Cloud computing · Empirical quantitative model based on cost-benefit analysis and TAM; the publisher abstract reports hypothesis testing but not the sample size.

An empirical investigation of organizations' switching intention to cloud enterprise resource planning: a cost-benefit perspective

Information Development · 2019

Yu-Wei Chang, Pei-Yu Hsu

Original paper ↗

Summary

Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and privacy concerns significantly affected switching intention; trust enhanced usefulness/ease of use and reduced perceived risk, while perceived control reduced risk and privacy concerns.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

For enterprise SaaS migration, reduce privacy risk, build trust and user control, and make switching benefits concrete rather than relying only on feature parity.

Reported result

What the study found

Research question

What the authors investigated

How do perceived benefits and costs, trust, and perceived control influence organizations’ intention to switch from traditional ERP to cloud ERP?

Design

Empirical quantitative model based on cost-benefit analysis and TAM; the publisher abstract reports hypothesis testing but not the sample size.

Sample and setting

Organizations considering switching from traditional ERP to cloud ERP; organizational context is established by the publisher abstract, while sample details were not stated on the fetched abstract page.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

The abstract does not establish sample size or longitudinal realized switching; results concern switching intention rather than completed migration.

Research sources

Fetched SAGE publisher page: title, authors/DOI metadata, journal/year/volume/pages, research model, organizational ERP context, and abstract findings. Firecrawl research job 01a1436c-f86b-77df-af1c-9a2f87e3535e returned this citation and metadata.

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

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 transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.