Developer experience · Empirical survey study using SEM-PLS

Factors influencing free and open-source software adoption in developing countries—an empirical study

Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity · 2023

Domingos G. Silva, Carlos Coutinho, Carlos J. Costa

Summary

The abstract reports significant relationships between FOSS adoption and low cost, performance expectation, social influence, and system quality; safety/security, interoperability, and usability are described as especially important in adoption decisions. The paper proposes a new adoption model. For a founder, use this as a question to test in your own context, not a universal playbook.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Treat this as evidence for the specific marketing capability and growth question studied. Compare the setting and sample to your company before changing a growth decision; use a local experiment where the paper does not match your context.

Reported result

What the study found

Research question

What the authors investigated

To what extent do cost, system quality, usability, interoperability, security, performance expectation, and social influence affect intention to adopt/use FOSS in developing-country organizations?

Design

Survey-based theoretical-model test using partial least squares structural equation modeling (SEM-PLS). The directly accessible author/institution record does not state the survey sample size or detailed sampling frame.

Sample and setting

Organizations/public-sector context in developing countries; the source describes a survey and developing-country FOSS organizations but does not report an exact respondent or organization count in the accessible abstract/record.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

The accessible direct record does not provide a detailed limitations section, sample size, country breakdown, or sampling procedure; generalizability beyond the studied developing-country setting and self-reported intention is therefore not established from the available evidence.

Research sources

Publisher DOI landing content and the University of Lisbon author/institution record verify title, authors, journal, year, peer-review status, purpose, survey/SEM-PLS design, and abstract findings. Evidence strength: moderate for reported abstract claims; insufficient for unreported sample details or effect sizes. Correction notices were not separately verified in this collection; consult the current publisher record before applying the findings.

Study strength

2.5/5 Exploratory evidence; interpret cautiously

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

Synthesis or analytical design addresses the question, but conclusions depend on included literature or model assumptions.

Sample · 0.4/1

The accessible source does not report a usable sample size.

Comparison · 0.5/1

The comparison structure is limited or depends on the paper's model/context.

Can we check it? · 0.5/1

Only publisher abstract/metadata was retrieved; full methods and robustness could not be checked.

Double-blind? Blinding was not established from the captured source; it may not apply to this study design.