Cloud computing · Integrated TAM–TOE empirical survey/model.

Understanding the determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model

Journal of Enterprise Information Management · 2015

Gangwar, H., Date, H., Ramaswamy, R.

Summary

Perceived usefulness/ease of use plus TOE factors explain cloud adoption; organizational and environmental readiness are material.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Combine user-level product usability evidence with buyer-level readiness, security and competitive proof.

Reported result

What the study found

Perceived usefulness/ease of use plus TOE factors explain cloud adoption; organizational and environmental readiness are material.

Research question

What the authors investigated

Can TAM and TOE jointly explain organizational cloud adoption?

Design

Integrated TAM–TOE empirical survey/model.

Sample and setting

Organizations considering cloud computing.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Cross-sectional organizational perceptions and regional/context limits.

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.