Advertisement

Evaluation of Cloud Computing Adoption Using a Hybrid TAM/TOE Model

  • Aatish Chiniah
  • Avinash E. U. Mungur
  • Krishnen Naidoo Permal
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 863)

Abstract

With the expansion of businesses and the advent of the Internet, the moderately simple client–server architecture evolved and became more complex. The evolution saw the birth of tier levels; namely tier-two, tier-three and tier-four architectures. As a result, it is sound to assume that the cost of implementation and maintenance of such system would definitely grow exponentially. Many companies and businesses thought about having the IT part relegated to backend so that they may concentrate fully on developing their core-business. But unfortunately IT usually consumes a major part of business activity and capital since most business nowadays require the IT medium to compete on the market. Although cloud computing adoption is still very slow and restricted to certain businesses who are willing to make the shift, many companies believe that cloud computing may offer a new competitive model that may reduce costs and complexity while increasing operational efficiency. In this work, we aim at evaluating the already known factors for cloud adoption/non-adoption by the ICT sector of Mauritius. To this end, we opt to use a Hybrid Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Technology-Organization-Environment Model (TOE) as they complement each other. We surveyed 93 ICT related companies/organizations. We also developed a Cloud Computing Adoption Tool that will help any organization identified that will help them determine the type of cloud service most suitable for them, identify local or international cloud service providers and finally the ROI for the Cloud Adoption.

Keywords

Cloud computing Cloud adoption TAM TOE 

References

  1. 1.
    goCloud Mauritius.: Providing Cloud Services to SME. Retrieved 12 February 2018, from http://www.gocloud.mu/ (2018)
  2. 2.
    Yousif, M.: Hybrid clouds. IEEE Cloud Comput. 3(1), 6–7 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/mcc.2016.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weins, K.: Cloud Computing Trends 2016. RightScale. Retrieved 12 January 2018, from http://www.rightscale.com/blog/cloud-industryinsights/cloud-computing-trends-2016-state-cloud-survey (2016)
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Amazon EC2 Pricing—AWS. Amazon Web Services, Inc. Retrieved 6 January 2018, from https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/ (2018)
  6. 6.
    Boost SME—Small Medium Enterprise Mauritius: Boost.mu. Retrieved 16 November 2017, from http://www.boost.mu/ (2017)
  7. 7.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q., 319–340 (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tornatzky, L.G., Fleischer, M., Chakrabarti, A.K.: The Processes of Technological Innovation. Issues in organization and management series. Lexington Books. Available at http://www.amazon.com/Processes-Technological-Innovation-Organization/Management/dp/0669203483 (1990). Accessed 10 June 2013
  10. 10.
    Tan, M., Lin, T.T.: Exploring Organizational Adoption of Cloud Computing in Singapore (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Misra, S.C., Mondal, A.: Identification of a company’s suitability for the adoption of cloud computing and modelling its corresponding return on investment. Math. Comput. Model. 53(3–4), 504–521 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baker, J.: The technology–organization–environment framework. In: Information Systems Theory, pp. 231–245. Springer, New York, NY (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gangwar, H., Date, H., Ramaswamy, R.: Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model. J. Enterp. Inf. Manage. 28(1), 107–130 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G.: Stat. notes: Cronbach’s alpha. Bmj 314(7080), 572 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nunnally, J.: Psychometric Methods (1978)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsai, W.: Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organ. sci. 13(2), 179–190 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aatish Chiniah
    • 1
  • Avinash E. U. Mungur
    • 2
  • Krishnen Naidoo Permal
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Information Communication and Digital TechnologiesUniversity of MauritiusReduit, MokaMauritius
  2. 2.University of MauritiusReduit, MokaMauritius

Personalised recommendations