Cloud computing · Expert elicitation plus fuzzy AHP using linguistic preference relations

The adoption of software-as-a-service (SaaS): ranking the determinants

Journal of Enterprise Information Management · 2015

Fariba Safari, Narges Safari, Alireza Hasanzadeh

Summary

The study ranks SaaS-adoption criteria using TOE and diffusion-of-innovation foundations; perceived determinants differ in importance.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Use ranked decision criteria to structure SaaS comparison pages, trials, procurement collateral, and enterprise qualification.

Reported result

What the study found

The study ranks SaaS-adoption criteria using TOE and diffusion-of-innovation foundations; perceived determinants differ in importance.

Research question

What the authors investigated

How does the study’s stated design explain its reported outcome in this setting?

Design

Expert elicitation plus fuzzy AHP using linguistic preference relations

Sample and setting

22 university experts; 30 IT professionals in 15 IT enterprises that had adopted SaaS

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Judgment-based ranking and small purposive samples; not a representative adoption-rate study.

Research sources

full_text

Study strength

4/5 Research record provides a clear design and context; apply the finding within its stated 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 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 · 1/1

Full text was identified.

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

Read the paper