Advertisement

An Institutional Trust Perspective of Cloud Adoption Among SMEs in South Africa

  • Kenneth AyongEmail author
  • Rennie NaidooEmail author
Conference paper
  • 24 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1166)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to identify the major institutional trust mechanisms that facilitate the adoption of cloud services among South African SMEs. By drawing from Giddens’ (1990) institutional trust theory and the existing IT trust literature, we developed a conceptual model to improve our understanding of the role of institutional trust between SMEs and cloud service providers. The model was also deployed as a sensitizing framework to deepen our understanding of how institutional trust factors influence SME cloud service adoption decisions. A qualitative field study based on 12 semi-structured interviews of SMEs and cloud service providers in South Africa suggests that the insights gleaned from concepts, such as design faults and operator failure, can be translated into useful policy guidelines for cloud service providers, state institutions and regulatory bodies that are working to improve the trustworthiness of the cloud ecosystem. Despite the belief held by experts that there is a need to strengthen institutional mechanisms in the cloud ecosystem, the relative advantage of cloud over alternative technology remains the primary motivational factor of SME adoption. The SMEs in this study were unaware of the risks involved in cloud adoption and are content to mimic the behavior of their peers when adopting cloud services. Other social actors in society will have to play a prominent role in evaluating and strengthening institutional trust in the cloud ecosystem.

Keywords

SME Adoption Cloud services Institutional trust Abstract systems Relative advantage 

References

  1. 1.
    Berry, A., von Blottnitz, M., Cassim, R., Kesper, A., Rajaratnam, B., van Seventer, D.: The economics of SMMEs in South Africa. TIPS-Trade Ind. Policy (2002). http://www.tips.org.za/files/506.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2019
  2. 2.
    Fatoki, O., Smit, A.: Constraints to credit access by new SMEs in South Africa : a supply-side analysis. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 5(4), 1413–1425 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alshamaila, Y., Papagiannidis, S., Li, F.: Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the north east of England: a multi-perspective framework. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 26(3), 250–275 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European-Commission, “ICT – Information and communication technologies, European,” European Commission (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giannakouris, K., Smihily, M.: Cloud computing - statistics on the use by enterprises. Eurostat (2014). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Cloud_computing_-_statistics_on_the_use_by_enterprise
  6. 6.
    Venkatraman, S., Wadhwa, B.: Cloud computing a research roadmap in coalescence with software engineering. Softw. Eng. Int. J. (SEIJ) 2(2), 2 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paik, S.: Supply management in SMEs: role of SME size. Int. J. Supply Chain Forum 12(3), 10–21 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McEvily, B., Perrone, V., Zaheer, A.: Introduction to the special issue on trust in an organizational context. Organ. Sci. 14(1), 1–4 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zaheer, A., Harris, J.: Interorganizational Trust (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lumineau, F., Quélin, B.V.: An empirical investigation of interorganizational opportunism and contracting mechanisms. Strateg. Organ. 10(1), 55–84 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., Camerer, C.: Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 393–404 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jap, S.D., Anderson, E.: Safeguarding interorganizational performance and continuity under ex post opportunism. Manag. Sci. 49(12), 1684–1701 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koza, M.P., Lewin, A.Y.: The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organ. Sci. 9(3), 255–264 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lewis, J., Weigert, A.: Trust as a social reality. Soc. Forces 63, 967–985 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McKnight, D., Chervany, N.: What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 6(2), 35–53 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jarvenpaa, S., Tractinsky, N.: Consumer trust in an internet store: a cross-cultural validation. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 5(2), JCMC526 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.: Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 27(1), 51–90 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morgan, R., Hunt, S.: The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J. Mark. 58(1), 20–38 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bachmann, R.: Understanding institutional-based trust building processes in inter-organizational relationships. Organ. Stud. 32(2), 281–301 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giddens, A.: The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giddens, A.: The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge (1984)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Child, J., Möllering, G.: The development of contextual based trust in the Chinese context. Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gollmann, D.: Why trust is bad for security. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 157(3), 3–9 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kumar, N.: The power of trust in manufacturer-retailer relationships. Harvard Bus. Rev. 74(6), 92–106 (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ganesan, S.: Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. J. Mark. 58(1), 1–19 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bachmann, R., van Witteloostuijn, A.: Analyzing inter-organizational relationships in the context of their national business systems: a conceptual framework for comparative research. Eur. Soc. 11, 49–76 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Giddens, A.: Risk, Trust, Reflexivity, pp. 184–197. Polity Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zucker, L.: Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. Res. Organ. Behav. 8(1), 53–111 (1986)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shapiro, S.: The social control of impersonal trust. Am. J. Sociol. 93(3), 623–658 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heide, J., John, G.: Alliances in industrial purchasing, the determinants of joint action in buyer-supplier relationships. J. Mark. Res. 37(1), 24–36 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reichheld, F.F., Schefter, P.: E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the web. Harvard Bus. Rev. 78(4), 105–113 (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pavlou, P.A., Gefen, D.: Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Inf. Syst. Res. 15(1), 37–59 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pavlou, P.: Institutional trust in interorganizational exchange relationships: the role of electronic B2B marketplaces. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 11(4), 105–143 (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sztompka, P.: Trust: A Sociological Theory. University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cook, K., Schilke, O.: The role of public, relational and organizational trust in economic affairs. Corp. Reput. Rev. 13, 98–109 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mizrachi, N.D.I., Anspach, R.: Repertoires of trust: the practice of trust in a multinational organization amid political conflict. Am. Sociol. Rev. 72, 143–165 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. Simon and Schuster, New York (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations