An Evaluation of Key Adoption Factors towards Using the Fog Technology
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Fog Technology
2.1. Fog Technology Background
2.2. Why Does Fog Technology Need to Be Embraced by Organizations?
3. Background on the Research Conceptual Framework
4. Research Framework and Hypotheses
4.1. Research Framework Development
4.2. Research Hypotheses Development
5. Research Methodology
Research Demographic Data
6. Research Results
6.1. Measurement Model
6.1.1. Factor Analysis
6.1.2. Validity and Reliability
6.2. Structural Equation Model
6.3. Hypotheses Results Discussion
7. Research Discussions and Implications
7.1. Research Contributions
7.1.1. Innovation Implications
7.1.2. Contextual Implications
7.1.3. Economic Implications
7.1.4. Technology Implications
7.1.5. Organizational and Socio-Cultural Implications
7.2. Research Limitations and Future Work
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ali, A.; Ahmed, M.; Imran, M.; Khattak, H.A. Security and Privacy Issues in Fog Computing. In Fog Computing: Theory and Practice; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 105–137. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, L.; Dhaini, A.R.; Ho, P.-H. Toward integrated Cloud–Fog networks for efficient IoT provisioning: Key challenges and solutions. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 88, 606–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, T.; Thomas, M.; Espadanal, M. Assessing the determinants of cloud computing adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors. Inf. Manag. 2014, 51, 497–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A.; Park, S.C. Why end-users move to the cloud: A migration-theoretic analysis. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2014, 23, 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashem, I.A.T.; Yaqoob, I.; Anuar, N.B.; Mokhtar, S.; Gani, A.; Khan, S.U. The rise of “big data” on cloud computing: Review and open research issues. Inf. Syst. 2015, 47, 98–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, O.; Soar, J.; Shrestha, A. Perceived potential for value creation from cloud computing: A study of the Australian regional government sector. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2018, 37, 1157–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aazam, M.; Zeadally, S.; Harras, K.A. Fog computing architecture, evaluation, and future research directions. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2018, 56, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, P.; Dhelim, S.; Ning, H.; Qiu, T. Survey on fog computing: Architecture, key technologies, applications and open issues. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2017, 98, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, O.; Soar, J.; Yong, J.; Tao, X. Factors to be considered in cloud computing adoption. Web Intell. 2016, 14, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Al-Ahmad, A.S.; Kahtan, H. Cloud Computing Review: Features And Issues. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Smart Computing and Electronic Enterprise (ICSCEE), Shah Alam, Malaysia, 11–12 July 2018; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Ahmad, A.S.; Aljunid, S.A.; Ismail, N.K. Mobile Cloud Computing Applications Penetration Testing Model Design. Int. J. Inf. Comput. Secur. 2020, 13, 210–226. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, C.T.S.; Xin, F.T.W. Benefits and challenges of the adoption of cloud computing in business. Int. J. Cloud Comput. Serv. Archit. 2016, 6, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Upadhyay, N. Fogology: What is (not) Fog Computing? Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 139, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Ahmad, A.S.; Kahtan, H.; Hujainah, F.; Jalab, H.A. Systematic Literature Review on Penetration Testing for Mobile Cloud Computing Applications. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 173524–173540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almutiry, O.; Wills, G.; Alwabel, A.; Crowder, R.; WaIters, R. Toward a framework for data quality in cloud-based health information system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Society (i-Society 2013), Toronto, ON, Canada, 24–26 June 2013; pp. 153–157. [Google Scholar]
- Ouf, S.; Nasr, M. Cloud computing: The future of big data management. Int. J. Cloud Appl. Comput. 2015, 5, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Inmor, S.; Suwannahong, R. The acceptance of cloud computing for IT workers in Thailand. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 121, 1039–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anawar, M.R.; Wang, S.; Azam Zia, M.; Jadoon, A.K.; Akram, U.; Raza, S. Fog computing: An overview of big IoT data analytics. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2018, 2018, 7157192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, H.; Nan, F.; Chang, C.-C.; Huang, Y.; Lu, J.; Du, Y. Privacy-preserving public auditing for secure data storage in fog-to-cloud computing. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2019, 127, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardagna, D.; Cappiello, C.; Samá, W.; Vitali, M. Context-aware data quality assessment for big data. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 89, 548–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, S.; Chan, F.T.; Yang, J.; Niu, B. Understanding the effect of cloud computing on organizational agility: An empirical examination. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 43, 98–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malic, N.H.A.; Izhar, T.A.T.; Kadir, M.R.A. Factors Influencing Fog Computing Adoption Based on Quality of Results (QoR) For Heterogeneous Data Analysis: A Proposed Framework. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 8, 2760–2766. [Google Scholar]
- Yousefpour, A.; Fung, C.; Nguyen, T.; Kadiyala, K.; Jalali, F.; Niakanlahiji, A.; Kong, J.; Jue, J.P. All one needs to know about fog computing and related edge computing paradigms: A complete survey. J. Syst. Archit. 2019, 98, 289–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellavista, P.; Berrocal, J.; Corradi, A.; Das, S.K.; Foschini, L.; Zanni, A. A survey on fog computing for the Internet of Things. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 2019, 52, 71–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Firdhous, M.; Ghazali, O.; Hassan, S. Fog Computing: Will It Be the Future of Cloud Computing? In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Informatics & Applications, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, 8–10 October 2014.
- Moens, N.P.; Broerse, J.E.; Gast, L.; Bunders, J.F. A constructive technology assessment approach to ICT planning in developing countries: Evaluating the first phase, the Roundtable workshop. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2009, 16, 34–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avgerou, C. Discourses on ICT and development. Inf. Technol. Int. Dev. 2010, 6, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Goi, C.-L. The impact of technological innovation on building a sustainable city. Int. J. Qual. Innov. 2017, 3, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eseonu, C.I.; Egbue, O. Socio-Cultural Influences on Technology Adoption and Sustainable Development. In Proceedings of the 2014 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, Montréal, QC, Canada, 31 May–3 June 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Sultan, N. Cloud computing for education: A new dawn? Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2010, 30, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saad, M. Fog computing and its role in the internet of things: Concept, security and privacy issues. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2018, 975, 8887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frambach, R.T.; Schillewaert, N. Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. J. Bus. Res. 2002, 55, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabi, H.M.; Uzoka, F.-M.E.; Langmia, K.; Njeh, F.N. Conceptualizing a model for adoption of cloud computing in education. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dholakia, R.R.; Kshetri, N. Factors impacting the adoption of the Internet among SMEs. Small Bus. Econ. 2004, 23, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grover, V.; Goslar, M.D. The initiation, adoption, and implementation of telecommunications technologies in US organizations. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1993, 10, 141–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, W.; Zhu, K. Migrating to internet-based e-commerce: Factors affecting e-commerce adoption and migration at the firm level. Inf. Manag. 2006, 43, 204–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paquette, S.; Jaeger, P.T.; Wilson, S.C. Identifying the security risks associated with governmental use of cloud computing. Gov. Inf. Q. 2010, 27, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subashini, S.; Kavitha, V. A survey on security issues in service delivery models of cloud computing. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2011, 34, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Cruz, N.A.; Saa, I.L.; Hurtado, F.F.O. Agent-based simulation in management and organizational studies: A survey. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2017, 26, 313–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borracci, R.A.; Giorgi, M.A. Agent-based computational models to explore diffusion of medical innovations among cardiologists. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2018, 112, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thong, J.Y. An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1999, 15, 187–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chong, A.Y.-L.; Lin, B.; Ooi, K.-B.; Raman, M. Factors affecting the adoption level of c-commerce: An empirical study. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2009, 50, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
- Alzoubi, Y.I.; Al-Ahmad, A.; Jaradat, A. Fog computing security and privacy issues, open challenges, and blockchain solution: An overview. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2021, 11, 5081–5088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, R.; Zhuang, C.; Shi, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, D. A lightweight verifiable outsourced decryption of attribute-based encryption scheme for blockchain-enabled wireless body area network in fog computing. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2020, 16, 1550147720906796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achouri, M.; Alti, A.; Derdour, M.; Laborie, S.; Roose, P. Smart fog computing for efficient situations management in smart health environments. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. 2018, 17, 537–567. [Google Scholar]
- Chiang, M.; Ha, S.; Chih-Lin, I.; Risso, F.; Zhang, T. Clarifying fog computing and networking: 10 questions and answers. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017, 55, 18–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alzoubi, Y.I.; Osmanaj, V.H.; Jaradat, A.; Al-Ahmad, A. Fog computing security and privacy for the Internet of Thing applications: State-of-the-art. Secur. Priv. 2021, 4, e145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elazhary, H. Internet of Things (IoT), mobile cloud, cloudlet, mobile IoT, IoT cloud, fog, mobile edge, and edge emerging computing paradigms: Disambiguation and research directions. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2019, 128, 105–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alzoubi, Y.; Al-Ahmad, A.; Jaradat, A.; Osmanaj, V. Fog computing architecture, benefits, security, and privacy, for the internet of thing applications: An overview. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2021, 99, 436–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, O.; Shrestha, A.; Ghasemaghaei, M.; Beydoun, G. Assessment of complexity in cloud computing adoption: A case study of local governments in Australia. Info. Syst. Front. 2022, 24, 595–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dastjerdi, A.V.; Gupta, H.; Calheiros, R.N.; Ghosh, S.K.; Buyya, R. Fog computing: Principles, architectures, and applications. In Internet of Things; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 61–75. [Google Scholar]
- Khalid, T.; Abbasi, M.A.K.; Zuraiz, M.; Khan, A.N.; Ali, M.; Ahmad, R.W.; Rodrigues, J.J.; Aslam, M. A survey on privacy and access control schemes in fog computing. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 2021, 34, e4181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaba, F.A.; Othman, M.; Hashem, I.A.T.; Alotaibi, F. Internet of Things security: A survey. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2017, 88, 10–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, Y.; Shao, J.; Wei, G.; Xie, M. Data security and privacy in fog computing. IEEE Netw. 2018, 32, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, R.A. Possible Solutions on Security and Privacy Issues in Fog Computing. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Emerging Trends in Science & Technologies For Engineering Systems (ICETSE-2019), Chickballapur, India, 17–18 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Toor, A.; ul Islam, S.; Sohail, N.; Akhunzada, A.; Boudjadar, J.; Khattak, H.A.; Din, I.U.; Rodrigues, J.J. Energy and performance aware fog computing: A case of DVFS and green renewable energy. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 101, 1112–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amor, A.B.; Abid, M.; Meddeb, A. Secure fog-based e-learning scheme. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 31920–31933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tariq, N.; Asim, M.; Al-Obeidat, F.; Zubair Farooqi, M.; Baker, T.; Hammoudeh, M.; Ghafir, I. The security of big data in fog-enabled IoT applications including blockchain: A survey. Sensors 2019, 19, 1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ni, J.; Zhang, K.; Lin, X.; Shen, X.S. Securing fog computing for internet of things applications: Challenges and solutions. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017, 20, 601–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, P.; Zhou, M.; Fortino, G. Security and trust issues in Fog computing: A survey. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 88, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skarlat, O.; Schulte, S.; Borkowski, M.; Leitner, P. Resource provisioning for IoT services in the fog. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 9th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA), Macau, China, 4–6 November 2016; pp. 32–39. [Google Scholar]
- Hussain, M.; Alam, M.S.; Beg, M. Fog assisted cloud models for smart grid architectures-comparison study and optimal deployment. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1805.09254. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, S.; Parkinson, S.; Qin, Y. Fog computing security: A review of current applications and security solutions. J. Cloud Comput. 2017, 6, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brogi, A.; Forti, S.; Ibrahim, A. How to best deploy your fog applications, probably. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 1st International Conference on Fog and Edge Computing (ICFEC), Madrid, Spain, 14–15 May 2017; pp. 105–114. [Google Scholar]
- Song, F.; Ai, Z.-Y.; Li, J.-J.; Pau, G.; Collotta, M.; You, I.; Zhang, H.-K. Smart collaborative caching for information-centric IoT in fog computing. Sensors 2017, 17, 2512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Souza, V.B.; Masip-Bruin, X.; Marín-Tordera, E.; Sànchez-López, S.; Garcia, J.; Ren, G.-J.; Jukan, A.; Ferrer, A.J. Towards a proper service placement in combined Fog-to-Cloud (F2C) architectures. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 87, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunes, D.; Silva, J.S.; Figueira, A.; Dias, H.; Rodrigues, A.; Pereira, V.; Boavida, F.; Sinche, S. FoTSeC—Human Security in Fog of Things. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (CIT), Nadi, Fiji, 8–10 December 2016; pp. 743–749. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, K.; Lee, C.; Hong, C.-H.; Yoo, C. Enhancing the isolation and performance of control planes for fog computing. Sensors 2018, 18, 3267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Khan, S.; Shiraz, M.; Boroumand, L.; Gani, A.; Khan, M.K. Towards port-knocking authentication methods for mobile cloud computing. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2017, 97, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkar, S.; Misra, S. Theoretical modelling of fog computing: A green computing paradigm to support IoT applications. Iet Netw. 2016, 5, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chiang, M.; Zhang, T. Fog and IoT: An overview of research opportunities. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016, 3, 854–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Chen, B.; Zhao, Y.; Cheng, X.; Hu, F. Data security and privacy-preserving in edge computing paradigm: Survey and open issues. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 18209–18237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinmueller, W.E. ICTs and the possibilities for leapfrogging by developing countries. Int. Labour Rev. 2001, 140, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, J. The diffusion of IT in the historical context of innovations from developed countries. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 111, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herbig, P.; Dunphy, S. Culture and innovation. Cross Cult. Manag. 1998, 5, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, O.; Soar, J. Technology innovation adoption theories. In Technology Adoption and Social Issues: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2018; pp. 821–860. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, P. The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the novelty technology. J. Inf. Syst. Technol. Manag. 2017, 14, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.; Jeyaraj, A.; Clement, M.; Williams, M.D. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 719–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Philos. Rhetor. 1977, 10, 130–132. [Google Scholar]
- Hossain, M.A.; Quaddus, M. The adoption and continued usage intention of RFID: An integrated framework. Inf. Technol. People 2011, 24, 236–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tornatzky, L.; Fleischer, M. The process of technology innovation. In Lexington Books; Rowman & Littlefield: Lexington, MA, USA, 1990; Volume 165. [Google Scholar]
- López-Nicolás, C.; Molina-Castillo, F.J.; Bouwman, H. An assessment of advanced mobile services acceptance: Contributions from TAM and diffusion theory models. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 359–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Yahaya, N.; Aldraiweesh, A.A.; Alamri, M.M.; Aljarboa, N.A.; Alturki, U.; Aljeraiwi, A.A. Integrating technology acceptance model with innovation diffusion theory: An empirical investigation on students’ intention to use E-learning systems. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 26797–26809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wibowo, M.P. Technology Acceptance Models and Theories in Library and Information Science Research. Libr. Philos. Pract. 2019, 3674. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3674 (accessed on 23 June 2021).
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decis. Sci. 1996, 27, 451–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chau, P.Y.; Tam, K.Y. Factors affecting the adoption of open systems: An exploratory study. MIS Q. 1997, 21, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hameed, M.A.; Counsell, S.; Swift, S. A conceptual model for the process of IT innovation adoption in organizations. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2012, 29, 358–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puklavec, B.; Oliveira, T.; Popovič, A. Unpacking business intelligence systems adoption determinants: An exploratory study of small and medium enterprises. Econ. Bus. Rev. 2014, 16, 185–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Othman, M.S.; Yusuf, L.M. The effectiveness of using e-learning in Malaysian higher education: A case study Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2015, 6, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, J.-H.; Wang, S.-C. What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 719–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillenson, M.L.; Sherrell, D.L. Enticing online consumers: An extended technology acceptance perspective. Inf. Manag. 2002, 39, 705–719. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Y.-H.; Hsieh, Y.-C.; Hsu, C.-N. Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees’ intentions to use e-learning systems. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2011, 14, 124–137. [Google Scholar]
- Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.W.; Chervany, N.L. Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Q. 1999, 23, 183–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D. TAM or just plain habit: A look at experienced online shoppers. J. Organ. End User Comput. 2003, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yoh, E.; Damhorst, M.L.; Sapp, S.; Laczniak, R. Consumer adoption of the Internet: The case of apparel shopping. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 1095–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.K.; Cheung, C.M.; Chen, Z. Acceptance of Internet-based learning medium: The role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 1095–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pituch, K.A.; Lee, Y.-k. The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Comput. Educ. 2006, 47, 222–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, R.; Prasad, J. Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decis. Sci. 1999, 30, 361–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, C.M.; Chow, S.; Leitch, R.A. Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decis. Sci. 1997, 28, 357–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, J.-C.; Lee, S.-C.; Suh, Y.-H. Determinants of behavioral intention to mobile banking. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 11605–11616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, B.K.; Yoon, T.E. An empirical investigation on consumer acceptance of mobile banking services. Bus. Manag. Res. 2013, 2, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pynoo, B.; van Braak, J. Predicting teachers’ generative and receptive use of an educational portal by intention, attitude and self-reported use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 34, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jambekar, A.B.; Pelc, K.I. Managing a manufacturing company in a wired world. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2002, 1, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hameed, M.A.; Counsell, S.; Swift, S. A meta-analysis of relationships between organizational characteristics and IT innovation adoption in organizations. Inf. Manag. 2012, 49, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kuan, K.K.; Chau, P.Y. A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology–organization–environment framework. Inf. Manag. 2001, 38, 507–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lippert, S.K.; Forman, H. Utilization of information technology: Examining cognitive and experiential factors of post-adoption behavior. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2005, 52, 363–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awa, H.O.; Emecheta, B.C.; Ukoha, O. Location factors as moderators between some critical demographic characteristics and ICT adoption: A study of SMEs. In Proceedings of the Informing Science and IT Education Conference (InSITE), Wollongong, Australia, 30 June–4 July 2014; pp. 39–52. [Google Scholar]
- da Silva, R.A.C.; da Fonseca, N.L.S. On the location of fog nodes in fog-cloud infrastructures. Sensors 2019, 19, 2445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pavon, F.; Brown, I. Factors influencing the adoption of the World Wide Web for job-seeking in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Inf. Manag. 2010, 12, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.-M.; Wang, Y.-S.; Yang, Y.-F. Understanding the determinants of RFID adoption in the manufacturing industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2010, 77, 803–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacharya, M. A conceptual framework of RFID adoption in retail using Rogers stage model. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2015, 21, 517–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, M.-C.; Lee, W.; Wu, H.-C. Determinants of RFID adoption intention: Evidence from Taiwanese retail chains. Inf. Manag. 2010, 47, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Fu, Z.; Duan, Y. Understanding ICTs adoption from an evolutionary process perspective. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Management and Service Science, Bangkok, Thailand, 7–9 May 2011; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Premkumar, G. A meta-analysis of research on information technology implementation in small business. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 2003, 13, 91–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ching, H.L.; Ellis, P. Marketing in cyberspace: What factors drive e-commerce adoption? J. Mark. Manag. 2004, 20, 409–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daylami, N.; Ryan, T.; Olfman, L.; Shayo, C. Determinants of application service provider (ASP) adoption as an innovation. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, USA, 3–6 January 2005; p. 259b. [Google Scholar]
- Low, C.; Chen, Y.; Wu, M. Understanding the determinants of cloud computing adoption. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2011, 111, 1006–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shi, P.; Yan, B. Factors affecting RFID adoption in the agricultural product distribution industry: Empirical evidence from China. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Harindranath, G.; Dyerson, R.; Barnes, D. ICT in Small Firms: Factors Affecting the Adoption and Use of ICT in Southeast England SMEs. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2008 ), Galway, Ireland, 9–11 June 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, A.; Chen, N.-C. Cloud computing as an innovation: Percepetion, attitude, and adoption. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2012, 32, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, G.C.; Benbasat, I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 192–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Mottaleb, K.A. Perception and adoption of a new agricultural technology: Evidence from a developing country. Technol. Soc. 2018, 55, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liebermann, Y.; Stashevsky, S. Perceived risks as barriers to Internet and e-commerce usage. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 2002, 5, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yousafzai, S.; Pallister, J.; Foxall, G. Multi-dimensional role of trust in Internet banking adoption. Serv. Ind. J. 2009, 29, 591–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saya, S.; Pee, L.G.; Kankanhalli, A. The Impact of Institutional Influences on Perceived Technological Characteristics and Real Options in Cloud Computing Adoption. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2010), Saint Louis, MI, USA, 12–15 December 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Reyes, P.M.; Li, S.; Visich, J.K. Determinants of RFID adoption stage and perceived benefits. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 254, 801–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aker, J.C.; Mbiti, I.M. Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. J. Econ. Perspect. 2010, 24, 207–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mbarika, V.W. Re-thinking information and communications technology policy focus on Internet versus teledensity diffusion for Africa’s least developed countries. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 2002, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Porter, M.E.; Millar, V.E. How information gives you competitive advantage. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1985, 63, 149–160. [Google Scholar]
- Hunter, G.K. Sales Technology, Relationship-Forging Tasks, and Sales Performance in Business Markets; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Alharbi, S.; Drew, S. Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2014, 5, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vagnani, G.; Volpe, L. Innovation attributes and managers’ decisions about the adoption of innovations in organizations: A meta-analytical review. Int. J. Innov. Stud. 2017, 1, 107–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsaif, M. Factors Affecting Citizens’ Adoption of e-Government Moderated by Socio-Cultural Values in Saudi Arabia; University of Birmingham: Birmingham, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Pantano, E.; Di Pietro, L. Understanding consumer’s acceptance of technology-based innovations in retailing. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2012, 7, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thowfeek, M.H.; Jaafar, A. The influence of cultural factors on the adoption of e-learning: A reference to a public University in Sri Lanka. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 263, 3424–3434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, M.; Deng, P.; Zhang, Y.; Salmador, M.P. How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review. Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 1088–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y. Exploring Key Factors That Affect Consumers to Adopt e-Reading Services. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Huafan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Hardgrave, B.C.; Davis, F.D.; Riemenschneider, C.K. Investigating determinants of software developers’ intentions to follow methodologies. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2003, 20, 123–151. [Google Scholar]
- Kristensen, S. Understanding Factors Influencing Danish Consumers’ Intention to Use Mobile Payment at Point-of-Sale’. Master’s Thesis, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Koenig-Lewis, N.; Palmer, A.; Moll, A. Predicting young consumers’ take up of mobile banking services. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2010, 28, 410–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tobbin, P.E. Modeling adoption of mobile money transfer: A consumer behaviour analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Mobile Communication Technology for Development, Kampala, Uganda, 10–11 November 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Shih, C. Integrating Innovation Diffusion Theory and UTAUT to Explore the Influencing Factors on Teacher Adopt e-Learning System–with MOODLE as an Example. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Dayeh University, Changhua, Taiwan, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, B. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis; American Psychological Association: Worcester, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Mkansi, M.; Acheampong, E.A. Research philosophy debates and classifications: Students’ dilemma. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 2012, 10, 132–140. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Brown, S.A.; Bala, H. Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q. 2013, 37, 21–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duffy, M.; Chenail, R.J. Values in qualitative and quantitative research. Couns. Values 2009, 53, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, R.L.; Higgins, C.A.; Howell, J.M. Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q. 1991, 15, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beatty, R.C.; Shim, J.P.; Jones, M.C. Factors influencing corporate web site adoption: A time-based assessment. Inf. Manag. 2001, 38, 337–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soliman, K.S.; Janz, B.D. An exploratory study to identify the critical factors affecting the decision to establish Internet-based interorganizational information systems. Inf. Manag. 2004, 41, 697–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, W.; Yan, Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nayak, M.; Narayan, K. Strengths and weakness of online surveys. IOSR J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2019, 24, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
- Zikmund, W.; Babin, B.; Carr, J.; Griffin, M. Business Research Methods, 9th ed.; South-Western Cengage Learning: Mason, OH, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Finstad, K. Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. J. Usability Stud. 2010, 5, 104–110. [Google Scholar]
- Waters, D.; Waters, C.D.J. Quantitative Methods for Business; Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques; New Age International: New Delhi, India, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: (and Sex and Drugs and Rock’n’Roll); Sage: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Coolican, H. Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology, 6th ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Gliem, J.A.; Gliem, R.R. Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. In Proceedins of the 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Columbus, OH, USA, 8–10 October 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Warmbrod, J. Conducting, Interpreting, and Reporting Quantitative Research. In Proceedins of the Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference (Pre-Session), New Orleans, LA, USA, 12 December 2001. [Google Scholar]
- George, D.; Mallery, M. Using SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Stafford, T.F.; Turan, A.H. Online tax payment systems as an emergent aspect of governmental transformation. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2011, 20, 343–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sivo, S.A.; Saunders, C.; Chang, Q.; Jiang, J.J. How low should you go? Low response rates and the validity of inference in IS questionnaire research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2006, 7, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williams, B.; Onsman, A.; Brown, T. Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australas. J. Paramed. 2010, 8, 990399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jalil, K.; Zainuddin, Y. Validation of the theoretical framework for adoption of accounting information system using structural equation modelling. Int. J. Ind. Manag. 2015, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.; Black, B.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Holmes-Smith, P. Advanced Structural Equation Modelling Using AMOS. 2011. Available online: https://www.acspri.org.au/courses/advanced-structural-equation-modelling-using-amos (accessed on 11 April 2021).
- Holmes-Smith, P. Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling Using LISREL; ACSPRI-Winter Training Program: Perth, Australia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Arbuckle, J. AMOS 6.0 User’s Guide, Volume 541; AMOS Development Corporation: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Psychology Press: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Hameed, M.A.; Counsell, S. Establishing relationships between innovation characteristics and IT innovation adoption in organisations: A meta-analysis approach. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2014, 18, 1450007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Safa, N.S.; Sookhak, M.; Von Solms, R.; Furnell, S.; Ghani, N.A.; Herawan, T. Information security conscious care behaviour formation in organizations. Comput. Secur. 2015, 53, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ali, O.; Shrestha, A.; Chatfield, A.; Murray, P. Assessing information security risks in the cloud: A case study of Australian local government authorities. Gov. Inf. Q. 2020, 37, 101419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, O.; Shrestha, A.; Osmanaj, V.; Muhammed, S. Cloud computing technology adoption: An evaluation of key factors in local governments. Inf. Technol. People 2020, 34, 666–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forman, C.; van Zeebroeck, N. Digital technology adoption and knowledge flows within firms: Can the Internet overcome geographic and technological distance? Res. Policy 2019, 48, 103697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorman, S.P. Where are the Web factories: The urban bias of e–business location. Tijdschr. Voor Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2002, 93, 522–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.-F.; Lin, S.-M. Determinants of e-business diffusion: A test of the technology diffusion perspective. Technovation 2008, 28, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, K.; Kraemer, K.L. Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: Cross-country evidence from the retail industry. Inf. Syst. Res. 2005, 16, 61–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seyal, A.H.; Rahman, M.N.A. A preliminary investigation of e-commerce adoption in small & medium enterprises in Brunei. J. Glob. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2003, 6, 6–26. [Google Scholar]
- Tiwana, A.; Bush, A.A. A comparison of transaction cost, agency, and knowledge-based predictors of IT outsourcing decisions: A US-Japan cross-cultural field study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 24, 259–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhury, A.; Bharati, P. IT outsourcing adoption by small and medium enterprises: A diffusion of innovation approach. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2008), Toronto, ON, Canada, 14–17 August 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Hamad, F.; Farajat, S.; Hamarsha, A. Awareness and adoption of mobile technologies in the delivery of services in academic libraries in Jordan. Glob. Knowl. Mem. Commun. 2018, 67, 438–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkowsky, R.W.; Sharit, J.; Czaja, S.J. Factors predicting decisions about technology adoption among older adults. Innov. Aging 2017, 1, igy002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hargittai, E. Second-level digital divide: Mapping differences in people’s online skills. arXiv 2001, arXiv:0109068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czaja, S.J.; Charness, N.; Fisk, A.D.; Hertzog, C.; Nair, S.N.; Rogers, W.A.; Sharit, J. Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychol. Aging 2006, 21, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Siren, A.; Knudsen, S.G. Older adults and emerging digital service delivery: A mixed methods study on information and communications technology use, skills, and attitudes. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2017, 29, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thiesse, F.; Staake, T.; Schmitt, P.; Fleisch, E. The rise of the “next-generation bar code”: An international RFID adoption study. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J. 2011, 16, 328–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Modrák, V.; Moskvich, V. Impacts of RFID implementation on cost structure in networked manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012, 50, 3847–3859. [Google Scholar]
- Ghobakhloo, M.; Arias-Aranda, D.; Benitez-Amado, J. Adoption of e-commerce applications in SMEs. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2011, 111, 1238–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Premkumar, G.; Roberts, M. Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses. Omega 1999, 27, 467–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goode, S.; Stevens, K. An analysis of the business characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of World Wide Web technology. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2000, 1, 129–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiken, M.; Bacharach, S.B.; French, J.L. Organizational structure, work process, and proposal making in administrative bureaucracies. Acad. Manag. J. 1980, 23, 631–652. [Google Scholar]
- Nkhoma, M.Z.; Dang, D.; De Souza-Daw, A. Contributing factors of cloud computing adoption: A technology-organisation-environment framework approach. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Management & Evaluation, Gdansk, Poland, 12–13 September 2013; pp. 180–188. [Google Scholar]
- Osyk, B.A.; Vijayaraman, B.; Srinivasan, M.; Dey, A. RFID adoption and implementation in warehousing. Manag. Res. Rev. 2012, 35, 904–926. [Google Scholar]
- Premkumar, G.; Ramamurthy, K. The role of interorganizational and organizational factors on the decision mode for adoption of interorganizational systems. Decis. Sci. 1995, 26, 303–336. [Google Scholar]
- Hambrick, D.C. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 1346–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aljawarneh, N.M.; Sokiyna, M.; Obeidat, A.M.; Alomari, K.A.K.; Alradaideh, A.T.; Alomari, Z.S. The Role of CRM fog computing on innovation and customer service quality: An empirical study. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2020, 2, 286–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tortonesi, M.; Govoni, M.; Morelli, A.; Riberto, G.; Stefanelli, C.; Suri, N. Taming the IoT data deluge: An innovative information-centric service model for fog computing applications. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 93, 888–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saharan, K.; Kumar, A. Fog in comparison to cloud: A survey. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2015, 122, 10–12. [Google Scholar]
- Prokhorenko, V.; Babar, M.A. Architectural resilience in cloud, fog and edge systems: A survey. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 28078–28095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preden, J.S.; Tammemäe, K.; Jantsch, A.; Leier, M.; Riid, A.; Calis, E. The benefits of self-awareness and attention in fog and mist computing. Computer 2015, 48, 37–45. [Google Scholar]
- Attiya, I.; Zhang, X. Cloud Computing Technology: Promises and Concerns. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2017, 159, 32–37. [Google Scholar]
- Tuli, S.; Mahmud, R.; Tuli, S.; Buyya, R. FogBus: A blockchain-based lightweight framework for edge and fog computing. J. Syst. Softw. 2019, 154, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brous, P.; Janssen, M.; Herder, P. The dual effects of the Internet of Things (IoT): A systematic review of the benefits and risks of IoT adoption by organizations. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 51, 101952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabrizchi, H.; Rafsanjani, M.K. A survey on security challenges in cloud computing: Issues, threats, and solutions. J. Supercomput. 2020, 76, 9493–9532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, R.; Gourisaria, M.K.; Patra, S. Cloud Computing—Security, Issues, and Solutions. In Communication Software and Networks; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 687–700. [Google Scholar]
- Mthunzi, S.N.; Benkhelifa, E.; Bosakowski, T.; Guegan, C.G.; Barhamgi, M. Cloud computing security taxonomy: From an atomistic to a holistic view. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 107, 620–644. [Google Scholar]
Source | Summary of the Study | Limitation of the Study |
---|---|---|
[13] | This study proposed a model for using fog technology along with cloud computing to improve big data processing. | Security, reliability, and volatility were disregarded by the model. |
[18] | This study summarizes the challenges and opportunities of fog technology in the context of big IoT data analytics using a systematic review methodology. | This paper disregarded certain areas related to the challenges of implementing fog technology in the context of IoT in the industry such as security and reliability. |
[22] | This study tried to address the factors that influence the adoption of fog technology in evaluating the data analysis of data transmitted from devices. | This study focused on adopting fog technology for data analysis and disregarded other opportunities of using fog computing. |
[23] | This study reviewed, categorized, and summarized the research in the domain of fog technology. | This study did not focus on the fog technology implementation and adoption challenges, such as security (which was discussed in general), usability, usefulness, and complexity. |
[24] | This study proposed a unified architectural model and a new taxonomy, by comparing a large number of solutions. | This study has discussed security in general but limited discussions on safety and privacy issues. |
[51] | This study reviewed fog privacy in the context of security challenges and issues. | This study was limited to security and privacy and disregarded other types of adoption challenges such as usability, usefulness, and complexity. |
[53] | This study highlights and discusses the security challenges for fog technology within the context of blockchain. | This study presented technical details about implementing fog technology within the blockchain environment, but it disregarded the user perspective of fog computing adoption. |
[58] | This study reviewed, summarized, and discussed the design issues for data security and privacy in fog technology. | This study was limited to security and disregarded other types of adoption challenges such as usability, usefulness, and complexity. |
[65] | This study proposed a model to enhance delay-sensitive utilization of available fog-based computational resources. | This study is limited to static fog resource provisioning, while in real-time, fog technology normally runs in more dynamic environments. |
[66] | This study proposed a fog computing model that supports the integration of a large number of IoT devices into Smart Grid. | This model has disregarded the security, usability, and reliability of the implemented fog chain using the proposed model. |
[67] | This survey paper reviewed existing literature on Fog computing applications to identify common security issues and challenges. | This review focused only on the security issues, while there are other issues that may influence the use of fog computing such as usability, usefulness, and complexity. |
[68] | This paper proposed a model to help in checking the compatibility of Fog infrastructures with software applications. | The proposed model used a simple fog computing architecture, while the fog computing implementations in the industry are more complicated. Moreover, this model disregarded security, usability, usefulness, and complexity. |
[69] | This study proposed a new scheme to enhance the use of Information-Centric Networking principles for IoT within the fog computing paradigm. | The proposed scheme was limited to certain scenarios and it ignored the security, usability, and complexity dimensions when implementing the new scheme. |
[70] | This study reviewed the features of using service placement in fog computing scenarios. Furthermore, it discussed the main challenges of the deployment of fog computing in IoT services. | This study focused on the performance characteristics when using fog computing with cloud and IoT, but it didn’t cover perspectives such as implementation challenges in terms of complexity, security, reliability, usability, and usefulness. |
[71] | This study provided an analysis of security on the Internet that integrates the concepts of Fog of Things (FoT) and Human in the Loop (HiTL). | This study disregarded the adoption factors that may affect the acceptance of implementing the fog technology in the industry. |
Constructs | Cronbach’s Alpha | Items | Cronbach’s Alpha | Items |
---|---|---|---|---|
First Round | Second Round | |||
Relative advantage | 0.935 | 6 | 0.935 | 6 |
Compatibility | 0.864 | 6 | 0.864 | 6 |
Complexity | 0.592 | 6 | 0.756 | 4 |
Cost effectiveness | 0.840 | 6 | 0.840 | 6 |
Security | 0.697 | 7 | 0.790 | 6 |
Privacy | 0.496 | 5 | 0.886 | 4 |
Awareness | 0.472 | 6 | 0.853 | 4 |
Infrastructure | 0.644 | 5 | 0.798 | 4 |
Information intensity | 0.517 | 4 | 0.702 | 3 |
Size of organization | 0.770 | 5 | 0.770 | 5 |
Employees’ knowledge | 0.845 | 5 | 0.845 | 4 |
Location | 0.836 | 6 | 0.836 | 6 |
Socio-cultural | 0.643 | 6 | 0.867 | 4 |
Ease of use | 0.779 | 6 | 0.912 | 4 |
Usefulness | 0.923 | 5 | 0.923 | 5 |
Fog adoption | 0.936 | 5 | 0.936 | 5 |
Total | 89 | 76 |
Demographics | Frequency | Percent |
---|---|---|
Roles in the Organization | ||
Senior Management | 24 | 11.12% |
Systems development | 49 | 22.68% |
Systems administrator | 14 | 6.48% |
Analyst | 66 | 30.55% |
Programmer | 37 | 17.12% |
Operations | 10 | 4.64% |
IT support | 16 | 7.41% |
Knowledge related to Fog Technology | ||
No knowledge | 2 | 0.93% |
Little knowledge | 59 | 27.31% |
Some knowledge | 57 | 26.38% |
Good knowledge | 74 | 34.26% |
Excellent knowledge | 24 | 11.12% |
Experience related to IT | ||
Less than 1 year | 17 | 7.87% |
2–5 | 54 | 25.00% |
6–10 | 119 | 55.09% |
11–15 | 22 | 10.19% |
More than 15 years | 4 | 1.85% |
Total | 216 | 100% |
Hypotheses | Paths | Structural Model | Results | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standardized (β) | SE | CR (t) | R2 | p Value | |||||
H1 | Relative advantage | Intend to Adopt | 0.134 | 0.056 | 2.405 | 0.508 | 0.003 ** | Supported | |
H2 | Compatibility | Intend to Adopt | 0.577 | 0.227 | 3.540 | 0.497 | 0.008 ** | Supported | |
H3 | Complexity | Intend to Adopt | 0.053 | −0.423 | −1.690 | 0.256 | 0.641 | Not Supported | |
H4 | Awareness | Intend to Adopt | 0.269 | 0.165 | 2.619 | 0.473 | 0.026 * | Supported | |
H5 | Cost effectiveness | Intend to Adopt | 0.240 | 0.062 | 4.252 | 0.491 | 0.012 ** | Supported | |
H6 | Privacy | Intend to Adopt | −0.003 | −0.097 | 0.093 | 0.107 | 0.974 | Not Supported | |
H7 | Security | Intend to Adopt | 0.254 | 0.155 | 4.815 | 0.409 | 0.027 * | Supported | |
H8 | Infrastructure | Intend to Adopt | 0.678 | 0.252 | 2.692 | 0.523 | 0.007 ** | Supported | |
H9 | Information intensity | Intend to Adopt | −0.012 | 0.223 | −0.056 | 0.197 | 0.956 | Not Supported | |
H10 | Ease of use | Intend to Adopt | 0.585 | 0.284 | 5.963 | 0.502 | 0.011 ** | Supported | |
H11 | Usefulness | Intend to Adopt | 0.678 | 0.252 | 2.472 | 0.484 | 0.016 ** | Supported | |
H12 | Socio-cultural | Intend to Adopt | 0.294 | 0.365 | 2.007 | 0.476 | 0.103 | Not Supported |
Hypotheses | Independent Variable | Dependent Variable | Mediate | Path Coefficient | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H13a | Relative advantage | Intend to Adopt | Usefulness | 0.006 ** | Supported |
H13b | Compatibility | Intend to Adopt | Ease of use | 0.012 ** | Supported |
H13c | Complexity | Intend to Adopt | Ease of use | 0.743 | Not Supported |
Hypotheses | Independent Variable | Dependent Variable | Moderator | Path Coefficient | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H14a | Cost effectiveness | Intend to Adopt | Size of organization | 0.830 | Not Supported |
H14b | Compatibility | Intend to Adopt | Location | 0.004 ** | Supported |
H14c | Compatibility | Intend to Adopt | Employees’ knowledge | 0.165 | Not Supported |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ali, O.; Shrestha, A.; Jaradat, A.; Al-Ahmad, A. An Evaluation of Key Adoption Factors towards Using the Fog Technology. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2022, 6, 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6030081
Ali O, Shrestha A, Jaradat A, Al-Ahmad A. An Evaluation of Key Adoption Factors towards Using the Fog Technology. Big Data and Cognitive Computing. 2022; 6(3):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6030081
Chicago/Turabian StyleAli, Omar, Anup Shrestha, Ashraf Jaradat, and Ahmad Al-Ahmad. 2022. "An Evaluation of Key Adoption Factors towards Using the Fog Technology" Big Data and Cognitive Computing 6, no. 3: 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6030081
APA StyleAli, O., Shrestha, A., Jaradat, A., & Al-Ahmad, A. (2022). An Evaluation of Key Adoption Factors towards Using the Fog Technology. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 6(3), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6030081