All Issue

2025 Vol.62, Issue 6 Preview Page

Research Paper

A Technology Accessibility Index (TAI) to Select Appropriate Technologies for Mining Sites

광업 현장의 적정 기술 선정을 위한 기술접근성지수 개발

Sebeom Park1
,
Huiuk Yi1
,
Junhyeok Park1*
박 세범1
,
이 희욱1
,
박 준혁1*
1Mineral Exploration and mining Research Center, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Deajeon, Korea
1한국지질자원연구원 광물탐사개발연구센터
*Corresponding Author
31 December 2025. pp. 641-653
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

In this study, we propose a Technology Accessibility Index (TAI) to address the conventional limitation of relying only on performance metrics when introducing new technologies in mining. The TAI quantifies accessibility through three modules, including economic (E), operational (O), and cognitive (C) aspects with a context-based weighting rule defined by the size of a given company and the type of user considered. An item set comprising 18 positive statements is included (six per module). Responses are coded using five levels mapped to scores of 2–10 points. The total score is the calculated by integrating the means of the modules using the context weights. A normalized score that removes weighted-sum differences is also reported to ensure comparability across different sites and technologies. By transparently quantifying barriers to adoption such as costs, integration, support, and learning, the tool can support comparable and reliable decision-making to select technologies, review investments, and plan subsidy programs.

Keywords
technology accessibility index (TAI)
mining
technology adoption
decision support
evaluation tool

본 연구에서는 광업 현장에서 새로운 기술을 도입할 때 성능 지표만으로는 현장 적합성과 도입 난이도를 충분히 판단하기 어렵다는 한계를 보완하기 위해 기술접근성지수(TAI)를 제안하였다. TAI는 경제(E), 운영(O), 인지(C)의 세 모듈과 기업 규모 × 사용자 유형에 기초한 콘텍스트 가중 규칙으로 접근성을 정량화하였다. 문항 체계는 18개 긍정 진술(모듈별 6문항)로 구성하고 5단계 의미 구간을 2–10점으로 매핑하였다. 산출은 모듈 평균을 콘텍스트 가중합으로 통합하고, 가중합 차이를 제거한 정규화 점수를 병기하여 현장 및 기술 간 비교 가능성을 확보하였다. 본 도구는 도입시 비용, 통합, 지원, 학습 등 접근성 장벽을 투명하게 계량해 기술 선정·투자 심의·보조사업 기획에서 비교 가능하고 신뢰 가능한 의사결정을 지원할 수 있다.

키워드
기술접근성지수(TAI)
광업
기술 도입
의사결정 지원
평가 도구
References
1

Ajibade, P., 2018. Technology acceptance model limitations and criticisms: Exploring the practical applications and use in technology-related studies, mixed-method, and qualitative researches, Library Philosophy and Practice, 9.

2

Davis, F.D., 1986. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

3

Ediriweera, A. and Wiewiora, A., 2021. Barriers and enablers of technology adoption in the mining industry, Resources Policy, 73, 102188.

10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102188
4

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

5

Frolova, V., Dolina, O., and Shpilkina, T., 2019. Investment risk management at mining enterprises, In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 105, p. 01054), EDP Sciences.

10.1051/e3sconf/201910501054
6

Kim, Y., Park, S., and Choi, Y., 2025. A review of ICT-Level-Based applications of IoT systems in mines for smart mining, Journal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers, 62(4), p.476-491.

10.32390/ksmer.2025.62.4.476
7

Ko, D., 2019. Elderly’s intention to use wearable device: application of technology acceptance model, Journal of Sport and Leisure Studies, 78, p.347-360.

10.51979/KSSLS.2019.10.78.347
8

Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), 2025. Yearbook of Minerals Statistics, Daejeon, Korea, p.124-128.

9

Lee, A.T., Ramasamy, R.K., and Subbarao, A., 2025. Understanding psychosocial barriers to healthcare technology adoption: A review of TAM technology acceptance model and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and UTAUT frameworks, Healthcare, 13(3), 250.

10.3390/healthcare1303025039942440PMC11816427
10

Malatji, W.R., van Eck, R., and Zuva, T., 2020. Understanding the usage, modifications, limitations and criticisms of technology acceptance model (TAM), Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, 5(6), p.113-117.

10.25046/aj050612
11

Osifeko, M.O., Emuoyibofarhe, J.O., and Oladosu, J.B., 2019. A modified unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Utaut) model For E-health services, Journal of Experimental Research, 7(3), p.30-36.

12

Park, S. and Choi, Y., 2022. Current state of digital information gap in the Korean mining industry and its mitigation strategy: A case of daily work report app development, Journal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers, 59(2), p.173-181.

10.32390/ksmer.2022.59.2.173
13

Park, S. and Choi, Y., 2024. Analysis of the truck haulage system in an underground mine using long-term log data, Geosystem Engineering, 27(4), p.149-159.

10.1080/12269328.2024.2340010
14

Rondan-Cataluña, F.J., Arenas-Gaitán, J., and Ramírez-Correa, P.E., 2015. A comparison of the different versions of popular technology acceptance models: A non-linear perspective, Kybernetes, 44(5), p.788-805.

10.1108/K-09-2014-0184
15

Sithole, M.A., 2024. Drivers and barriers to the adoption of digital technologies in the mining industry in a developing country, Master’s thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

16

TerraTraax, 2025.10.23., https://www.terratraax.com/case-study/reducing-unplanned-downtime-with-terratraax?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

17

Theissen, M., Kern, L., Hartmann, T., and Clausen, E., 2023. Use-case-oriented evaluation of wireless communication technologies for advanced underground mining operations, Sensors, 23(7), 3537.

10.3390/s2307353737050603PMC10099074
18

Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H., 2008. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions, Decision Sciences, 39(2), p.273-315.

10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
19

Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies, Management Science, 46(2), p.186-204.

10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
20

Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G., 2000. Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior, MIS quarterly, 24(1), p.115-139.

10.2307/3250981
21

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., and Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly, 27(3), p.425-478.

10.2307/30036540
22

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., and Xu, X., 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, MIS Quarterly, 36(1), p.157-178.

10.2307/41410412
23

Zoccarato, F., Manzoni, M., Minotti, D., Lettieri, E., and Boaretto, A., 2024. Unveiling the interplay between rational, psychological and functional factors in continuous glucose monitoring early adoption: Novel evidence from the Dexcom ONE case in Italy, BMC Health Services Research, 24(1), 747.

10.1186/s12913-024-11195-638890619PMC11186290
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국자원공학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국자원공학회지
  • Volume : 62
  • No :6
  • Pages :641-653
  • Received Date : 2025-10-31
  • Revised Date : 2025-11-19
  • Accepted Date : 2025-11-19
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.32390/ksmer.2025.62.6.641
Journal Informaiton Journal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers Journal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers
Online Submission
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • crossref crossmark
  • crossref cited-by
  • KCI 문헌 유사도 검사
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close