IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/globus/v21y2020i1p142-161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prioritizing the Critical Factors of Cloud Computing Adoption Using Multi-criteria Decision-making Techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Mahak Sharma
  • Ruchita Gupta
  • Padmanav Acharya

Abstract

Cloud Computing (CC) is a paradigm shift with the potential of transforming the information and communication technology (ICT) industry. ICT is an integral part of all businesses, and CC helps in lightening the burden of massive ICT investments. Thus, it is essential to understand the factors that influence CC adoption. The purpose of this study is to identify and rank critical factors for CC adoption in the Indian context. The research has adopted mixed methodology (qualitative and quantitative). Experts from 13 organizations (including 8 cloud service providers (CSPs) and 5 cloud service users (CSUs)) are interviewed. Content analysis is used to confirm existing factors and identify new factors in the Indian context. Qualitative analysis has identified four new factors, namely, ‘time to market’, ‘futuristic’, ‘resistance to change’ and ‘financial losses’ (arising from security and resource availability). The quantitative part of the research used analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) techniques to rank the factors. The analysis revealed ‘IT service cost’ and ‘time to market’ as the most critical factor through FAHP and AHP respectively. However, ‘organization size’ is reported the least critical for CC adoption through both the methods. The results also highlight divergence among the criticality of CC adoption factors using the two techniques. The study is very useful for CSPs and key decision-makers to understand the critical adoption factors and judiciously strategize for CC service promotions. It will also help users to wisely decide while making CC adoption decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Mahak Sharma & Ruchita Gupta & Padmanav Acharya, 2020. "Prioritizing the Critical Factors of Cloud Computing Adoption Using Multi-criteria Decision-making Techniques," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 21(1), pages 142-161, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:globus:v:21:y:2020:i:1:p:142-161
    DOI: 10.1177/0972150917741187
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0972150917741187
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0972150917741187?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent Cho & Aman Chan, 2015. "An integrative framework of comparing SaaS adoption for core and non-core business operations: An empirical study on Hong Kong industries," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 629-644, June.
    2. Benedikt Martens & Frank Teuteberg, 2012. "Decision-making in cloud computing environments: A cost and risk based approach," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 871-893, September.
    3. Marc Walterbusch & Benedikt Martens & Frank Teuteberg, 2015. "A Decision Model for the Evaluation and Selection of Cloud Computing Services: A First Step Towards a More Sustainable Perspective," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(02), pages 253-285.
    4. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    5. Kahraman, Cengiz & Cebeci, Ufuk & Ruan, Da, 2004. "Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 171-184, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sharma, Mahak & Antony, Rose & Sehrawat, Rajat & Cruz, Angel Contreras & Daim, Tugrul U., 2022. "Exploring post-adoption behaviors of e-service users: Evidence from the hospitality sector /online travel services," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    2. Sharma, Mahak & Singh, Anupama & Daim, Tugrul, 2023. "Exploring cloud computing adoption: COVID era in academic institutions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Zahra Shams Esfandabadi & Meisam Ranjbari & Simone Domenico Scagnelli, 2023. "Prioritizing Risk-level Factors in Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Management: A Hybrid Multi-criteria Decision-making Model," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 24(5), pages 972-989, October.
    4. Abad-Segura, Emilio & González-Zamar, Mariana Daniela & López-Meneses, Eloy, 2022. "El proceso de toma de decisiones basado en métodos cuantitativos [Analysis of research on decision making-based on quantitative methods]," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 34(1), pages 118-136, December.
    5. Venkataiah Chittipaka & Satish Kumar & Uthayasankar Sivarajah & Jana Lay-Hwa Bowden & Manish Mohan Baral, 2023. "Blockchain Technology for Supply Chains operating in emerging markets: an empirical examination of technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 327(1), pages 465-492, August.
    6. Sharma, Mahak & Sehrawat, Rajat & Daim, Tugrul & Shaygan, Amir, 2021. "Technology assessment: Enabling Blockchain in hospitality and tourism sectors," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    7. Aswathy Sreenivasan & M. Suresh, 2024. "Enabling technologies influencing the start-up operations 5.0," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 869-890, September.
    8. Radhwan Sneesl & Yusmadi Yah Jusoh & Marzanah A. Jabar & Salfarina Abdullah & Umar Ali Bukar, 2022. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of IoT-Based Smart Campus: An Investigation Using Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-21, July.
    9. Naeini, Ali Bonyadi & Zamani, Mehdi & Daim, Tugrul U. & Sharma, Mahak & Yalcin, Haydar, 2022. "Conceptual structure and perspectives on “innovation management”: A bibliometric review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    10. Radhwan Sneesl & Yusmadi Yah Jusoh & Marzanah A. Jabar & Salfarina Abdullah, 2022. "Revising Technology Adoption Factors for IoT-Based Smart Campuses: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-27, April.
    11. Esra Cengiz Tırpan & Hülya Bakırtaş, 2024. "Technology Acceptance Model 3 in Understanding Employee’s Cloud Computing Technology," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 25(1), pages 117-136, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.
    2. Alev Taskin Gumus & A. Yesim Yayla & Erkan Çelik & Aytac Yildiz, 2013. "A Combined Fuzzy-AHP and Fuzzy-GRA Methodology for Hydrogen Energy Storage Method Selection in Turkey," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-16, June.
    3. Rakan Alyamani & Suzanna Long, 2020. "The Application of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in Sustainable Project Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Murat İnce & Tuncay Yiğit & Ali Hakan Işik, 2020. "A Novel Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-GA Method for Test Sheet Question Selection," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(02), pages 629-647, April.
    5. Wei-Ming Wang & Hsiao-Han Peng, 2020. "A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Evaluation Framework for Urban Sustainable Development," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-22, March.
    6. Behrooz Noori, 2015. "Prioritizing strategic business units in the face of innovation performance: Combining fuzzy AHP and BSC," International Journal of Business and Management, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, vol. 3(1), pages 36-56, February.
    7. Guorui Zhang & Enyuan Wang & Zhonghui Li & Ben Qin, 2022. "Risk assessment of coal and gas outburst in driving face based on finite interval cloud model," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 110(3), pages 1969-1995, February.
    8. Quadri Noorulhasan Naveed & Mohamed Rafik Noor Qureshi & Nasser Tairan & AbdulHafeez Mohammad & Asadullah Shaikh & Alhuseen O Alsayed & Asadullah Shah & Fahad Mazaed Alotaibi, 2020. "Evaluating critical success factors in implementing E-learning system using multi-criteria decision-making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-25, May.
    9. Heo, Eunnyeong & Kim, Jinsoo & Boo, Kyung-Jin, 2010. "Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(8), pages 2214-2220, October.
    10. Kahraman, Cengiz & Ertay, Tijen & Buyukozkan, Gulcin, 2006. "A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(2), pages 390-411, June.
    11. Song, Yongze & Thatcher, Dominique & Li, Qindong & McHugh, Tom & Wu, Peng, 2021. "Developing sustainable road infrastructure performance indicators using a model-driven fuzzy spatial multi-criteria decision making method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    12. Chen-Hui Chou & Gin-Shuh Liang & Hung-Chung Chang, 2013. "A fuzzy AHP approach based on the concept of possibility extent," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 1-14, January.
    13. Kahraman, Cengiz & Kaya, İhsan & Cebi, Selcuk, 2009. "A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1603-1616.
    14. Kim, Juhan & Lee, Jungbae & Kim, BumChoong & Kim, Jinsoo, 2019. "Raw material criticality assessment with weighted indicators: An application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 225-233.
    15. Fanhui Zeng & Xiaozhao Cheng & Jianchun Guo & Liang Tao & Zhangxin Chen, 2017. "Hybridising Human Judgment, AHP, Grey Theory, and Fuzzy Expert Systems for Candidate Well Selection in Fractured Reservoirs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    16. Balci, Gökcay & Cetin, Ismail Bilge & Esmer, Soner, 2018. "An evaluation of competition and selection criteria between dry bulk terminals in Izmir," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 294-304.
    17. Yu-Cheng Wang & Tin-Chih Toly Chen, 2019. "A Partial-Consensus Posterior-Aggregation FAHP Method—Supplier Selection Problem as an Example," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, February.
    18. Behrooz Noori, 2014. "Prioritizing strategic business units in the face of innovation performance: Combining fuzzy AHP and BSC," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 0802059, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    19. Jui-Te Chiang & Chei-Chang Chiou & Shuh-Chyi Doong & I-Fang Chang, 2020. "Research on the Construction of Performance Indicators for the Marketing Alliance of Catering Industry and Credit Card Issuing Banks by Using the Balanced Scorecard and Fuzzy AHP," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-24, October.
    20. BumChoong Kim & Juhan Kim & Jinsoo Kim, 2019. "Evaluation Model for Investment in Solar Photovoltaic Power Generation Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:globus:v:21:y:2020:i:1:p:142-161. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.imi.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.