Abstract

With the rapid growth in the use of the internet, software-as-a-service (SaaS) provides unique opportunities that facilitate innovation without upfront investments in technological infrastructure and expertise. Despite its widespread diffusion and economic benefits, attitudes toward SaaS adoption are of paramount importance. This study investigates and models the perception and belief factors that affect the acceptance and use of SaaS. In particular, it examines whether the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) explains consumer decisions related to the adoption of SaaS. The UTAUT was revised to fit the context of SaaS, by not only incorporating quality of service as a key determinant of behavioral intention, but also by modelling education as a moderator. The study reports a survey of seven hundred and eighty-five (n=785) respondents collected by means of an online questionnaire. Results herein indicates that the acceptance of SaaS relates to several belief factors: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions and quality of service. Empirical data support most of the UTAUT relationships.

Keyword

Software-as-a-service, Acceptance, Quality of service, Cloud computing, Saudi Arabia.

Cite this article

Refference

[1][1]Lee SG, Chae SH, Cho KM. Drivers and inhibitors of SaaS adoption in Korea. International Journal of Information Management. 2013; 33(3):429-40.

[2][2]Janssen M, Joha A. Challenges for adopting cloud-based software as a service (saas) in the public sector. In proceedings of European conference on information system (ECIS) 2011. AIS Electronic Library.

[3][3]Colombus L. Roundup of cloud computing forecast and market estimates. Forbes Magazine. http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2015/01/24/roundup-of-cloud-computing-forecasts-and-market-estimates-2015. Accessed 11 July 2015.

[4][4]Pawar PS, Sajjad A, Dimitrakos T, Chadwick DW. Security-as-a-service in multi-cloud and federated cloud environments. In IFIP international conference on trust management 2015 (pp. 251-61). Springer International Publishing.

[5][5]Wu S, Wortmann H, Tan CW. A pricing framework for software-as-a-service. In fourth international conference on innovative computing technology 2014 (pp. 152-7). IEEE.

[6][6]Araujo VM, Vázquez JA, Cota MP. A framework for the evaluation of SaaS impact. International Journal in Foundations of Computer Science & Technology. 2014; 4(3):1-16.

[7][7]Benlian A, Hess T. Opportunities and risks of software-as-a-service: findings from a survey of IT executives. Decision Support Systems. 2011; 52(1):232-46.

[8][8]Mangula IS, van de Weerd I, Brinkkemper S. Why do companies adopt or reject SaaS? Looking at the organizational aspect. PACIS 2015 proceedings 2015. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL).

[9][9]Yang Z, Sun J, Zhang Y, Wang Y. Understanding SaaS adoption from the perspective of organizational users: A tripod readiness model. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015; 45:254-64.

[10][10]Safari F, Safari N, Hasanzadeh A. The adoption of software-as-a-service (SaaS): ranking the determinants. Journal of Enterprise Information Management.2015; 28(3):400-22.

[11][11]Yang CC, Chou SW. Understanding the success of software-as-a-service (SaaS)-the perspective of post-adoption use. PACIS 2015 proceedings 2015. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL).

[12][12]Tan X, Kim Y. User acceptance of SaaS-based collaboration tools: a case of Google docs. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2015; 28(3):423-42.

[13][13]Marston S, Li Z, Bandyopadhyay S, Zhang J, Ghalsasi A. Cloud computing-the business perspective. Decision Support Systems. 2011; 51(1):176-89.

[14][14]Gonçalves V, Ballon P. Adding value to the network: Mobile operators’ experiments with Software-as-a-Service and Platform-as-a-Service models. Telematics and Informatics. 2011; 28(1):12-21.

[15][15]Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003:425-78.

[16][16]Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.

[17][17]Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989:319-40.

[18][18]Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1992; 22(14):1111-32.

[19][19]Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991; 50(2):179-211.

[20][20]Taylor S, Todd PA. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research. 1995; 6(2):144-76.

[21][21]Thompson RL, Higgins CA, Howell JM. Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly. 1991; 15(1):125-43.

[22][22]Moore GC, Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research. 1991; 2(3):192-222.

[23][23]Compeau DR, Higgins CA. Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research. 1995; 6(2):118-43.

[24][24]Williams MD, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2015; 28(3):443-88.

[25][25]Venkatesh V, Thong JY, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly. 2012; 36(1):157-78.

[26][26]Alharbi ST. Trust and acceptance of cloud computing: A revised UTAUT model. In international conference on computational science and computational intelligence (CSCI) 2014 (pp. 131-4). IEEE.

[27][27]Alotaibi MB. Exploring users’ attitudes and intentions toward the adoption of cloud computing in Saudi Arabia: an empirical investigation. Journal of Computer Science. 2014; 10(11):2315-29.

[28][28]Brown SA, Dennis AR, Venkatesh V. Predicting collaboration technology use: Integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2010; 27(2):9-54.

[29][29]Lin CS, Wu S. Exploring the impact of online service quality on portal site usage. In proceedings of 35th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS) 2002 (pp. 2654-61). IEEE.

[30][30]Hu PJ, Brown SA, Thong JY, Chan FK, Tam KY. Determinants of service quality and continuance intention of online services: the case of eTax. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2009; 60(2):292-306.

[31][31]Akter S, D’Ambra J, Ray P. Service quality of mHealth platforms: development and validation of a hierarchical model using PLS. Electronic Markets. 2010; 20(3-4):209-27.

[32][32]Çelik HE, Yilmaz V. Extending the technology acceptance model for adoption of e-shopping by consumers in Turkey. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. 2011; 12(2):152-64.

[33][33]Chang MY, Pang C, Tarn JM, Liu TS, Yen DC. Exploring user acceptance of an e-hospital service: an empirical study in Taiwan. Computer Standards & Interfaces. 2015; 38:35-43.

[34][34]Alharthi A, Yahya F, Walters RJ, Wills G. An overview of cloud services adoption challenges in higher education institutions 2015 (pp. 102-9).

[35][35]Alawadhi S, Morris A. The use of the UTAUT model in the adoption of E-government services in Kuwait. In proceedings of the Hawaii international conference on system sciences 2008 (pp. 219-29). IEEE.

[36][36]Gombachika H, Monawe M. Correlation analysis of attitudes towards SMS technology and blood donation behaviour in Malawi. Journal of Health Informatics in Developing Countries. 2011; 5(2):259-72.

[37][37]Alharbi ST. Users’ acceptance of cloud computing in Saudi Arabia: an extension of technology acceptance model. International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing. 2012; 2(2):1-11.

[38][38]Shi YD, Yang CF, Wei HE. Antecedents and influence factors of Macao residents' acceptance intention of sport easy program. In international conference on engineering, management science and innovation (ICEMSI) 2013 (pp. 1-3). IEEE.

[39][39]Wu WW. Developing an explorative model for SaaS adoption. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011; 38(12):15057-64.

[40][40]Chen LY. Determinants of Software-as-a-Service adoption and intention to use for enterprise applications. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies. 2015; 10(1):138-48.

[41][41]Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Ackerman PL. A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2000;83(1):33-60.

[42][42]Barnett RC, Marshall NL. The relationship between womens work and family roles and their subjective well-being and psychological distress. In women, work, and health 1991 (pp. 111-36). Springer US.

[43][43]Al-Qeisi K, Dennis C, Hegazy A, Abbad M. How viable is the UTAUT model in a non-western context? International Business Research. 2015; 8(2):204-19.

[44][44]Morris MG, Venkatesh V. Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology. 2000; 53(2):375-403.

[45][45]Su YC, Hwang CS, Chiang PY. A study of user acceptance toward recommender systems of the shopping websites. Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences. 2013; 5(11):150-8.

[46][46]Park J, Yang S, Lehto X. Adoption of mobile technologies for Chinese consumers. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. 2007; 8(3):196-206.

[47][47]Zmud RW. Individual differences and MIS success: a review of the empirical literature. Management Science. 1979; 25(10):966-79.

[48][48]Dennis C, Merrilees B, Jayawardhena C, Tiu Wright L. E-consumer behaviour. European Journal of Marketing. 2009; 43(9/10):1121-39.

[49][49]Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science.2000; 46(2):186-204.

[50][50]Hu HF, Al-Gahtani SS, Hu PJ. Examining gender effects in technology acceptance by Arabian workers: a survey study. PACIS 2010 proceedings 2015 (pp. 85-97). AIS Electronic Library (AISeL).

[51][51]Al-Gahtani SS, Hubona GS, Wang J. Information technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: culture and the acceptance and use of IT. Information & Management. 2007; 44(8):681-91.

[52][52]Vatanasakdakul S, Aoun C, Li Y. AIS in Australia: UTAUT application and cultural implication. Australasian conference on information systems 2010.

[53][53]Hall DT, Mansfield R. Relationships of age and seniority with career variables of engineers and scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1975; 60(2):201-10.

[54][54]Alba JW, Hutchinson JW. Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research. 1987; 13(4):411-54.

[55][55]Liu L, Ma Q. The impact of service level on the acceptance of application service oriented medical records. Information & Management. 2005; 42(8):1121-35.

[56][56]Park E, Del Pobil AP. Modeling the user acceptance of long-term evolution (LTE) services. Annals of Telecommunications-Annales Des Telecommunications. 2013; 68(5-6):307-15.

[57][57]Park E, Kim KJ. An integrated adoption model of mobile cloud services: exploration of key determinants and extension of technology acceptance model. Telematics and Informatics. 2014; 31(3):376-85.

[58][58]Bryman A, Bell E. Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA; 2015.

[59][59]Markus KA. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling by Rex B. Kline. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2012; 19(3):509-12.

[60][60]Alexandrov A. Characteristics of single-item measures in Likert scale format. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2010; 8(1):1-12.

[61][61]Burkon L. Quality of service attributes for software as a service. Journal of Systems Integration. 2013; 4(3):38-47.

[62][62]Barclay D, Higgins C, Thompson R. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies. 1995; 2(2):285-309.

[63][63]Falk RF, Miller NB. A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press; 1992.

[64][64]Hair JF. Multivariate data analysis. Pearson College Division; 2010.

[65][65]Lucas RE, Diener E, Suh E. Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996; 71(3):616-28.

[66][66]Carmines EG, McIver JP. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. Social Measurement: Current Issues. 1981; 65-115.

[67][67]Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Psychology Press; 2013.

[68][68]Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1988; 16(1):74-94.

[69][69]Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management. 1986; 12(4):531-44.