true of hypothesis H5, which assesses whether a user, after trying
an ecommerce application, is attracted or unwilling to buy with this new technology.
Given the result of the correlation of the two constructs, it is clearly noted in relation to
the sample obtained, a great attractiveness in using the application to make a next
purchase. In hypothesis H6, the sample found that compared to the existing product
sales channels, namely the traditional trade route, the interviewed individuals found it
easier to buy a product with this type of technology. Regarding hypothesis H7, a
significant existence has been found, which allows us to conclude that the user con-
siders an AR application to be useful for future online product acquisition. Hypothesis
H8 was valid, confirming that the perceived ease of use of an application using AR
technology increases the attractiveness of the user to purchase.

6 Conclusions

The aim of this study was essentially to understand whether based on AR technology
the user would feel greater buying confidence and greater purchasing convenience
when purchasing a product online. From the results obtained in the study, users felt
greater confidence and greater convenience of purchase when using the IKEA Place
application.
Another conclusion of this study is that it is not clear whether the user after
physically purchasing a product on a commercial surface could purchase a product
online using an AR application from that organization. Thus, it is concluded that
familiarity with IKEA is not at all necessary to purchase a product through the IKEA
Place application.
122 C. Alves and J. Luís Reis

With this study it was found that users find it easier to make purchases with the help
of AR technology compared to the various existing channels. Another conclusion from
this study is that respondents recognized the usefulness of the AR technology for
purchasing products in the future, which validates that in the future they can use IKEA
Place or another similar application to purchase IKEA products.

6.1 Limitations of the Study

One of limitations of study is the Educational Level, because the majority of respon-
dents are BSc and MSc levels. Another limitation is about the studies on AR and MAR
in e-commerce are scarce. Other important limitation is about the purchase are a
simulation and not real and this factor may somewhat limit respondents’ true intent.

6.2 Future Work

To study whether the assistance in assembling furniture using this application would be
of value to both IKEA and the consumer. It would also be interesting to study the
possibility of adding “Call to action” to see if the results of this study would be different.

References
1. Billinghurst, M., Clark, A., Lee, G.: A survey of augmented reality. Found. Trends® Hum.–
Comput. Interact. 8(2–3), 73–272 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000049
2. Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., Setiawan, I.: Marketing 3.0. Book (1a). Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro
(2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118257883
3. IKEA: IKEA apps (2018a). https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/customer-service/ikea-apps/.
Accessed 22 Apr 2018
4. Dacko, S.G.: Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 124, 243–256 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.
2016.09.032
5. Rese, A., Baier, D., Geyer-Schulz, A., Schreiber, S.: How augmented reality apps are
accepted by consumers: a comparative analysis using scales and opinions. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 124, 306–319 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.010
6. Raška, K., Richter, T.: Influence of augmented reality on purchase intention: The IKEA
Case. Jönköping International Business School (2017)
7. IKEA Group: IKEA launches IKEA Place, a new app that allows people to virtually place
furniture in their home (2017). http://newsroom.inter.ikea.com/news/ikea-launches-ikea-
place–a-new-app-that-allows-people-to-virtually-place-furniture-in-their-home/s/f5f003d7-
fcba-4155-ba17-5a89b4a2bd11. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
8. IKEA: IKEA place app launches on Android, allowing millions of people to reimagine home
furnishings using AR. (2018b). https://www.ikea.com/us/en/about_ikea/newsitem/031918-
IKEA-Place-app-launches-on-Android. Accessed 12 May 2018
9. Azuma, R.: A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 6(4), 355–
385 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
10. Reitmayr, G., Drummond, T.: Going out: robust model-based tracking for outdoor
augmented reality. In: 2006 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented
Reality, pp. 109–118. IEEE (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2006.297801
 The Intention to Use E-Commerce Using Augmented Reality - The Case of IKEA Place 123

11. Feng, Z., Duh, H.B.-L., Billinghurst, M.: Trends in augmented reality tracking, interaction
and display: a review of ten years of ISMAR. In: 2008 7th IEEE/ACM International
Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 193–202. IEEE (2008). https://doi.org/
10.1109/ISMAR.2008.4637362
12. Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., Ivkovic, M.: Augmented
reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimed. Tools Appl. 51(1), 341–377
(2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-010-0660-6
13. Porter, M., Heppelmann, J.: Why every organization needs an augmented reality strategy.
Harvard Bus. Rev. 2017(November-December), 1–13 (2017)
14. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319 (1989). https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
15. Davis, F.D., Venkatesh, V.: A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the
technology acceptance model: three experiments. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 45(1), 19–45
(1996). https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0040
16. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.: Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated
model. MIS Q. 27(1), 51 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519
17. Huang, T.-L., Liao, S.: A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive technology:
the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness. Electron. Commer. Res. 15(2), 269–295
(2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-014-9163-2
18. Porter, C., Donthu, N.: Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes
determine Internet usage: the role of perceived access barriers and demographics. J. Bus.
Res. 59(9), 999–1007 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.003
19. Venkatesh, V.: Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic
motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11(4), 342–
365 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
20. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.
00192.x
21. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.46.2.186.11926
22. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2307/
30036540
23. Konzen, A.A., Pelegrini, P., Baggenstoss, S., Silva, R.T.P.: A realidade virtual aumentada
como ferramenta de atratividade de compra no e-commerce. In: XXVIII Enangrad, Brasilia,
p. 18 (2017)
24. Forsythe, S., Liu, C., Shannon, D., Gardner, L.C.: Development of a scale to measure the
perceived benefits and risks of online shopping. J. Interact. Market. 20(2), 55–75 (2006).
https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20061
25. Ghaffar Khan, A.: Electronic commerce: a study on benefits and challenges in an emerging
economy. Global J. Manag. Bus. Res.: B Econ. Commerce 1, 5 (2016)
26. Lim, W.M., Ting, D.H.: E-shopping: an analysis of the technology acceptance model.
Modern Appl. Sci. 6(4) (2012). https://doi.org/10.5539/mas.v6n4p49
27. Baptista, M.J., Sousa, C.S.: Como fazer investigação, dissertações, teses e relatórios segundo
Bolonha (4a). Pactor, Lisboa (2011)
28. Malhotra, N.K.: Pesquisa de marketing: foco na decisão (3a). Pearson Education do Brasil,
São Paulo (2011)

View publication stats