What drives cloud ERP continuance? An integrated view
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the key antecedents of organizational users’ continuance intention of cloud enterprise resource planning (ERP) by the integration of constructs from the expectation–confirmation model (ECM), technology acceptance model (TAM), theory of planned behavior (TPB), task-technology fit and TAM2. Design/methodology/approach Sample data for this study were collected from end users of cloud ERP working in companies in Taiwan. A total of 560 questionnaires were distributed in the 56 sample companies, and 395 (70.5 percent) usable questionnaires were analyzed using structural equation modeling in this study. Findings Findings show that while compatibility and output quality are key antecedents of confirmation of expectations toward cloud ERP, compatibility still reveals overwhelming and more indirect impacts on users’ continuance intention of cloud ERP than output quality because output quality has significant but evidently lesser effects on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use than compatibility. Originality/value First, this study contributes to the identification of compatibility and output quality that may reveal deep insights to the task-related factors in understanding users’ cloud ERP continuance greatly driven by their confirmation of expectations toward cloud ERP. Next, the empirical evidence on capturing the ECM, TAM and TPB for completely explaining the antecedents of users’ continued cloud ERP usage intention is well d…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs
Churchill, G. A. (1979) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377901600110 · Cited by 16,549 · see citing works
Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249689 · Cited by 6,006 · see citing works
Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249633 · Cited by 2,891 · see citing works
Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach
Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2001) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x · Cited by 1,409 · see citing works
Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model
Roca, J. C., Chiu, C.-M., & Martínez, F. J. (2006) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003 · Cited by 1,399 · see citing works
Rajan, C. A., & Baral, R. (2015) · IIMB Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.iimb.2015.04.008 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Enterprise resource planning adoption and satisfaction determinants
Costa, C. J., Ferreira, E., Bento, F., & Aparicio, M. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.090 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Hsieh, P.-J. (2015) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.03.004 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Uddin, M. A., Alam, M. S., Mamun, A. A., Khan, T.-U.-Z., & Akter, A. (2020) · Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity · doi:10.3390/joitmc6010002 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Leong, L.-Y., Hew, T.-S., Ooi, K.-B., Metri, B., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-022-10337-7 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
“Similar to Cheng (2018) and Singh (2020), some external variables can be drawn from the context of AI-driven chatbots.”
BackgroundMohamad Zain, M. R., Tajul Urus, S., Trinh, T., Amirul, S. M., & Tuan Mat, T. Z. (2023) · Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Journal · doi:10.24191/apmaj.v18i1-05 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cheng, Y.-M.
- Affiliations
- Chaoyang University of Technology (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Cheng, Yung-Ming
- ORCID
- Cheng, Yung-Ming
- Venue
- Journal of Enterprise Information Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2018-08-10
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 724-750
- ISSN
- 1741-0398 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2886520496
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 5.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Enterprise Information Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
- Keywords
- cloud ERP, continuance intention, expectation-confirmation model, technology acceptance model, theory of planned behavior, task-technology fit, compatibility, output quality, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, post-adoption behavior, end users
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
