Cloud Computing (SaaS) Adoption as a Strategic Technology: Results of an Empirical Study

Research Article Cloud Computing (SaaS) Adoption as a Strategic Technology: Results of an Empirical Study Pedro R. Palos-Sanchez,1Francisco J. Arenas-Marquez,2and Mariano Aguayo-Camacho2 1Department of Business Management, University of Extremadura, Caceres, Spain 2Department of Financial Economy and Operations Management, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain Correspondence should be addressed to Pedro R. Palos-Sanchez; [email protected] Received 6 February 2017; Accepted 9 May 2017; Published 19 June 2017 Academic Editor: Jose M. Barcelo-Ordinas Copyright © 2017 Pedro R. Palos-Sanchez et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The present study empirically analyzes the factors that determine the adoption of cloud computing (SaaS model) in firms where this strategy is considered strategic for executing their activity. A research model has been developed to evaluate the factors that influence the intention of using cloud computing that combines the variables found in the technology acceptance model (TAM) with other external variables such as top management support, training, communication, organization size, and technological complexity. Data compiled from 150 companies in Andalusia (Spain) are used to test the formulated hypotheses. The results of this study reflect what critical factors should be considered and how they are interrelated. They also show the organizational demands that must be considered by those companies wishing to implement a real management model adopted to the digital economy, especially those related to cloud computing. 1. Introduction Cloud computing has attracted a lot of attention in both business and academic spheres in recent times. This is a service- and applications-related technology run in a distributed network that uses virtual resources and is accessible through networking and Internet standards [1]. Cloud computing has been developed and has evolved out of distributed, grid, and utility computing [2]. There are three main models of cloud service: Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), based on outsourcing processing and data storage equipment; Platform as a Service (PaaS), which provides developers with a cloud platform to create applications and services; and, lastly, Software as a Service (SaaS), which enables users to access their applications through a browser instead of installing software on their own computers. The last model provides centralized configuration and hosting as well as automatic updates [3], releasing users from installing and maintaining software and simply allowing them access via the Internet [4, 5]. The following stand out among the benefits for businesses that are regularly attributed to cloud computing: the reduction in software and hardware resource costs and access to services from anywhere in the world [6, 7]; the noncomplex use of cloud-based solutions [8], a scalable [9] marketoriented [10] architecture; the potential to transform business processes [11]; its potential to provide better knowledge management and a tighter link between information systems and management requirements [12] and even its ability to provide competitive advantages, given the reductions in capitaloutlayandIT-relatedoperatingandmaintenancecosts that enable resources to be redirected toward core business activities [13]. Notwithstanding, the literature also reveals that obstacles and difficulties exist in organizations’ adoption of cloud computing, such as reticence regarding information security and protection against nonauthorized access [14, 15], the absence of knowledge on the privacy capabilities of service providers [16], a lack of understanding between the organization and the cloud provider as to service scope and Hindawi Mobile Information Systems Volume 2017, Article ID 2536040, 20 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2536040 2Mobile Information Systems implementation [17], technical barriers [18], and financing problems that companies in certain sectors might have to address the required investment in technology and qualified IT personnel, especially in the case of small and medium enterprises [11, 19]. Bearing the above in mind, the present paper seeks to find the factors that determine cloud computing adoption by organizations. Numerous studies can be found in the literature that address the use of cloud systems in such companies, ranging from technical issues, such as infrastructure security through proposed new architectures and methods [20–25], efficient data management [26–28], performance and quality of service measurement criteria [9, 29, 30], and the issues surrounding interoperability standards and difficulties for their integration and customization [31–33]. In other cases, the backbone of research deals with problems more related to business management issues, such as cloud computingassociated opportunities, costs and risks [34–37], and the importance of trust and data privacy [38–44]. Notwithstanding, as will be seen in the following section, research directly related to cloud system adoption and use in companies and organizations is more scarce. Thisisthereasonwhythepresentstudyseekstodevelopa research model based on the technology acceptance literature that combines several variables proven to be relevant by prior studies. An empirical study has been conducted to test the proposed hypotheses focused on Spanish companies that consider SaaS to be a strategic technology for the execution of their activities. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: first, a review is conducted of the prior literature that begins with an analysis of some especially widespread technology acceptance models and then more specifically focuses on papers that are cloud computing-related. Said bibliographical review provides the theoretical foundations for the proposed hypotheses and the eventual proposal for a research model to be formulated. Subsequently, the empirical study methodology used to test the various hypotheses is described and the obtained results are presented. Finally, the results are discussed and the main conclusions are set out along with the study’s limitations and future lines of research. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Adoption Models. Arangeofwidelyusedtechnology acceptance models can be found in the literature that provide useful frameworks for determining the critical factors or variables that influence user ICT adoption and its use and behavior in organizations [56]. Such is the case of Fishbein and Ajzen’s [57] Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). Adopted in many disciplines, this theory explains that the attitudes toward following a given conduct are positively associated with and predict the intention to adhere to said behavior. Also, the attitudes of others toward a particular technology often influence a person’s intention to use the same technology. Ajzen [58] subsequently developed the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), adding to the TRA model the beliefs of control and perceived ease of use and behavior control. This model’s key lies in behavior intention and distinguishes between three types of belief: behavioral, normative, and control. The Davis [59] technology acceptance model (TAM) was subsequently used to find an explanation for the relationship between technology acceptance and adoption and the intentiontouseit[17].TAMproposesthatperceivedusefulness andperceivedeaseofusearethemostcriticalfactorsinthe technology adoption process and system use [60, 61]. TAM can be considered a special case of TRA in which perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are considered to be “beliefs and evaluation” that lead to attitude, which in turn leads to intention of use and, finally, to real behavior [62–64]. TAM is a widely accepted model for understanding ICT adoption and usage processes [45] and has been applied in a large amount of research into technology adoption in the organization [65]. TAM consistently explains a large part of variance in the intention of use of a variety of ICT by users in numerous environments and countries [60, 65–68]. Since it first appeared, the TAM model has been widely analyzed and expanded into different variants. Some of the most important evolutions have been the Venkatesh and Davis [46] TAM 2, the Venkatesh et al. [69] Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), for example, applied to mobile applications [70], the Wixom and Todd [71] integrated model of technology acceptance and user satisfaction, and the TAM 3 model proposed by Venkatesh and Bala [68] in the field of e-commerce. Apart from cloud system adoption and use itself, numerous recent studies can be identified within the information systems area that use TAM to explain the adoption of different technologies. Most of these add other external variables to the original TAM model that are considered to be interesting for the research. Thus, it is frequently used in studies on ERP implementation and use in companies [50, 52, 72–82], applications for e-commerce [83], file digitization systems [84], Internet banking [85], mobile social gaming [86], and e-learning platforms [62, 87–90], among many other sectors. Meanwhile the TOE (Technology-Organization-Envi- ronment [91]) framework proposes that technological innovation adoption is influenced by three aspects: organizational context (related to resources and their internal characteristics); environmental context (within which it conducts its business processes); and technological context (formed of organization-related internal and external technologies available in the market used, or not, by the organization) [92]. This is a framework for examining adoption of a range of information systems, products, and ICT services on the organizational (and not the individual) level. TOE is one of the most widespread theoretical frameworks on ICT adoption [93]. It provides a broad overview of technology adoption and application and predicts the impact on value chain activities and the subsequent diffusion of the factors that influence business decisions [39, 93–95]. However,theweaknessesoftheTOEframeworkmaybe twofold: TOE’s main constructions are not very clear and specific determinants identified within the three contexts vary across different studies [39]. Mobile Information Systems 3 SomestudiescombineaspectsoftheTAMmodelandthe TOE framework and give, as a result, that the technological and organizational variables influence perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness and that the environmental variables directly influence technology adoption. Apart from beingusedinstudiesoncloudsystems,aswillbeseeninthe following section, it is possible to identify recent studies in the information systems area that make use of TOE, many of which complement the TAM model. Thus, the literature offers studies in the area of e-commerce [96–101], e-business in developing countries [102], business systems in SMEs [55], websites [103], and Internet use [104, 105], among other things. Finally, one last widespread theory on technology acceptance in the literature is DOI (Diffusion of Innovations). PublishedbyRogersinthe1960s,withthelatestversion datingfrom2003,itseekstoexplainhow,why,andtowhat degree new ideas and technology are spreading and operating on individual and company levels. This theory states that innovations are communicated via certain channels over time and within the members of a social system [106]. Within companies, innovations are related to independent variables, such as individual characteristics and leadership, the internal characteristics of the organizational structure (centralization, complexity, formalization, size, etc.), and characteristics external to the organization. A number of recent DOI theory-related studies can be found in the area of information systems [30, 102, 107–109]. 2.2. Prior Studies on the Adoption of Cloud Computing. Focusing on the specific area of cloud computing, some studies based on theories and models such as a TPB and TAM can be found that analyze adoption and use from the end user perspective. Such is the case of Bhattacherjee and Park [110], who study the motivation of end users to migrate from the client-server model to cloud computing, and Giessmann and Stanoevska [111], who analyze consumer preferences in a PaaS method-based study. Also, based on TAM, Behrend et al. [112] examine student behavior in SaaS method cloud system adoption. Along a similar line, Wu et al. [47, 113] propose an acceptance model that combines TAM with other variables and test it in a university institution. Burda and Teuteberg [48] examine the intention of a sample of university students to use cloud storage. Based on the TAM model, some external variables are added, such as satisfaction, provider’s reputation, familiarity, risk, and trust. The study emphasizes the importance of trust to reduce uncertainty and the perception of risk, which are major obstacles for intention of use. Moqbel el al. [114] also use a sample of university students to apply a theoretical framework based, among other things, on the TRA and TAM models. Aspects are included such as compatibility, social influence, and perceived familiarity. Another recent study by Shiau and Chau [2] uses a multiple model comparison approach to examine university student behavioral intention toward cloud computing. These authors test and unify six theories which exhibited adequate explanatory power: service quality, self-efficacy, motivational model, TAM, TRA/TPB, and DOI. The number of studies directly related to research on cloud computing adoption in companies and organizations is not yet very numerous, although some can be found with different adoption frameworks. Sharma et al. [115] propose a model by extending TAM with three external constructs (trust, computer self-efficacy, andjobopportunity).Theproposedfactorswerefoundtobe important in influencing the cloud computing adoption. Some other studies propose cloud computing adoption models using TOE, with the variations inherent in this open framework and disparate methodologies, choice of variables, and results. Such is the case of Nkhoma and Dang [116] who use data from a survey to IBM to determine elements that drive or hinder cloud computing adoption. Abdollahzadehgan et al. [19] conduct qualitative research that groups a series of critical success factors for cloud computing for SMEs based on a review of prior studies. Also for SMEs, Alshamaila et al. [117] carry out an exploratory qualitative study of a sample of 15 English companies, identifying some key variables in the adoption process: relative advantage, uncertainty, top management support, geographical restrictions, compatibility, company size, external IT support, and so forth. Finally, also on the basis of the TOE framework, Yang et al. [118] propose a model to analyze the adoption of SaaS based innovations, using a sample of 173 organizations in China. Aspects such as top management support, relative advantage, simplicity, the ability to customize the software, and competitor and partner pressure were significant for adoption. Another group of studies proposes different cloud system adoption and usage models using elements of DOI Theory [30] and integrating them into the TOE framework [11, 107, 109] in some cases. The Lin and Chen [30] study is based on a semistructured survey of ICT professionals in Taiwan. Their qualitative assessment reveals that companies reject adoption until certain uncertainties related to cloud technology, such as security or standardization, have been reduced. Hsu et al. [107] combine aspects of DOI and TOE to investigate the adoption of cloud computing in Taiwanese companies. A sample of 200 companies is used to empirically test a basic model that, apart from including the intention of adoption and use, also takes into consideration price mechanisms and implementation models. These authors conclude that the expected benefits, the perceived risks and issues, ICT resources, and personnel are factors that determine adoption. Meanwhile, Low et al. [109] investigate the factors that affect cloud computing adoption in the high-tech industry in Taiwan. They collect data from 111 firms and find that trading partner pressure, competitive pressure, relative advantage, firm size, and top management support have a significant effect on the adoption. Along the same line, Oliveira et al. [11] propose a model that also combines elements of DOI Theory andtheTOEframework.Theseauthorsdistinguishthree types of adoption factors: individual factors, internal organizational structure, and the organization’s external characteristics. Results from data mined from a sample of 369 companies in Portugal indicate that aspects such as relative advantage, 4Mobile Information Systems complexity, technological readiness, top management support, and firm size have a direct effect on cloud systems being adopted in a company. Finally, the recent study by Gangwar et al. [45] develops an integrated TAM-TOE model that includes a range of exploratory features and is tested using a sample of 280 companies in various sectors in India. The authors suggest that the variables in technological and organizational contexts have a direct effect on the TAM model and, consequently, an indirect effect on adoption. The combined model proposes an indirect impact on adoption of the environmental variables. The conclusions of the study show that all the variables of the three contexts are major determinants of the adoption of cloud computing, whether directly or indirectly. 3. Research Model and Hypotheses After analyzing a number of frameworks and theories used in the various studies on technology acceptance, it was decided to use TAM in the present research with the addition to the original model of other external variables considered to be especially interesting for the present research. The choice of TAM is justified by its robustness and its widespread acceptance for understanding the ICT adoption and usage processes in a great deal of prior research. This enables authors to apply scales that have already been developed and empirically validatedonmanyoccasions.Assuch,themainconstructs that explain the attitudes toward the use of technology in the TAM model have been tested on many occasions and their useinthecloudcomputingcontextcanbeconsideredtobe both a valid and a well-supported choice. In other respects, the TAM model has frequently been expanded in many studies through the addition of other variables considered to be interesting or that have been significant in prior research. According to the original model proposed by Davis [119], the expectation is that the other factors not implicitly included in TAM influence attitude toward using (ATU) and behavioral intention to use (BIU) via perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU). The review of studies that significantly integrate TAM with other external variables and acceptance theories has therefore helped in the selection of some of the constructs incorporated in the present research’s structural model and also in the formulation of the associated hypotheses. It must be borne in mind that there is no generalizable common body of variables outside TAM to explain technology adoption that is applicable to any context [120]. Therefore, selecting some external variables to complement the original TAM model, with literature support and the adaptation of characteristics to fit this study, has been a major task in the present research. An explanation will be given in the following of all the variables included in the model and the relationships between them that have led to the formulation of the different research hypotheses.WethereforebeginwiththoseoftheTAMmodel. 3.1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Variables. The TAM model establishes causal relationships among perceived usefulness(PU),perceivedeaseofuse(PEOU),attitudetoward using (ATU), and behavioral intention to use (BIU). ATU reflects favorable or unfavorable feelings toward the use of any given technology, while BIU is the degree of prior behavior possessed when using said technology [121]. The ATU construct therefore represents the adoption of a positive or negative conduct toward an innovation and directly influences BIU. The introduction of BIU as a mediating variable is important, as it is thought that an intention always precedes a behavior and this thus increases the model’s predictive value [57]. PU is defined as the degree to which individuals believe that using a particular system would improve their performance. It would be a reflection of the subjective likelihood that when potential users use the technology, this increases their work performance within the context of an organization. PEOU, meanwhile, refers to the degree that an individual believes that the use of a particular system would be effort-free [59]. The TAM model proposes that PU and PEOU contribute to generating a positive attitude toward technology use and, therefore, have a significant influence on ATU. This last variable in turn directly influences BIU. In other respects, the model proposes that PU is also a direct determinant ofBIU.AccordingtoDavis[59],attitudesaremadeupin part by affectivity (represented by ATU), but the direct PUBIU relationship is based on cognitive decision-making rules aimed at improving work performance and has no reason to activate said affectivity. In other words, users might not like a system and might have a negative attitude toward it but will nonetheless use it, as it is perceived as advantageous for their work performance. Finally, the model also proposes that PEOU significantly influences PU. Apart from in studies by Davis himself, relationships between TAM variables have been significant in numerous prior studies on technology acceptance. On the basis of the above, the hypotheses that come from the application of the TAM model are as follows: H1. PEOU has a positive effect on PU of cloud computing. H2. PEOU has a positive effect on attitudes to cloud computing (ATU). H3. PU has a positive effect on attitudes to cloud computing (ATU). H4. PU has a positive effect on the intention to use cloud computing (BIU). H5. ATU has a positive effect on the intention to use cloud computing (BIU). 3.2. External Variables 3.2.1. Top Management Support (TMS). Top management support is broadly considered to be a key success factor in technological projects [122]. There are numerous recent studies that, with methodological differences and making use of different adoption frameworks, include top management support (TMS) among the variables that might significantly affect technology acceptance in a company [50, 55, 96, 104, 123, 124], and some of these focus specifically on the sphere of cloud computing [11, 19, 45, 109, 118]. Mobile Information Systems 5 The involvement of top management during ICT implementation is justified, first, because their broader organizational vision enables them to identify business opportunities afforded by the exploitation of said technologies [125]. In addition, as Low et al. [109] state, top management plays a major role as the implementation of cloud computing entails the integration of resources and process reengineering. Therefore, the investment that this technology involves for organizations can have major implications for organizations, which ratifies that top management must remain active during its implementation [64] and significantly influence its performance [126]. ForYangetal.[118],TMSisespeciallyimportantfor adoptingatechnologyinSMEs,whereCEOorequivalent usually has the final vision of the organization’s ICT strategy andtheinvestmentsthatderivefromit[127].Forthemajority of companies of this type, the transition from the traditional way of working with ICT to the changes involved in cloud computing is a strategic decision, and a positive attitude of company executives toward innovation will most likely favor its adoption. TMS can translate into tasks being appropriately undertaken, including system selection, process planning, policy formulation, design of a team of experts, coordination of implementation in the organization’s different centers, resource allocation and architecture definition, support for process reengineering, performance assessment, and management of the generated expectations and of organizational, cultural, and structural changes [45, 50, 128]. Some authors also insist on the need to influence the generation of positive attitudes toward technology use [129–131]. Therefore, TMS can be considered to be one of the best predictors of organizations’ adoption of innovations in information systems [132]. Top management can provide a stimulus to change, basically in communication and in reinforcing the values of innovation, as top managers have an articulated vision of the organization [133]. Along the same line, Gangwar et al. [45] conclude that top management plays an effective role in motivating employees’ work behavior and in convincing them of the importance of using cloud computing. For Bueno and Salmer´ on [50] TMS is defined as the active involvement of head managers in issues linked with the success of technology implementation. This active involvement is primarily brought to bear through leadership and ongoing contact with those who are directly linked with the ICT planning processes [64, 134]. Users tend to assimilate the management’s expectations through these measures and also perceive that an organization’s heads support its implementation [135]. This drives up employees’ favorable attitudes toward ICT [136]. In contrast, the lack of free and flowing communication between the management and the rest of the personnel could be a major problem in an information systems renovation project [137]. Taking all the foregoing into account, it seems evident that TMS demands appropriate communication about cloud systems to be led, reporting their advantages and difficulties and managing specific meetings and gatherings. As such, a direct influence of TMS on communication can be presupposed. TMS is also expected to have a positive influence on users’ perceptions of the degree to which the new system will improve their performance (PU) and of the efforts that its implementation and use will require (PEOU). The direct TMS-PU/PEOU relationship is included in different prior studies on technology adoption [45, 64, 77, 136]. We therefore formulate the following hypotheses: H6. TMS has a positive effect on communication (C) about cloud computing. H7. TMS has a positive effect on PEOU of cloud computing. H8. TMS has a positive effect on PU of cloud computing. 3.2.2. Training (T). Training is described as the degree to which a firm instructs its employees in the use of a tool in terms of quality and quantity [138]. Although continuous training during the entire useful life of an information system is always recommendable, the main training efforts are usually carried out during the first stages of its implementation [139]. Deficient end user training can be a decisive factor in a technology’s end use intention [123]. In a theoretical extension of the TAM model, Venkatesh and Davis [46] demonstrate that the training techniques and methodologies designed to improve users’ self-efficacy at the computer are essential for improving acceptance of the technology. Along a similar line, Amoako-Gyampah and Salam [49] state that perceptions of ease of use are affected by training during the first stages of learning. An organization needs to train its employees and develop knowledgefortheefficientfutureuseofacomplexinformation system such as cloud computing. This reduces the possibility of stress and provides greater motivation and a better understanding of the benefits of the cloud system for the tasks that personnel execute [45]. In short, training can have a positive effect on both PEOU and PU. Training’s influence on PEOU and PU has been clearly demonstrated in a range of prior studies of information systems, such as [49– 52, 64, 140]. As far as specific studies of cloud computing are concerned, the study by [45] addresses the direct relationship between training and both PU and PEOU. In addition, cloud technologies can be difficult to learn in a professional environment as they cover a broad gamut of techniques and parameters that have to be taken into account [30]. In these cases, training enables users to share the common problems that emerge when working with the system, and this can have the effect of improving the communication linked to same [50]. Therefore, cloud system trainingprogramssetupbythecompanyaretobeexpected to improve fluidity of communication about the systems and deal with different aspects of their use. The above analyzed aspects reveal several relationships whichleadustoformulatethefollowinghypotheses: H9. Training (T) has a positive effect on PEOU of cloud computing. H10. Training (T) has a positive effect on communication (C) about cloud computing. 6Mobile Information Systems H11. Training (T) has a positive effect on PU of cloud computing. 3.2.3. Communication (C). Communication can be defined as the information transfer process among team or organization members [141]. When a new information system is introduced, employees should be informed in advance of the scope, objectives, tasks, and updates that the implementation of the system will entail to enable them to accept the changes that will occur [142, 143]. Communication is realized through the existence of periodic meetings to discuss the new system to be adopted and through the existence of information regarding its advantages and limitations [119]. Quality communication is produced when members use a certain amount of time to formally or informally exchange information and opinions [141]. This type of communication helps distribute ideas more widely and improves knowledge transfer, especially when the information being transmitted is credible and comes from reliable sources [144]. Therefore, effective communication is needed to reduce uncertainty and the risk of confusion [141], and also the effort required to use a system [52], and helps develop the confidence and information sharing required to address changes and, in the final instance, accept the technology [49]. To the contrary, a lack of communication is directly related to the failure of many information system implementation projects [49]. For Trube and Collins [145], when communication is lacking, disputes and conflicts arise that negatively impact work performance. For their part, Lin and Chen [30] demonstrate that, from a more professional point of view, a lack of communication in the sphere of cloud computing can complicate the existent dynamic between different developers and, as a consequence, the product’s perceived end utility. Taking the above into account, and as communication is what facilitates access to information about the system’s benefits and its dissemination among all an organization’s members, it is to be expected that frequency and quality of communication improve the technology’s perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness [49, 140]. The influence of communication on PEOU and PU has been demonstrated in severalpriorstudies[49,52,140,146].Thisleadsustopropose the following hypotheses: H12. Communication (C) has a positive effect on PEOU of cloud computing. H13. Communication (C) has a positive effect on PU of cloud computing. 3.2.4. Technological Complexity (TC). Technological complexity is understood as the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use [147, 148]. Some aspects usually associated with complexity are the degree of difficulty of the skills that employees are required to have to use technologies or the difficulty of integrating these technologies into work [149]. In the specific case of cloud computing, other aspects could be the time required to execute tasks, the integration of the applications into the cloud infrastructure, the design of interfaces, or the efficiency of data transfer [45]. In short, technological complexity can influence the adoption of a cloud solution [150]. Ascomplexitycanhaveaknockoneffect,onatechnology’s perceived degree of difficulty of use, it can be supposed that it will significantly influence PEOU [151]. Several studies exist in different areas that demonstrate that complexity has an inverse relationship with perceived ease of use. This is the case of Bueno and Salmer´ on[50],Sonetal.[64],and,more specifically, the study by Gangwar et al. [45] on acceptance of cloud computing. This last study also provides evidence of a significant inverse relationship between complexity and PU. In addition, other authors concur on the negative influence that technological complexity might have on BIU, based on aspects unrelated to attitudes to the system generated by PUandPEOU.Thecloudenvironmentofferstheabilityto share resources instantaneously to adjust workload. Nevertheless, even though a company wishes to adopt a solution of this type, it must address challenges that derive from any limitations it might have due to a lack of experience or through not having the necessary ICT specialists for its implementation [11]. Furthermore, cloud systems are also a challenge to ensuring business processes and data privacy in a shared environment [152]. In other words, a company might perceive that cloud systems are useful and easy to use for employees, but their implementation entails a series of complex technological challenges that it cannot address. A number of empirical studies have proven this inverse relationship between technological complexity and behavioral intention to use [11, 124]. Taking the above into account, we formulate the following hypotheses: H14. Technological complexity (TC) has a negative effect on PU of cloud computing. H15. Technological complexity (TC) has a negative effect on PEOU of cloud computing. H16. Technological complexity (TC) has a negative effect on the behavioral intention to use (BIU) cloud computing. 3.2.5. Organization Size (OS). There are numerous prior research studies that show that organization size is one of the most important determinants of technological innovations [109]. In technology adoption studies, organization size is usually measured on the basis of aspects such as the company’s volume of business or mean number of employees. These indicators have also been used in the present research. The literature shows that small firms do not usually adopt the newest technologies [11, 153] despite being able to be more flexible and versatile when coordinating the required changes [19]andthatitisthelargestcompaniesthataremoreactive as far as innovation is concerned [54]. In fact, within the sphere of information systems, most empirical studies have consistently found that organization size is positively related toinnovationuse[39,154,155].Themainexplanationfor this lies in the fact that large companies possess greater resourcesthatenablethemtoassumetherisksassociatedwith the technological innovation adoption process [102, 155–157]. These companies’ financial resources enable them to bear Mobile Information Systems 7 Management support (TMS) Communication (C) Training (T) Technological complexity (TC) Perceived usefulness (PU) Organization size (OS) Perceived ease to use (PEOU) Attitude toward using (ATU) Behavioral intention to use (BIU) H8 H6 H10 H1 H7 H9 H2 H4 H17 H16 H17 H Model of adoption TAM H14 H19 H18 H3 H11 H13 H5 H15 H12 Figure 1: Research model. the costs associated with installation, integration, personnel training, and maintenance, among other things [107]. Organization size is, therefore, another organizational factor that can influence the adoption of cloud computing, apart from company attitudes. Its direct relationship with BIU has been demonstrated in a number of recent studies in the field [11, 109]. In other regards, the influence of organization size on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use has been examined to a more limited extent. However, according to the original TAM model proposed by Davis [59], external variablescanbeexpectedtoindirectlyinfluenceATUandBIU via PEOU and PU. Taking the above into account, we propose the following hypotheses: H17. Organization size (OS) significantly influences PU of cloud computing. H18. Organization size (OS) significantly influences PEOU of cloud computing. H19. Organization size (OS) has a positive effect on the behavioral intention to use (BIU) cloud computing. On the basis of all the above, the research model proposedinthepresentresearchisshowninFigure1. 4. Research Methodology 4.1. Measurement. A questionnaire was prepared to assess theproposedmodelaimedatfirmsinavarietyofeconomic sectors located in the Andalusian Autonomous Community (Spain). All these firms are characterized by using cloud computing (SaaS model) as a strategic tool in their activities. The questionnaire was developed by the researchers in collaboration with and monitored by information systems experts at the same university. The items in the questionnaire were based on a review of previous studies on technology adoption. Table 1 gives all the items used to measure each of the variables in the model together with the main prior research studies used as sources. All constructs were measured using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). The only exception was the construct relating to organization size, for which two indicators commonly used for its measurement wereused:numberofemployeesandannualbusinessvolume [39, 154, 155]. The questionnaire was piloted in 22 organizations not included in the subsequent sample. The respondents filled out the questionnaire and gave feedback on the difficulty and clarity of the proposed questions. This preliminary test confirmed the validity and reliability of the scales used in the final questionnaire. 4.2. Data Collection. After contacting business organizations in the IT sector in Andalusia, a number of Chambers of Commerce in the region, and public initiatives designed to foment migration to and use of business cloud computing solutions, we obtained a census of 615 Andalusian companies in different economic sectors that regularly use SaaS and for which the technology is a strategic tool in the execution of their activities. All these firms were contacted and sent the questionnaire online backed up with telephone supervision. Afinalnumberof161questionnaireswereobtainedof which 150 were considered valid and suitable for testing the proposed technological model. The questionnaire was answered by the people with the greatest knowledge of the cloud computing adoption process in the organizations, irrespective of their positions in the 8Mobile Information Systems Table 1: Operationalization of constructs. Construct Items Adapted Perceived usefulness (PU1) Using cloud computing enables tasks to be completed more quickly. [45–47] (PU2) Using cloud computing improves work performance. (PU3) Using cloud computing increases work productivity. (PU4) Using cloud computing boosts work effectiveness. Perceived ease of use (PEU1) Interaction with cloud computing services is clear and easily understood. [45, 46, 48] (PEU2) Working with cloud computing does not require much mental effort. (PEU3) Cloud computing services are easy to use. (PEU4) What you want to do can be easily found in cloud computing services. Attitude toward using (ATU1) Cloud computing provides access to most data. [49, 50] (ATU2) Cloud computing is better than the previous information system in the company. (ATU3) Cloud computing provides accurate information. (ATU4) Cloud computing provides integrated, timely, and reliable information. Behavioral intention to use (BIU1) The company expects the cloud computing services to be used. [47, 50] (BIU2) The company expects the information provided by the new cloud computing-based system to be useful. Top management support (TMS1) Top management is interested in cloud computing. [11, 45, 50] (TMS2) Top management understands the importance of cloud computing. (TMS3) Top management supports the implementation of cloud computing. (TMS4) Top management understands the opportunities provided by cloud computing. Training (T1) Full training was received on cloud computing services. [45, 49, 51, 52] (PT2) Received training gives confidence in the cloud computing system. (PT3) Training on cloud computing was sufficiently broad and detailed. (PT4) The trainers were knowledgeable of cloud computing services and passed their knowledge on to employees. Communication (C1) There is fluid communication regarding cloud computing services. [49, 50, 52] (C2) There are no obstacles to addressing the topic of cloud computing. (C3) Honest information was received about cloud computing services. Technological complexity (TC1) It is hard to understand what cloud computing services do. [11, 53] (TC2) Using cloud computing services takes up too much time. (TC3) A lot of effort is required to learn how to use cloud computing services. (CT4) In general, cloud computing is very complex to use. Organization size (OS1) Please indicate the annual business volume in the organization. [11, 54, 55] (OS2) Please indicate the number of employees in the organization. companies (directors, chief information officers, IT managers, etc.). Thus a “key informants” methodology for data collection was used. This is a common focus in information systems-related empirical analyses [9, 11]. A series of recommendations were followed during the design of the study questionnaire to avoid the common method bias associated with the responses given to a range of different questionnaire questions [158, 159]. First, clear, concise questions were asked using very familiar terms for respondents. Second, confidentiality of responses was guaranteed so that respondents could answer honestly. Lastly, random changes were made to the order in which some of the questions were asked. After data collection, the Harman single factor test was used as a common method bias after control measure [160–162]. The test detected no single factor that could explain most of the total variance, which suggests that abiasisveryunlikely. 4.3. Data Analysis Method. With respect to testing the conceptual model’s hypotheses, the Partial Least Squares (PLS) techniquewasappliedtoestimatevariance-basedstructural equations models (SEM). SmartPLS 3 software [163] was chosen to assess reliability and validity of the measurement model and to test the structural model, both for its graphic resolution capacity and for the set of applied statistical methods. SEM are a good choice when seeking to find the simultaneous behavior of dependence relationships and enable us to go further than other multivariate techniques, such as multiple regression and factor analysis [164]. Mobile Information Systems 9 Table 2: Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. Constructs Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability (CR) Attitude toward using 0.871 0.912 Top management support 0.930 0.951 Technological complexity 0.899 0.930 Communication 0.795 0.878 Training 0.966 0.975 Behavioral intention to use 0.800 0.908 Perceived ease of use 0.884 0.920 Perceived usefulness 0.934 0.953 Organization size 0.832 0.919 Table 3: Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of each construct. Constructs AVE Attitude toward using 0.722 Top management support 0.828 Technological complexity 0.769 Communication 0.706 Training 0.908 Behavioral intention to use 0.832 Perceived ease of use 0.742 Perceived usefulness 0.836 Organization size 0.849 PLS was chosen for several reasons: first, PLS does not impose normality requisites on the data and is a technique that is indicated for predicting dependent variables in small samples, given a certain degree of quality in the measurement model [165, 166]. Thus, it adapts well to our final 150- organization sample. In addition, PLS is more appropriate when the objective is to predict and investigate relatively new phenomena [167], as is the case of cloud computing. Finally, PLS is a widely used SEM assessment method in business management research on information systems [168–170] and on cloud computing [11, 54, 118]. 5. Results 5.1. Measurement Model. Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite Reliability (CR) were used to measure construct reliability. These enable construct reliability consistency to be measured on the basis of its indicators [171], that is, the rigor with which these items are measuring the same latent variable. Values nearer to 1 indicate greater reliability. Table 2 gives the calculations of the two coefficients for all the model constructs. As can be observed, all the alpha coefficients present values much greater than 0.7, which is the bottom threshold that is usually set for accepting construct reliability[172].CRcoefficientsconfirmthatalltheconstructs have great internal consistency as they present values between 0.878 and 0.975, which are well above the minimum required level of 0.7 [173, 174]. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) was used to assess convergent validity (see Table 3). This provides information about the amount of variance a construct manages to obtain from its indicators compared to the amount of variance due to measurement error [175]. Discriminant validity indicates the degree to which a given construct is different from other constructs. To determine discriminant validity, first the analysis shown in Table 4 was performed. This consisted of testing that each construct’s AVE square root (in the diagonal in the table) is greater than the correlation between the construct in question and the remaining constructs in the model [175]. As can be observed, this requisiteiscompliedwithinallcases. The second analysis for discriminant validity consists of validating the cross-loadings matrix of all the indicators with their respective constructs. Loads (𝜆) indicate correlations between the scores of a construct and its indicators. Crossloadings reflect the correlations between a construct’s scores and the scores of other constructs’ indicators [176]. If a measure loads more strongly on other constructs than its own, its inclusion has to be reconsidered, as it is not clear which construct it is reflecting. Each item set should be expected to load more on it respective constructs than on the indicators of other constructs. As Table 5 shows, all items achieve a higher value with their own construct than the other latent variables. From this point of view, discriminant validity would also be achieved in all cases. The second analysis for discriminant validity consists of validating the cross-loadings matrix of all the indicators with their respective constructs. Loads (𝜆) indicate correlations between the scores of a construct and its indicators. Crossloadings reflect the correlations between a construct’s scores and the scores of other constructs’ indicators [176]. If a measure loads more strongly on other constructs than its own,itsinclusionhastobereconsidered,asitisnotclear which construct it is reflecting. Each item set should be expected to load more on its respective constructs than on the indicators of other constructs. As Table 5 shows, all items achieveahighervaluewiththeirownconstructthantheother latent variables. From this point of view, discriminant validity wouldalsobeachievedinallcases. Finally, with respect to the individual reliability of each construct’s reflective indicators, as can be seen in Table 5, all the items have high loads (𝜆) and do not need to be filtered. A manifest variable’s communality (𝜆2)isthepartofitsvariance thatisexplainedbyafactororconstruct[177].Avalueof 𝜆 >= 0.707 indicates that each measure represents at least 50% (0.7072 = 0.5) of underlying construction variance [176], whereby it is common to set this value as a minimum level for its acceptance as part of the construct [178]. All the loadings of all the items included in the research model are observed to be above this threshold and can therefore be considered reliable. 5.2. Structural Model. With the measurement model shown to have adequate reliability and validity levels, the structural model is analyzed. During this stage, the hypotheses are tested to find whether they obey the established relationships between the various constructs of the proposed research model [176, 179–181]. 16 Mobile Information Systems [43] M. Walterbusch, B. Martens, and F. Teuteberg, “Evaluating cloud computing services from a total cost of ownership perspective,” Management Research Review,vol.36,no.6,pp. 613–638, 2013. [44] S. Singh, Y. Jeong, and J. H. Park, “A survey on cloud computing security:Issues,threats,andsolutions,”Journal of Network and Computer Applications,vol.75,pp.200–222,2016. [45] H. Gangwar, H. Date, and R. Ramaswamy, “Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model,” Journal of Enterprise Information Management,vol.28,no.1,pp.107–130,2015. [46] V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies,” Management Science, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 186–204, 2000. [47] W.-W. Wu, “Developing an explorative model for SaaS adoption,” Expert Systems with Applications,vol.38,no.12,pp.15057– 15064, 2011. [48]D.BurdaandF.Teuteberg,“Theroleoftrustandriskperceptions in cloud archiving - Results from an empirical study,” Journal of High Technology Management Research,vol.25,no.2, pp.172–187,2014. [49] K. Amoako-Gyampah and A. F. Salam, “An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment,” Information and Management,vol.41,no.6,pp.731– 745, 2004. [50] S. Bueno and J. L. Salmeron, “TAM-based success modeling in ERP,” Interacting with Computers,vol.20,no.6,pp.515–523, 2008. [51] M. Dolores Gallego, S. Bueno, F. Jos´ e Racero, and J. Noyes, “Open source software: The effects of training on acceptance,” Computers in Human Behavior,vol.49,pp.390–399,2015. [52] D. Lee, S. M. Lee, D. L. Olson, and S. H. Chung, “The effect of organizational support on ERP implementation,” Industrial Management and Data Systems,vol.110,no.2,pp.269–283,2010. [53] M. K. Chang and W. Cheung, “Determinants of the intention to use Internet/WWW at work: A confirmatory study,” Information and Management,vol.39,no.1,pp.1–14,2001. [54] C. M. Messerschmidt and O. Hinz, “Explaining the adoption of grid computing: An integrated institutional theory and organizational capability approach,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 137–156, 2013. [55] B. Ramdani, P. Kawalek, and O. Lorenzo, “Predicting SMEs’ adoption of enterprise systems,” Journal of Enterprise Information Management,vol.22,no.1,pp.10–24,2009. [56] N. Oly Ndubisi and M. Jantan, “Evaluating IS usage in Malaysian small and medium-sized firms using the technology acceptance model,” Logistics Information Management,vol.16, no. 6, pp. 440–450, 2003. [57] M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, Belief, Attitude Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, USA, 1975. [58] I. Ajzen, From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1985. [59] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly,vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–339, 1989. [60] Y. Au and H. Zafar, A Multi-Country Assessment of Mobile Payment Adoption, Working Paper Series No. 0055IS-296-2008. College of Business, College of Business, University of Texas, SanAntonio,Tex,USA,2008. [61] L.-D. Chen and J. Tan, “Technology adaptation in E-commerce: key determinants of virtual stores acceptance,” European Management Journal,vol.22,no.1,pp.74–86,2004. [62] R. Cheung and D. Vogel, “Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: an extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning,” Computers and Education,vol.63,pp. 160–175, 2013. [63] J. Joo and Y. Sang, “Exploring Koreans’ smartphone usage: An integrated model of the technology acceptance model and uses and gratifications theory,” Computers in Human Behavior,vol. 29,no.6,pp.2512–2518,2013. [64] H. Son, Y. Park, C. Kim, and J.-S. Chou, “Toward an understanding of construction professionals’ acceptance of mobile computing devices in South Korea: An extension of the technology acceptance model,” Automation in Construction,vol.28,pp.82– 90, 2012. [65] D. Gefen, E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub, “Trust and tam in online shopping: an integrated model,” MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems,vol.27,no.1,pp.51–90,2003. [66] P. Legris, J. Ingham, and P. Collerette, “Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model,” Information & Management,vol.40,no.3, pp.191–204,2003. [67]S.Hong,J.Y.L.Thong,andK.Y.Tam,“Understandingcontinued information technology usage behavior: a comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet,” Decision Support Systems,vol.42,no.3,pp.1819–1834,2006. [68] V. Venkatesh and H. Bala, “Technology acceptance model 3 and aresearchagendaoninterventions,”Decision Sciences,vol.39, no. 2, pp. 273–315, 2008. [69] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems,vol.27,no.3, pp. 425–478, 2003. [70] S. Gao, J. Krogstie, and K. Siau, “Adoption of mobile information services: an empirical study,” Mobile Information Systems,vol. 10,no.2,pp.147–171,2014. [71] B. H. Wixom and P. A. Todd, “A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance,” Information Systems Research,vol.16,no.1,pp.85–102,2005. [72] J. Bradley and C. C. Lee, “ERP training and user satisfaction: acasestudy,”International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems,vol.3,no.4,pp.33–50,2007. [73] F. Calisir, C. Altin Gumussoy, and A. Bayram, “Predicting the behavioral intention to use enterprise resource planning systems: an exploratory extension of the technology acceptance model,” Management Research News,vol.32,no.7,pp.597–613, 2009. [74] K.-Y. Kwahk and J.-N. Lee, “The role of readiness for change in ERP implementation: theoretical bases and empirical validation,” Information and Management,vol.45,no.7,pp.474–481, 2008. [75] M. Mayeh, T. Ramayah, and A. Mishra, “The role of absorptive capacity, communication and trust in ERP adoption,” Journal of Systems and Software,vol.119,pp.58–69,2016. [76] C. A. Rajan and R. Baral, “Adoption of ERP system: An empirical study of factors influencing the usage of ERP and its impact on end user,” IIMB Management Review,vol.27,no.2, pp.105–117,2015. [77] Y.-Y. Shih and S.-S. Huang, “The actual usage of ERP systems: an extended technology acceptance perspective,” Journal of Mobile Information Systems 17 Research and Practice in Information Technology,vol.41,no.3, pp. 263–276, 2009. [78] S. L. Shivers-Blackwell and A. C. Charles, “Ready, set, go: Examining student readiness to use ERP technology,” Journal of Management Development, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 795–805, 2006. [79] S. Sternad and S. Bobek, “Impacts of TAM-based external factors on ERP acceptance,” Procedia Technology,vol.9,pp.33– 42, 2013. [80] Y. Sun, A. Bhattacherjee, and Q. Ma, “Extending technology usage to work settings: The role of perceived work compatibility in ERP implementation,” Information and Management,vol.46, no.6,pp.351–356,2009. [81] F.-M. E. Uzoka, R. O. Abiola, and R. Nyangeresi, “Influence of product and organizational constructs on ERP acquisition using an extended technology acceptance model,” International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems,vol.4,no.2,pp.67– 84, 2008. [82] E. Youngberg, D. Olsen, and K. Hauser, “Determinants of professionally autonomous end user acceptance in an enterprise resource planning system environment,” International Journal of Information Management,vol.29,no.2,pp.138–144,2009. [83] S. Agrebi and J. Jallais, “Explain the intention to use smartphones for mobile shopping,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,vol.22,pp.16–23,2015. [84] J.-C. Hong, M.-Y. Hwang, H.-F. Hsu, W.-T. Wong, and M.-Y. Chen, “Applying the technology acceptance model in a study of the factors affecting usage of the Taiwan digital archives system,” Computers and Education,vol.57,no.3,pp.2086–2094,2011. [85] H. S. Yoon and L. M. Barker Steege, “Development of a quantitative model of the impact of customers’ personality and perceptions on Internet banking use,” Computers in Human Behavior,vol.29,no.3,pp.1133–1141,2013. [86]H.Chen,W.Rong,X.Ma,Y.Qu,andZ.Xiong,An extended technology acceptance model for mobile social gaming service popularity analysis, Mobile Information Systems, 2017. [87] R. A. S´ anchezandA.D.Hueros,“Motivationalfactorsthat influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM,” Computers in Human Behavior,vol.26,no.6,pp.1632–1640,2010. [88] D. Y. Lee and M. R. Lehto, “User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model,” Computers and Education,vol.61,no.1,pp.193–208, 2013. [89] Y.-W. Liao, Y.-M. Huang, H.-C. Chen, and S.-H. Huang, “Exploring the antecedents of collaborative learning performance over social networking sites in a ubiquitous learning context,” Computers in Human Behavior,vol.43,pp.313–323, 2015. [90] A. Tarhini, K. Hone, and X. Liu, “The effects of individual differences on e-learning users’ behaviour in developing countries: A structural equation model,” Computers in Human Behavior,vol. 41, pp. 153–163, 2014. [91] L. Tornatzky and M. Fleischer, The Process of Technology Innovation, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass, USA, 1990. [92] J. Baker, “The technology–organization–environment framework,” in Information Systems Theory,vol.28ofIntegrated Series in Information Systems, pp. 231–245, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2012. [93] K. Zhu, K. Kraemer, S. Xu, and J. Dedrick, “Information technology payoff in E-Business environments: An international perspective on value creation of E-Business in the financial services industry,” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol.21,no.1,pp.17–54,2004. [94] H.-F. Lin and S.-M. Lin, “Determinants of e-business diffusion: A test of the technology diffusion perspective,” Technovation, vol.28,no.3,pp.135–145,2008. [95] M. I. Salwani, G. Marthandan, M. D. Norzaidi, and S. C. Chong, “E-commerce usage and business performance in the Malaysian tourism sector: empirical analysis,” Information Management and Computer Security,vol.17,no.2,pp.166–185,2009. [96] A. Y. L. Chong, N. Darmawan, K. B. Ooi, and V. H. Lee, “Determinants of 3G adoption in Malaysia: A structural analysis,” Journal of Computer Information Systems,vol.51,pp.71–80,2011. [97]M.Ghobakhloo,M.S.Sabouri,S.H.Tang,andN.Zulkifli, “Information technology adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises: an appraisal of two decades literature,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, vol. 1, pp. 53–80, 2011. [98] R. Klein, “Assimilation of Internet-based purchasing applications within medical practices,” Information and Management, vol. 49, no. 3-4, pp. 135–141, 2012. [99] M. Liu, “Wireless communications, networking and mobile computing,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference, (WiCOM’08),pp.12–14,2008. [100] A. Scupola, “The adoption of internet commerce by SMEs in the South of Italy: an environmental, technological and organizational perspective,” Journal of Global Information Technology Management,vol.6,no.1,pp.52–71,2014. [101] A. Seyal, M. M. Awais, S. Shamail, and A. Abbas, “Determinants of electronic commerce in Pakistan: preliminary evidence from small and medium enterprises,” Electronic Markets,vol.14,no. 4, pp. 372–387, 2004. [102]K.Zhu,K.L.Kraemer,andS.Xu,“Theprocessofinnovation assimilation by firms in different countries: A technology diffusion perspective on e-business,” Management Science,vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 1557–1576, 2006. [103] T. Oliveira and M. Martins, “A comparison of web site adoption in small and large Portuguese firms,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Business, Porto, Portugal, 2008. [104] S. S. Alam, “Adoption of internet in Malaysian SMEs,” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,vol.16,no.2,pp. 240–255, 2009. [105] M. Tan and T. S. H. Teo, “Factors influencing the adoption of the internet,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce,vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 5–18, 1998. [106] E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY, USA, 4th edition, 1995. [107] P.-F. Hsu, S. Ray, and Y.-Y. Li-Hsieh, “Examining cloud computing adoption intention, pricing mechanism, and deployment model,” International Journal of Information Management,vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 474–488, 2014. [108] Y. H. Li, “An empirical investigation on the determinants of eprocurement adoption in Chinese manufacturing enterprises,” in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Management Science Engineering (Vols I and II),pp.32–37,LongBeach, Calif, USA, 2008. [109] C. Low, Y. Chen, and M. Wu, “Understanding the determinants of cloud computing adoption,” Industrial Management and Data Systems, vol. 111, no. 7, pp. 1006–1023, 2011. [110] A. Bhattacherjee and S. C. Park, “Why end-users move to the cloud: a migration-theoretic analysis,” European Journal of Information Systems,vol.23,no.3,pp.357–372,2014. [111] A. Giessmann and K. Stanoevska, “Platform as a service: a conjoint study on consumers’ preferences,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, (ICIS’12),pp. 2800–2819, Orlando, Fla, USA, December 2012. 18 Mobile Information Systems [112] T. S. Behrend, E. N. Wiebe, J. E. London, and E. C. Johnson, “Cloud computing adoption and usage in community colleges,” Behaviour and Information Technology,vol.30,no.2,pp.231– 240, 2011. [113] Y. Wu, C. G. Cegielski, B. T. Hazen, and D. J. Hall, “Cloud computing in support of supply chain information system infrastructure: Understanding when to go to the cloud,” Journal of Supply Chain Management,vol.49,no.3,pp.25–41,2013. [114] M. Moqbel, V. Bartelt, and M. Al-Suqri, “A study of personal cloud computing: compatibility, social influence, and moderating role of perceived familiarity,” in Proceedings of the 20th Americas Conference on Information Systems, (AMCIS’14), Savannah, Ga, USA, August 2014. [115] S. K. Sharma, A. H. Al-Badi, S. M. Govindaluri, and M. H. Al-Kharusi, “Predicting motivators of cloud computing adoption: A developing country perspective,” Computers in Human Behavior,vol.62,pp.61–69,2016. [116] M. Nkhoma and D. Dang, “Contributing factors of cloud computing adoption: a technology-organisation-environment framework a roach,” International Journal of Information Systems and Engineering,vol.1,no.1,pp.38–49. [117] Y. Alshamaila, S. Papagiannidis, and F. Li, “Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the north east of England: a multiperspective framework,” Journal of Enterprise Information Management,vol.26,no.3,pp.250–275,2013. [118] Z. Yang, J. Sun, Y. Zhang, and Y. Wang, “Understanding SaaS adoption from the perspective of organizational users: A tripod readiness model,” Computers in Human Behavior,vol.45,pp. 254–264, 2015. [119] R. A. Dos Reis and M. Do Carmo Duarte Freitas, “Critical factors on information technology acceptance and use: An analysis on small and medium Brazilian clothing industries,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Technology and Quantitative Management, ITQM 2014,pp.105– 114, June 2014. [120] H.Gangwar,H.Date,andA.D.Raoot,“ReviewonITadoption: Insights from recent technologies,” Journal of Enterprise Information Management,vol.27,no.4,pp.488–502,2014. [121] S. Taylor and P. A. Todd, “Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models,” Information Systems Research,vol.6,no.2,pp.144–176,1995. [122] M. H. Shah and F. A. Siddiqui, “Organisational critical success factors in adoption of e-banking at the Woolwich bank,” International Journal of Information Management,vol.26,no. 6, pp. 442–456, 2006. [123] M. Ghobakhloo, D. Arias-Aranda, and J. Benitez-Amado, “Adoption of e-commerce applications in SMEs,” Industrial Management and Data Systems, vol. 111, no. 8, pp. 1238–1269, 2011. [124] M.-C. Tsai, W. Lee, and H.-C. Wu, “Determinants of RFID adoption intention: evidence from Taiwanese retail chains,” Information and Management,vol.47,no.5-6,pp.255–261,2010. [125] C. S. Yap, “Issues in managing information technology,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 649–658, 1989. [126] B.S.Ragu-Nathan,C.H.Apigian,T.S.Ragu-Nathan,andQ.Tu, “Apathanalyticstudyoftheeffectoftopmanagementsupport for information systems performance,” Omega,vol.32,no.6,pp. 459–471, 2004. [127] M. Bradford and J. Florin, “Examining the role of innovation diffusion factors on the implementation success of enterprise resource planning systems,” International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,vol.4,no.3,pp.205–225,2003. [128] S.-H. Jang, “An empirical study on the factors influencing RFID adoption and implementation,” Management Review: An International Journal,vol.5,no.2,pp.55–73,2010. [129] H. Barki and J. Hartwick, “Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude,” MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems,vol.18,no.1,pp.59–79,1994. [130] J.Y.L.Thong,C.-S.Yap,andK.S.Raman,“TopManagement Support, External Expertise and Information Systems ImplementationinSmallBusinesses,”Information Systems Research, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 248–267, 1996. [131] C. Yap, C. Soh, and K. Raman, “Information systems success factors in small business,” Omega,vol.20,no.5-6,pp.597–609, 1992. [132] A. Jeyaraj, J. W. Rottman, and M. C. Lacity, “A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research,” Journal of Information Technology,vol.21,no.1,pp. 1–23, 2006. [133] J. Y. L. Thong, “An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses,” Journal of Management Information Systems,vol.15,no.4,pp.187–214,1999. [134] M. Al-Mashari, A. Al-Mudimigh, and M. Zairi, “Enterprise resource planning: A taxonomy of critical factors,” European Journal of Operational Research,vol.146,no.2,pp.352–364, 2003. [135] E. Karahanna, D. W. Straub, and N. L. Chervany, “Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs,” MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 183–213, 1999. [136] M.Igbaria,N.Zinatelli,P.Cragg,andA.L.M.Cavaye,“Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A structural equation model,” MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, vol.21,no.3,pp.279–301,1997. [137] T. S. H. Teo and J. S. K. Ang, “An examination of major IS planning problems,” International Journal of Information Management,vol.21,no.6,pp.457–470,2001. [138] N. Schillewaert, M. J. Ahearne, R. T. Frambach, and R. K. Moenaert, “The adoption of information technology in the sales force,” Industrial Marketing Management,vol.34,no.4,pp.323– 336, 2005. [139] E. J. Umble, R. R. Haft, and M. M. Umble, “Enterprise resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical success factors,” European Journal of Operational Research,vol.146,no.2, pp. 241–257, 2003. [140] I. M. Al-Jabri, “Antecedents of user satisfaction with ERP systems: mediation analyses,” Kybernetes,vol.44,no.1,pp.107– 123, 2015. [141] J. S.-C. Hsu, S.-P. Shih, J. C. Chiang, and J. Y.-C. Liu, “The impact of transactive memory systems on IS development teams’ coordination, communication, and performance,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 329–340, 2012. [142] F. Fui-Hoon Nah, J. Lee-Shang Lau, and J. Kuang, “Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems,” Business Process Management Journal,vol.7,no.3,pp.285–296, 2001. [143] M. Sumner, “Critical success factors in enterprise wide information management systems projects,” in Proceedings of the 1999 ACMSIGCPRconference, pp. 297–303, New Orleans, La, USA, April 1999. Mobile Information Systems 19 [144] C. Soh, S. S. Kien, and J. Tay-Yap, “Cultural fits and misfits: Is ERP a universal solution?” Communications of the ACM,vol. 43,no.4,pp.47–51,2000. [145]T.C.TubreandJ.M.Collins,“Jacksonandschuler(1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance,” Journal of Management,vol.26,no.1,pp.155–169,2000. [146]O.KerimogluandN.Basoglu,“Aframeworkforunderstanding adoption of organizational enterprise resource planning systems. Picmet Conference,” in Proceedings of the Picmet Conference, Portland, Ore, USA, 2005. [147] E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY, USA, 5th edition, 2003. [148] D. H. Sonnenwald, K. L. Maglaughlin, and M. C. Whitton, “Using innovation diffusion theory to guide collaboration technology evaluation: work in progress,” in Proceedings of 10th IEEE International Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, WET ICE 2001, pp. 114–119, June 2001. [149] G. Premkumar and M. Roberts, “Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses,” Omega,vol.27,no.4,pp. 467–484, 1999. [150] M. Vouk, “Cloud computing issues, research and implementations,” Journal of Computing and Information Technology,vol. 16, pp. 235–246, 2008. [151] T. Teo, “Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers,” Computers and Education,vol.52,no. 2, pp. 302–312, 2009. [152] G. Crump, “Cloud storage infrastructures raise many issues,” InformationWeek,2012. [153] S. K. Lippert and C. Govindarajulu, “Technological, organizational, and environmental antecedents to web services adoption,” Community. IIMA, vol. 6, pp. 146–158, 2006. [154] R. R. Dholakia and N. Kshetri, “Factors impacting the adoption of the Internet among SMEs,” Small Business Economics,vol.23, no. 4, pp. 311–322, 2004. [155] M. J. Pan and W. Y. Jang, “Determinants of the adoption of enterprise resource planning within the technologyorganization-environment framework: Taiwans communications industry,” Journal of Computer Information Systems,vol. 48,pp.94–102,2008. [156] P. Palvia, D. B. Means, and W. M. Jackson, “Determinants of computing in very small businesses,” Information Management, vol. 27, pp. 161-74, 1994. [157] F. Thiesse, T. Staake, P. Schmitt, and E. Fleisch, “The rise of the “next-generation bar code”: An international RFID adoption study,” Supply Chain Management,vol.16,no.5,pp.328–345, 2011. [158] S.-J. Chang, A. Van Witteloostuijn, and L. Eden, “From the Editors: common method variance in international business research,” Journal of International Business Studies,vol.41,no. 2, pp. 178–184, 2010. [159] P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff, “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology,vol.88,no.5,pp.879–903,2003. [160]Z.Guo,L.Xiao,C.VanToorn,Y.Lai,andC.Seo,“Promoting online learners’ continuance intention: an integrated flow framework,” Information and Management,vol.53,no.2,pp. 279–295, 2016. [161] J. Kim, E. H. Park, and R. L. Baskerville, “A model of emotion and computer abuse,” Information and Management,vol.53,no. 1, pp. 91–108, 2016. [162] Z. Liu, Q. Min, Q. Zhai, and R. Smyth, “Self-disclosure in Chinese micro-blogging: a social exchange theory perspective,” Information and Management,vol.53,no.1,pp.53–63,2016. [163]C.M.Ringle,S.Wende,andJ.M.Becker,“SmartPLS3. B¨ onningstedt: SmartPLS,” 2015, Retrieved from http://www .smartpls.com. [164] J. H. Kahn, “Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice: principles, advances, and applications,” The Counseling Psychologist,vol.34,no.5,pp.684–718,2006. [165] V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, and H. Wang, Eds., Handbook of partial least squares, Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. [166] W. Reinartz, M. Haenlein, and J. Henseler, “An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variancebased SEM,” International Journal of Research in Marketing,vol. 26,no.4,pp.332–344,2009. [167] W. W. Chin and P. R. Newsted, “Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares,” in Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research,R.Hoyle,Ed.,pp. 307–341, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 1999. [168] T.Cui,H.Ye,H.H.Teo,andJ.Li,“Informationtechnologyand open innovation: a strategic alignment perspective,” Information and Management,vol.52,no.3,pp.348–358,2015. [169] D. Sedera, S. Lokuge, V. Grover, S. Sarker, and S. Sarker, “Innovating with enterprise systems and digital platforms: a contingent resource-based theory view,” Information and Management,2015. [170] K. Wang, “Determinants of mobile value-added service continuance: The mediating role of service experience,” Information and Management,vol.52,no.3,pp.261–274,2015. [171] V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, and H. Wang, Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. [172] J. Hair, W. Black, B. Babin, R. Anderson, and R. Tatham, Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 5th edition, 2005. [173] R.P.BagozziandY.Yi,“Ontheevaluationofstructuralequation models,” JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,vol.16,no. 1, pp. 74–94, 1988. [174] J. F. Hair, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,vol.19, no. 2, pp. 139–151, 2011. [175]C.FornellandD.F.Larcker,“Evaluatingstructuralequation models with unobservable variables and measurement error,” Journal of Marketing Research,vol.18,no.1,pp.39–50. [176] J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and R. R. Sinkovics, “The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing,” Advances in International Marketing,vol.20,no.1,pp.277–319, 2009. [177] K. A. Bollen, “A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models,” Sociological Methods & Research,vol.17,no. 3,pp.303–316,1989. [178] E. Carmines and R. Zeller, Reliability and Validity Assessment, vol. 17, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 1979. [179] W. W. Chin, “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling,” Modern Methods for Business Research,vol. 295, no. 2, pp. 295–336, 1998. 20 Mobile Information Systems [180]J.F.Hair,M.Sarstedt,C.M.Ringle,andJ.A.Mena,“An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 414–433, 2012. [181] J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “Using partial least squares path modeling in advertising research: basic concepts and recent issues,” Handbook of Research on International Advertising,pp.252–276,2012. [182] R.FalkandN.Miller,APrimerforSoftModeling, University of AkronPress,Akron,Ohio,USA,1992. [183] S. Geisser, “A predictive approach to the random effect model,” Biometrika,vol.61,pp.101–107,1974. [184] M. Stone, “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions,” JournaloftheRoyalStatisticalSociety,vol.36,pp. 111–147, 1974. [185] H.-C. Cho and S. Abe, “Is two-tailed testing for directional research hypotheses tests legitimate?” Journal of Business Research,vol.66,no.9,pp.1261–1266,2013. [186]S.Seol,H.Lee,J.Yu,andH.Zo,“Continuanceusageof corporate SNS pages: A communicative ecology perspective,” Information Management,vol.53,no.6,pp.740–751,2016. [187] J.Hair,G.Hult,C.Ringle,andM.Sarstedt,APrimeronPartial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM),Sage, Los Angeles, Calif, USA, 1st edition, 2014. [188] J. M. Ortega Egea and M. V. Rom´ an Gonz´ alez, “Explaining physicians’ acceptance of EHCR systems: an extension of TAM with trust and risk factors,” Computers in Human Behavior,vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 319–332, 2011. [189] H.-B. Kim, T. Kim, and S. W. Shin, “Modeling roles of subjective norms and eTrust in customers’ acceptance of airline B2C eCommerce websites,” Tourism Management,vol.30,no.2,pp. 266–277, 2009. [190] L.RobinsonJr.,G.W.Marshall,andM.B.Stamps,“Anempirical investigation of technology acceptance in a field sales force setting,” Industrial Marketing Management,vol.34,no.4,pp. 407–415, 2005. [191] C. Hutchinson, J. Ward, and K. Castilon, “Navigating the nextgeneration application architecture,” IT Professional,vol.11,no. 2, Article ID 4804044, pp. 18–22, 2009. [192] A. Khajeh-Hosseini, D. Greenwood, J. W. Smith, and I. Sommerville, “The Cloud Adoption Toolkit: supporting cloud adoption decisions in the enterprise,” Software: Practice and Experience,vol.42,no.4,pp.447–465,2012. Submit your manuscripts at https://www.hindawi.com Computer Games Technology International Journal of Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Distributed Sensor Networks International Journal of Advances in Fuzzy Systems Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 International Journal of Reconfigurable Computing Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 201 Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing Advances in Artificial Intelligence Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Advances in Software Engineering Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Electrical and Computer Engineering Journal of -RXUQDORI &RPSXWHU1HWZRUNV DQG&RPPXQLFDWLRQV +LQGDZL3XEOLVKLQJ&RUSRUDWLRQ KWWSZZZKLQGDZLFRP 9ROXPH Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Advances in Multimedia International Journal of Biomedical Imaging Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 $UWLÀFLDO 1HXUDO6\VWHPV Advances in Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 201 Robotics Journal of Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience Industrial Engineering Journal of Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Modelling & Simulation in Engineering Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 The Scientific World Journal Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Human-Computer Interaction Advances in Computer Engineering Advances in Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014