An integrated environmental perspective on software as a service adoption in manufacturing and retail firms
- First Online:
- 153 Downloads
In this study, we examine the influence of a firm’s environmental factors on its intention to adopt software as a service (SaaS). We operationalized our assessment of a firm’s environmental pressures as mimetic, coercive and normative pressures and examined the moderating role of perceived technology complexity. Mimetic forces are pressures to copy or emulate other organizations’ activities, systems or structures. Coercive pressures are formal or informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent. Normative forces describe the effect of professional standards and the influence of professional communities on an organization. We empirically tested our research model using data from 289 valid survey responses. The results provide support for the assertion that there are both significant direct and interaction effects that influence a firm’s SaaS adoption intention. Most important was the significant interaction effects between mimetic pressure and perceived technology complexity. This suggests that the complex relationships proposed by institutional theory and diffusion of innovation help to describe how environmental pressures and perceived technology complexity combine to affect intention to adopt an emerging technology. The theoretical contributions of this study are (i) we integrated, tested and validated mature theories in today’s supply chain era with a new but rapidly diffusing technology, (ii) and we answered the call to include practical technology artifacts in information systems studies. From a practical perspective, through this work managers may develop a better understanding regarding environmental factors and whether or not they should consider these issues for their firm when formulating an intention to adopt SaaS.
Keywordsenvironmental factors software as a service technology adoption institutional theory perceived complexity
- Abrahamson, E. and Rosenkopf, L. (1993). Institutional and Competitive Bandwagons: Using mathematical modelling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion, The Academy of Management Review 18 (3): 487–517.Google Scholar
- Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The Sociology Construction of Reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Dubey, A. and Wagle, D. (2007). Delivering software as a service, The McKinsey Quarterly. Web exclusive, May. http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52648eb6e4b0f1fda0be4b23/t/535a7b5ee4b0b44fc2cc4cea/1398438750032/Delivering_software_as_a_service.pdf.
- Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
- Harman, H.H. (1960). Modern Factor Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- IBM (2009). The benefits of cloud computing’, [WWW document] available at: ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/en/diw03004usen/DIW03004USEN.PDF.
- Jutras, C. (2011). QAD on demand gives manufacturers the tools they need to become global, Aberdeen Research Group. [WWW document] TheStreet.com Inc. (accessed 22nd May 2011).
- Laird, P. (2008). How Oracle, IBM, SAP, Microsoft, and Intuit are responding to the SaaS revolution. Laird OnDemand. Blogspot. (accessed 24th April 2011).Google Scholar
- Lee, J.Y., Lee, J.W., Cheun, D.W. and Kim, S.D. (2009). A Quality Model for Evaluating Software-as-a-Service in Cloud Computing, Presentation made at the 2009 Seventh ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications, Haikou, China.Google Scholar
- Mohr, L.B. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behavior, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Nkhoma, M. and Dang, D. (2013). Contributing Factors of Cloud Computing Adoption: A technology-organization-environment framework approach, International Journal of Information Systems and Engineering 1 (1): 38–49.Google Scholar
- Oliveira, T. and Martins, M.F. (2011). Literature Review of Information Technology Adoption Models at Firm Level, Journal Information Systems Evaluation 14 (1): 110–121.Google Scholar
- Penttinen, E. and Tuunainen, V.K. (2009). Assessing the Effect of External Pressure in Inter-Organizational IS Adoption – Case Electronic Invoicing. Presentation made at the 8th Workshop on eBusiness, Phoenix.Google Scholar
- Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (eds.) (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Rieger, P., Gewald, H. and Schumacher, B. (2013). Cloud-computing in Banking Influential Factors, Benefits and Risks from a Decision Maker’s Perspective. Presentation made at the AMCIS 2013, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 1st edn, New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Scott, W.R. (2004). Institutional Theory, in G. Ritzer (ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 408–4414.Google Scholar
- Sharma, A., Citurs, A. and Konsynski, B. (2007). Strategic and Institutional Perspectives in the Adoption and Early Integration of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). Presentation made at the System Sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
- Teo, H.H., Wei, K.K. and Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An institutional perspective, MIS Quarterly 27 (1): 19–49.Google Scholar
- Tornatzky, L.G. and Fleischer, M. (1990). The Processes of Technological Innovation, Lexington, MS/Toronto: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
- Weber, M. ed (1946). Bureaucracy, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Routledge, London: HH Gerth & C. Wright Mills.Google Scholar