Understanding cloud computing adoption: A model comparison approach

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Gangwar, Hemlata^* | Date, Hema

Affiliations: Information Technology, National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India

Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Hemlata Gangwar, Information Technology, National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India. Tel.: +91 9766001510; E-mail: gangwarhemlata@gmail.com

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to understand cloud computing adoption. Specifically, this paper aims to compare two theoretical models and an integrated model to identify which theoretical models best predicts cloud computing adoption. An empirical study was conducted through an survey from 280 companies in IT, manufacturing and finance sectors in India. The data was analysed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Further, structural equation modeling using AMOS 20.0 was used to test the proposed model. Results show that the integrated mediating TAM-TOE and Direct TAM-TOE model have greater explanatory power of cloud computing adoption intention than the technology acceptance model (TAM) and technological organisational environmental framework (TOE). Mediating TAM-TOE provides more complete understanding of adoption intention and Direct TAM-TOE provides the generic cognition of understanding adoption intention and determinants of managerial decision making. Thus, the Mediating TAM-TOE is a preferable model. Security concern and Third party control are salient factors influencing cloud computing adoption intention through perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PU).This study is one of the first studies to examine of influence change of variables and compare the relative ability of two competing theories, TAM and TOE, and an integrated model in explaining cloud computing adoption intention.

Keywords: Cloud computing, technology acceptance model, technological organisational environmental framework

DOI: 10.3233/HSM-150857

Journal: Human Systems Management, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 93-114, 2016