Predictors of Intention to Use a Sustainable Cloud-Based Quality Management System among Academics in Jordan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Quality Management System (QMS)
2.2. Sustainable Cloud-Based Quality Management System
2.3. The TPB and the UTAUT2
3. Research Model and Hypothesis
3.1. Attitude
3.2. Subjective Norm
3.3. Perceived Behavioral Control
3.4. Performance Expectancy (PE)
3.5. Facilitating Conditions
3.6. Behavioral Intention
4. Methods
4.1. Sampling and Data Collection
4.2. Measurement
4.3. Data Analysis Results
4.3.1. The Measurement Model
4.3.2. The Structural Model
5. Discussion and Implications and Limitations
6. Conclusions and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Al-Samarraie, H.; Saeed, N. A systematic review of cloud computing tools for collaborative learning: Opportunities and challenges to the blended-learning environment. Comput. Educ. 2018, 124, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.H.; Tsai, C.C. In-service teachers’ conceptions of mobile technology-integrated instruction: Tendency towards student-centered learning. Comput. Educ. 2021, 170, 104224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dutta, B.; Peng, M.H.; Chen, C.C.; Sun, S.L. Interpreting Usability Factors Predicting Sustainable Adoption of Cloud-Based E-Learning Environment during COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amigud, A.; Arnedo-Moreno, J.; Daradoumis, T.; Guerrero-Roldan, A.E. An integrative review of security and integrity strategies in an academic environment: Current understanding and emerging perspectives. Comput. Secur. 2018, 76, 50–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.L.; Wu, C.C. Student’s behavioral intention to use and achievements in ICT-Integrated mathematics remedial instruction: A case study of a calculus course. Comput. Educ. 2020, 145, 103740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giebels, D.; van Buuren, A.; Edelenbos, J. Using knowledge in a complex decision-making process–Evidence and principles from the Danish Housing project’s ecosystem-based management approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 47, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Omoush, K.S.; Al-Qirem, R.M.; Al Hawatmah, Z.M. The degree of e-business entrepreneurship and long-term sustainability: An institutional perspective. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag. 2018, 16, 29–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Shayea, Q.K. Telemedicine using cloud computing in Jordan. In Competition Forum; American Society for Competitiveness: Tysons Corner, VA, USA, 2015; Volume 13, No. 2; p. 390. [Google Scholar]
- Pańkowska, M.; Pyszny, K.; Strzelecki, A. Users’ adoption of sustainable cloud computing solutions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Martínez, J.A.; Bote-Lorenzo, M.L.; Gómez-Sánchez, E.; Cano-Parra, R. Cloud computing and education: A state-of-the-art survey. Comput. Educ. 2015, 80, 132–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.-S.; Liang, W.-Y.; Hsu, H.-Y. A cloud computing platform for ERP applications. Appl. Soft Comput. 2015, 27, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, C.; Ishizaka, A. GAHPSort: A new group multi-criteria decision method for sorting a large number of the use sustainable cloud-based ERP solutions. Comput. Ind. 2017, 92, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, Y.M. Quality antecedents and performance outcome of use sustainable cloud-based hospital information system continuance intention. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 33, 654–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hew, T.-S.; Kadir, S.L.S.A. Predicting instructional effectiveness of use sustainable cloud-based virtual learning environment. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 1557–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Jou, M. Qualitative investigation on the views of inquiry teaching based upon the cloud learning environment of high school physics teachers from Beijing, Taipei, and Chicago. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 60, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz, J.A.A.; Martínez-Mediano, C. The impact of ISO quality management systems on primary and secondary schools in Spain. Qual. Assur. Educ. 2018, 26, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grudzień, Ł.; Hamrol, A. Information quality in design process documentation of quality management systems. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laudon, K.C.; Laudon, J.P. Management Information Systems; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2015; p. 143. [Google Scholar]
- Rocha-Lona, L.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kumar, V. Building Quality Management Systems: Selecting the Right Methods and Tools; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ismyrlis, V. The contribution of quality tools and integration of quality management systems to the organization. TQM J. 2017, 29, 677–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.H.M.; Huynh, Q. The relationships among quality management system, knowledge management and organizational performance: An application of the Heckman two-step method. J. Appl. Econ. Bus. Res. 2014, 4, 235–245. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 9000; Quality Management Systems Requirements. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
- Soković, M.; Jovanović, J.; Krivokapić, Z.; Vujović, A. Basic quality tools in continuous improvement process. J. Mech. Eng. 2009, 55, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Ilies, L.; Osoian, C.; Zaharie, M. Quality management system in higher education-employers approach. Manag. Chall. Contemp. Soc. Proc. 2010, 75–79. [Google Scholar]
- Arpaci, I. Antecedents and consequences of cloud computing adoption in education to achieve knowledge management. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 70, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lian, J.W. Critical factors for cloud-based e-invoice service adoption in Taiwan: An empirical study. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.D.; Nguyen, T.M.; Pham, Q.T.; Misra, S. Acceptance and use of e-learning based on cloud computing: The role of consumer innovativeness. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harfoushi, O.; Akhorshaideh, A.H.; Aqqad, N.; Al Janini, M.; Obiedat, R. Factors affecting the intention of adopting cloud computing in Jordanian hospitals. Commun. Netw. 2016, 8, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Matar, N.; AlMalahmeh, T.; Sowan, B.; Al-Jaghoub, S.; Mater, W. A multi-group structural equation modeling for assessing behavioral intention of using mobile cloud computing-the case of Jordanian universities during the covid19 pandemic. Int. Arab J. Inf. Technol. 2022, 19, 203–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, V.; Walters, R.J.; Wills, G.B. Organisational sustainability modeling—An emerging service and analytics model for evaluating Cloud Computing adoption with two case studies. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumar, S.; Buyya, R. Green cloud computing and environmental sustainability. Harnessing Green IT Princ. Pract. 2012, 315–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gill, S.S.; Buyya, R. A taxonomy and future directions for sustainable cloud computing: 360-degree view. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2018, 51, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, P.; Seetharaman, A.; Raj, J.R. The usage and adoption of cloud computing by small and medium businesses. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 861–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coccoli, M.; Guercio, A.; Maresca, P.; Stanganelli, L. Smarter universities: A vision for the fast-changing digital era. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 2014, 25, 1003–1011. [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]
- 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]
- Qian, L.; Luo, Z.; Du, Y.; Guo, L. Cloud computing: An overview. In IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 626–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alotaibi, M.B. Exploring Users’ Attitudes and Intentions toward the Adoption of Cloud Computing in Saudi Arabia: An Empirical Investigation. JCS 2014, 10, 2315–2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- Shon, T.; Cho, J.; Han, K.; Choi, H. Toward advanced mobile cloud computing for the internet of things: Current issues and future direction. Mob. Netw. Appl. 2014, 19, 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arpaci, I. Understanding and predicting students’ intention to use mobile cloud storage services. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 58, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [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]
- Venkatesh, V.; Goyal, S. Expectation disconfirmation and technology adoption: Polynomial modeling and response surface analysis. MIS Q. 2010, 34, 281–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thong, J.Y.; Hong, S.J.; Tam, K.Y. The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2006, 64, 799–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Malhotra, A. ES-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. J. Serv. Res. 2005, 7, 213–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, Y.; Krishnan, R. On product-level uncertainty and online purchase behavior: An empirical analysis. Manag. Sci. 2015, 61, 2449–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pahnila, S.; Mikko, S.; Viasong, Z. Integrated Habit into UTAUT: The Chinese eBay Case. Pac.-Asia J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2011, 3, 1–30. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems Theory and Result. Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. Available online: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/15192/14927137-MIT.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2022).
- Lee, Y.; Kozar, K.A.; Larsen, K.R. The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2003, 12, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaseen, S.G.; Dajani, D.; Hasan, Y. The impact of intellectual capital on the competitive advantage: Applied study in Jordanian telecommunication companies. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 62, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hew, T.S.; Kadir, S.L.S.A. Behavioral intention in cloud-based VLE: An extension to Channel Expansion Theory. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 64, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, M.D.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A literature review. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2015, 28, 443–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dajani, D.; Hegleh, A.S.A. Behavior intention of animation usage among university students. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abushakra, A.; Nikbin, D. Extending the UTAUT2 model to understand the entrepreneur acceptance and adoption internet of things (IoT). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations (KMO 2019), Zamora, Spain, 15–18 July 2019; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 339–347. [Google Scholar]
- El-Masri, M.; Tarhini, A. Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2017, 65, 743–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshirah, M.; Lutfi, A.; Alshirah, A.; Saad, M.; Ibrahim, N.M.E.S.; Mohammed, F. Influences of the environmental factors on the intention to adopt cloud-based accounting information system among SMEs in Jordan. Accounting 2021, 7, 645–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olson, J.M.; Zanna, M.P. Attitudes and attitudes change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993, 44, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wicker, A.W. Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. J. Soc. 1969, 25, 41–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hale, J.L.; Householder, B.J.; Greene, K.L. The theory of reasoned action. In The Sage Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice, 2nd ed.; Dillard, J.P., Shen, L., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 259–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faham, E.; Asghari, H. Determinants of behavioral intention to use e-textbooks: A study in Iran’s agricultural sector. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 165, 104935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparks, P.; Shepherd, R.; Wieringa, N.; Zimmermanns, N. Perceived behavioral control, unrealistic optimism and dietary change: An exploratory study. Appetite 1995, 24, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, D.; Cronan, T.P.; Jones, T.W. Modeling it ethics: A study in situational ethics. MIS Q. 1998, 22, 31–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonard, L.N.K.; Cronan, T.P.; Kreie, J. What influences ethical behavior Intentions planned behavior, reasoned action, perceived importance or individual characteristics? Inf. Manag. 2004, 42, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, M.; Woon, I.; Kankanhalli, A. Perceptions of information security in the workplace: Linking information security climate to compliant behavior. J. Inf. Priv. Secur. 2005, 1, 18–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, J. Information systems user security: A structured model of the knowing-doing gap. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 1849–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, A.C.; Warkentin, M. Fear appeals and information security behaviors: An empirical study. MIS Q. 2010, 34, 549–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knapp, K.J.; Marshall, T.E.; Rainer, R.K.; Ford, F.N. Information security: Management’s effect on culture and policy. Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur. 2006, 14, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: Ameta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Greaves, M.; Zibarras, L.D.; Stride, C. Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kidwell, B.; Jewell, R.D. An examination of perceived behavioral control: Internal and external influences on intention. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 625–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, T.; Hsu, C.H. Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 589–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alalwan, A.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P. Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shiau, W.L.; Chau, P.Y. Understanding behavioral intention to use a cloud computing classroom: A multiple model comparison approach. Inf. Manag. 2016, 53, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahardika, H.; Thomas, D.; Ewing, M.T.; Japutra, A. Comparing the temporal stability of behavioral expectation and behavioral intention in the prediction of consumers’ pro-environmental behavior. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 54, 101943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, T.E.; Lam, D.Y.; Yeung, A.C. Adoption of internet banking: An empirical study in Hong Kong. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1558–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Madden, T.J.; Ellen, P.S.; Ajzen, I. A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 18, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.; Chen, J.L. An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of online tax: An empirical study. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2005, 62, 784–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: The importance-performance map analysis. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 1865–1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Michalos, A.C. (Ed.) . Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Netemeyer, R.G.; Bearden, W.O.; Sharma, S. Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.; Xu, X. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2016, 17, 328–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharif, A.; Afshan, S.; Qureshi, M.A. Acceptance of learning management system in university students: An integrating framework of modified UTAUT2 and TTF theories. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2019, 11, 201–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yen, Y.; Wang, Z.; Shi, Y.; Xu, F.; Soeung, B.; Sohail, M.T.; Juma, S.A. The predictors of the behavioral intention to the use of urban green spaces: The perspectives of young residents in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Habitat Int. 2017, 64, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jafarkarimi, H.; Saadatdoost, R.; Sim, A.T.H.; Hee, J.M. Behavioral intention in social networking sites ethical dilemmas: An extended model based on theory of planned behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 62, 545–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gleim, M.R.; Smith, J.S.; Andrews, D.; Cronin, J.J., Jr. Against the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. J. Retail. 2013, 89, 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Wang, S.; Yu, Y. Consumer’s intention to purchase green furniture: Do health consciousness and environmental awareness matter? Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 704, 135275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sheppard, B.H.; Jon, H.; Warshaw, P.R. The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 325–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Mathieson, K. Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Frequency (N—500) | Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|
Academic Rank | ||
Professor | 88 | 17.6% |
Associate Professor | 164 | 32.8% |
Assistant Professor | 208 | 41.6% |
Lecturer | 40 | 8% |
Total | 500 | 100% |
Gender | ||
Male | 418 | 83.6% |
Female | 82 | 16.4% |
Total | 500 | 100% |
Age | ||
less than 30 | 12 | 2.4% |
30–39 | 136 | 27.2% |
40–49 | 202 | 40.4% |
51-above | 150 | 30.0% |
Total | 500 | 100% |
Years of experience | ||
less than 5 | 78 | 15.6% |
5–9 | 176 | 35.2% |
10–14 | 108 | 21.6% |
15-above | 138 | 27.6% |
Total | 500 | 100% |
Construct | Code | Measurements | References |
---|---|---|---|
Attitude | ATT1 | Using a sustainable cloud-based quality management system would be a good idea | Cheng et al. [79] |
ATT2 | Using Use sustainable cloud-based quality management system would be a foolish idea | ||
ATT3 | I like the idea of using the sustainable cloud-based quality management system | ||
ATT4 | Using a sustainable cloud-based quality management system would be pleasant | ||
Subjective Norm | SN1 | Your decision to use a sustainable cloud-based quality management system is because universities use this system | Madden et al. [80] |
SN2 | Your decision to use a sustainable cloud-based quality management system is because the media encourages s use of this system | ||
SN3 | Your decision to use a sustainable cloud-based quality management system is because International Higher educational institutions use this system | ||
Perceived Behavioral Control | PBC1 | I have control over using the sustainable cloud-based quality management system | Wu and Chen [81] |
PBC2 | I have the resources necessary to use a sustainable cloud-based quality management system | ||
PBC3 | I know it is necessary to use a sustainable cloud-based quality management system | ||
PBC4 | Given the resource, opportunity, and knowledge it takes to use a sustainable cloud-based quality management system, it would be easy for me to use SCQMS | ||
Performance Expectancy | PE1 | I find using a sustainable cloud-based quality management system useful in my daily work | Venkatesh et al. [45,47] |
PE2 | Using a sustainable cloud-based quality management system increases my chances of achieving things that are important to me | ||
PE3 | Using a sustainable cloud-based quality management system helps me accomplish things more quickly | ||
PE4 | Using a sustainable cloud-based quality management system increases my productivity | ||
Facilitating Conditions | FC1 | I have the resources necessary to use a sustainable cloud-based quality management system | |
FC2 | I know that it is necessary to use a sustainable cloud-based quality management system | ||
FC3 | Using a sustainable cloud-based quality management system is compatible with other technologies I use | ||
FC4 | I can get help from others when I have difficulties using the sustainable cloud-based quality management system | ||
Behavior Intention | BI1 | I intend to continue using sustainable cloud-based quality management system in the future | Venkatesh et al. [45,47] |
BI2 | I will always try to use a sustainable cloud-based quality management system in my daily work | ||
BI3 | I plan to continue to use sustainable cloud-based quality management systems frequently | ||
User Behavior | UB1 | If an initial decision to use SCQMS has been taken, how frequently will you use it? | Venkatesh et al. [45,47] |
UB2 | If an initial decision is to use SCQMS, how much time will you spend on it in terms of minutes/hours? |
Attitude | Behavioral Intention | Facilitating Condition | Perceived Behavioral Control | Performance Expectancy | Subjective Norm | Use Behavior | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude% | 0.869 | ||||||
Behavioral Intention% | 0.317 | 0.891 | |||||
Facilitating Condition% | 0.180 | 0.408 | 0.859 | ||||
Perceived Behavioral Control% | 0.312 | 0.435 | 0.718 | 0.793 | |||
Performance Expectancy% | 0.399 | 0.649 | 0.328 | 0.350 | 0.842 | ||
Subjective Norm% | 0.577 | 0.374 | 0.302 | 0.351 | 0.461 | 0.825 | |
Use Behavior% | 0.194 | 0.356 | 0.220 | 0.255 | 0.336 | 0.275 | 0.901 |
Constructs | Attitude | Subjective Norm | Perceived Behavioral Control | Performance Expectancy | Facilitating Condition | Behavioral Intention | Use Behavior |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ATT1r | 0.873 | 0.492 | 0.288 | 0.374 | 0.180 | 0.241 | 0.201 |
ATT2r | 0.869 | 0.525 | 0.278 | 0.387 | 0.190 | 0.263 | 0.224 |
ATT3r | 0.893 | 0.482 | 0.240 | 0.313 | 0.081 | 0.308 | 0.149 |
ATT4r | 0.840 | 0.511 | 0.285 | 0.322 | 0.188 | 0.280 | 0.110 |
SN1r | 0.440 | 0.825 | 0.352 | 0.428 | 0.320 | 0.298 | 0.206 |
SN2r | 0.539 | 0.841 | 0.311 | 0.349 | 0.253 | 0.351 | 0.277 |
SN3r | 0.437 | 0.809 | 0.192 | 0.370 | 0.165 | 0.265 | 0.185 |
PBC1r | 0.312 | 0.325 | 0.774 | 0.253 | 0.475 | 0.302 | 0.207 |
PBC2r | 0.262 | 0.284 | 0.844 | 0.248 | 0.694 | 0.312 | 0.207 |
PBC3r | 0.172 | 0.245 | 0.789 | 0.286 | 0.680 | 0.323 | 0.218 |
PBC4r | 0.246 | 0.263 | 0.764 | 0.309 | 0.451 | 0.416 | 0.182 |
PE1r | 0.388 | 0.385 | 0.386 | 0.842 | 0.346 | 0.585 | 0.282 |
PE2r | 0.287 | 0.352 | 0.260 | 0.840 | 0.257 | 0.512 | 0.273 |
PE3r | 0.349 | 0.427 | 0.286 | 0.845 | 0.270 | 0.550 | 0.341 |
PE4r | 0.312 | 0.386 | 0.238 | 0.843 | 0.224 | 0.535 | 0.236 |
FC1r | 0.169 | 0.233 | 0.687 | 0.219 | 0.831 | 0.289 | 0.130 |
FC2r | 0.187 | 0.284 | 0.633 | 0.316 | 0.880 | 0.404 | 0.204 |
FC3r | 0.105 | 0.254 | 0.543 | 0.296 | 0.865 | 0.344 | 0.222 |
BI1r | 0.314 | 0.334 | 0.377 | 0.641 | 0.324 | 0.896 | 0.335 |
BI2r | 0.211 | 0.308 | 0.385 | 0.523 | 0.379 | 0.874 | 0.263 |
BI3r | 0.313 | 0.357 | 0.404 | 0.565 | 0.393 | 0.903 | 0.348 |
UB1r | 0.250 | 0.287 | 0.292 | 0.369 | 0.237 | 0.377 | 0.943 |
UB2r | 0.063 | 0.191 | 0.139 | 0.208 | 0.141 | 0.241 | 0.856 |
Construct | Code | Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude | ATT1 | 0.873 | 0.892 | 0.925 | 0.755 |
ATT2 | 0.869 | ||||
ATT3 | 0.893 | ||||
ATT4 | 0.840 | ||||
&Subjective Norm | SN1 | 0.825 | 0.768 | 0.865 | 0.681 |
SN2 | 0.841 | ||||
SN3 | 0.809 | ||||
Perceived Behavioral Control | PBC1 | 0.774 | 0.805 | 0.872 | 0.629 |
PBC2 | 0.844 | ||||
PBC3 | 0.789 | ||||
PBC4 | 0.764 | ||||
Performance Expectancy | PE1 | 0.842 | 0.864 | 0.907 | 0.709 |
PE2 | 0.840 | ||||
PE3 | 0.845 | ||||
PE4 | 0.843 | ||||
Facilitating Condition | FC1 | 0.831 | 0.824 | 0.894 | 0.738 |
FC2 | 0.880 | ||||
FC3 | 0.865 | ||||
Behavioral Intention | BI1w | 0.896 | 0.871 | 0.920 | 0.794 |
BI2w | 0.874 | ||||
BI3w | 0.903 | ||||
Use Behavior | UB1 | 0.943 | 0.777 | 0.895 | 0.811 |
UB2 | 0.856 |
Path | Standardized Coefficient Beta (β) | T-Values | P-Values (Sig) | Hypothesis Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude -> Behavioral Intention3 | 0.018 | 0.435 | 0.664 | H1 Not Supported1 |
Subjective Norm -> Behavioral Intention4 | 0.028 | 0.698 | 0.486 | H2 Not Supported2 |
Perceived Behavioral Control -> Behavioral Intention5 | 0.150 | 3.027 | 0.003 | H3 Supported |
Performance Expectancy -> Behavioral Intention | 0.540 | 15.904 | 0.000 | H4 Supported |
Facilitating Condition -> Behavioral Intention | 0.112 | 2.003 | 0.046 | H5 Supported |
Behavioral Intention -> Use Behavior | 0.356 | 8.944 | 0.000 | H6 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
Dajani, D.; Yaseen, S.G.; El Qirem, I.; Sa’d, H. Predictors of Intention to Use a Sustainable Cloud-Based Quality Management System among Academics in Jordan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114253
Dajani D, Yaseen SG, El Qirem I, Sa’d H. Predictors of Intention to Use a Sustainable Cloud-Based Quality Management System among Academics in Jordan. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21):14253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114253
Chicago/Turabian StyleDajani, Dima, Saad G. Yaseen, Ihab El Qirem, and Hanadi Sa’d. 2022. "Predictors of Intention to Use a Sustainable Cloud-Based Quality Management System among Academics in Jordan" Sustainability 14, no. 21: 14253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114253
APA StyleDajani, D., Yaseen, S. G., El Qirem, I., & Sa’d, H. (2022). Predictors of Intention to Use a Sustainable Cloud-Based Quality Management System among Academics in Jordan. Sustainability, 14(21), 14253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114253