Cloud computing · Peer-reviewed empirical study or research synthesis

A Systematic Literature Review to Uncover SaaS Adoption Issues by SMEs – Reasons and Solutions to the Adoption Problem

International Journal of Data and Information Systems (IJDIS) · 2020

Olugbenga A. Adenuga, Ray M. Kekwaletswe, Olukorede T. Adenuga

Summary

The review coded 58 issues, 32 causal associations, and 26 treatments; security and operational/support problems were especially frequent and important. Founder-use interpretation: Useful as a risk and onboarding checklist, not as an estimate of SaaS conversion or churn effects; validate locally by segment, geography, and product category.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Useful as a risk and onboarding checklist, not as an estimate of SaaS conversion or churn effects; validate locally by segment, geography, and product category.

Reported result

What the study found

The review coded 58 issues, 32 causal associations, and 26 treatments; security and operational/support problems were especially frequent and important.

Research question

What the authors investigated

Which issues are reported in research on SaaS adoption by small and medium enterprises, and what responses are proposed?

Design

Systematic literature review across six academic databases: 682 records retrieved and 42 SaaS-adoption articles selected, focused on SME adoption.

Sample and setting

Systematic literature review across six academic databases: 682 records retrieved and 42 SaaS-adoption articles selected, focused on SME adoption.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Evidence is secondary literature rather than a new firm-level causal sample; findings depend on database search, inclusion, and coding choices.

Research sources

Publisher article page directly retrieved with Firecrawl (reference 01a122bc-9402-767b-9e18-21a6789d656d). The annotation follows the retrieved title/abstract or landing-page record; full methods and correction notices were not independently reviewed.

Study strength

3.5/5 Useful empirical or synthesis evidence with context-specific transfer limits

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design · 1/2

Scored from the described study design; an analytical or review design is not treated as a randomized field estimate.

Sample · 1/1

The setting and reported sample detail are stated explicitly; size alone does not establish representativeness.

Comparison · 0.5/1

The reported comparison or synthesis method is described from the retrieved article record.

Can we check it? · 0.5/1

A publisher page or abstract was directly retrieved; full methods access was not established.

Double-blind? Blinding is not stated in the publisher record reviewed; that does not establish whether blinding was or was not used.

Read the paper