Cloud computing · Qualitative multi-perspective empirical study; framework building.

Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the north east of England: A multi-perspective framework

Journal of Enterprise Information Management · 2013

Alshamaila, Y., Papagiannidis, S., Li, F.

Summary

Adoption reflects technological, organizational, environmental and individual-manager factors; perceived benefits and organizational capability are important.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Design SME onboarding around capability constraints, partner support and concrete benefits, not enterprise-only procurement assumptions.

Reported result

What the study found

Adoption reflects technological, organizational, environmental and individual-manager factors; perceived benefits and organizational capability are important.

Research question

What the authors investigated

What factors shape SME cloud adoption from multiple perspectives?

Design

Qualitative multi-perspective empirical study; framework building.

Sample and setting

SMEs in North East England considering cloud services.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Regional qualitative SME study; findings are contextual rather than prevalence estimates.

Research sources

Publisher abstract/metadata retrieved from the DOI landing page; design and finding summarized from that abstract.

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.