Determinants For The Adoption of Cloud Computing Among Alaskan Nonprofit Organizations

Determinants for the Adoption of Cloud Computing among Alaskan Nonprofit
Organizations
Dissertation Manuscript
Submitted to Northcentral University
School of Business
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
by
JEREMIAH LUCAS WILLIAMS SR
La Jolla, California
February 2021

Approval Page
Determinants for the Adoption of Cloud Computing among Alaskan Nonprofit Organizations
By
JEREMIAH LUCAS WILLIAMS SR
Approved by the Doctoral Committee:
Doctor of Philosophy 04/14/2021 | 12:30:08 MST
Marty Crossland
Dissertation Chair: INSERT NAME Degree Held Date
Ed.D 04/14/2021 | 15:51:27 MST
Committee Member: Dr. Patricia

INSERT Steiner
NAME Degree Held Date
04/14/2021 | 12:26:07 MST

Doctor of Management
INSERT
Committee Member: Robin NAME Degree Held
Butler Date
ii
Abstract
Determinants for the adoption of cloud computing among for-profit organizations have been
extensively studied. Current research has consistently supported the theoretical power of the
Technology Organizational Environmental (TOE) framework in exploring firm level factors
supporting technology acceptance theory. The purpose of this quantitative study was to provide
generalization for previous TOE studies by examining the influence of perceived benefits and
business concerns on the intention of nonprofit organizations in Alaska to adopt cloud
computing. This nonexperimental study was designed to collect a random sample of self-
reported data from an online survey completed by nonprofit organizational decision makers in
Anchorage Alaska. This study was an extension of the previous research work of Hsu et al.
(2014) replicating their study to explore finding among nonprofit organizations. Results were
consistent with existing TOE theory but not all hypotheses showed significance. The perceived
benefit reduced IT costs and reduced IT employee costs did show significant influence on the
cloud adoption intention of nonprofit organization in Anchorage Alaska. Business concerns
confidentiality, incompatibility, service outages, and vendor lock-in also showed significant
influence on adoption intention. Alaskan nonprofits desire to adoption cloud computing
technologies at a 68% rate. Their top benefit was ubiquitous access, and their top concern was
confidentiality. Video teleconferencing was their first choice for immediate upgrade. Hsu’s
research structured equation model (SEM) was validated, but not all aspects of their findings.
Future studies should not survey participants with post cards in middle of a global health
pandemic. Additionally, the standardized distribution of this sample was statistically weak with a
margin of error of 21%. This study should be repeated with a stronger sample data set.
iii
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to thank the members of my Dissertation Committee who have been
great mentors and professors providing corrective guidance, support, patience, and
encouragement throughout this process. Special thanks also go to my brother-in-law, Bernardo
Jorge, who tirelessly labeled and stamped 2310 postcards to support this study. In addition, I
would like to extend my thanks to the nonprofit businesses of Anchorage Alaska who took the
time to complete a survey while businesses were ordered closed to preventing viral spread during
the worst global pandemic in 50 years.
I am greatly indebted to my co-workers who fulfilled my job roles and responsibilities for
over three weeks while I performed analysis for this study. I am especially grateful for business
partners, Freddy Vicente, and Larry Yingling, who patiently postponed business venture and
relinquished capital opportunities to accommodate the priority of my studies. Special honor goes
to my parents, Michael, and Malinda Williams, who rearranged their lives to watch my son
impromptu accommodating long study efforts. Thanks to my church family, Christ Temple
Apostolic Alaska, who continued divine focus and passion while their assistant pastor abdicated
events and services for sake of studies.
Finally, I would like to thank my son, Jeremiah Williams Jr, who innately and
consistently motivated me to continue the pursue this study every time I was ready to give up.
Eternal thanks to Jesus Christ my savior who gave me the passion for this pursuit.
iv
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 10

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 11
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 12
Nature of the Study ................................................................................................................... 13
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 17
Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................ 19
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 20
Definitions of Key Terms ......................................................................................................... 21
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 24
Innovation Adoption ................................................................................................................. 25

Technology Organization Environment Framework ................................................................ 27
TOE Previous Research ............................................................................................................ 29
Research Adaptation ................................................................................................................. 33
Cloud Computing...................................................................................................................... 35
Nonprofit Organizations ........................................................................................................... 41
Alaska Nonprofit Organizations ............................................................................................... 43
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 3: Research Method......................................................................................................... 47
Research Methodology and Design .......................................................................................... 47

Population and Sample ............................................................................................................. 48
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................... 49
Operational Definition of Variables ......................................................................................... 51
Study Procedures and Data Collection ..................................................................................... 57
Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 60
Assumptions.............................................................................................................................. 61
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 62
Delimitations ............................................................................................................................. 63
Ethical Assurances .................................................................................................................... 64
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 65
Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 66
Validity and Reliability of the Data .......................................................................................... 66

Results....................................................................................................................................... 88
Evaluation of the Findings ...................................................................................................... 109
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 110
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions .................................................. 113

v
Implications ............................................................................................................................ 115

Recommendations for Practice ............................................................................................... 120
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 122
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 123
References ................................................................................................................................... 125
Appendix A: Research Databases ............................................................................................... 138
Appendix B: Previous Cloud Computing Adoption Research ................................................... 140
Appendix C: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 145
Appendix D: Survey Introduction ............................................................................................... 148
Appendix E: Survey Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 149
Appendix F: Normality Test: Skew and Kurtosis ....................................................................... 152
Appendix G: Measurement Model Standardized Residual Covariances .................................... 153
Appendix H: Structured Equation Models Standardized Residual Covariances ........................ 154

vi
List of Tables
Table 1 Variables for Perceived Benefits ..................................................................................... 18

Table 2 Variables for Business Concerns ..................................................................................... 18
Table 3 Research Constructs......................................................................................................... 34
Table 4 Technology Attributes ..................................................................................................... 53
Table 5 Operational Definition of Variables ................................................................................ 54
Table 6 Research Data Collection Timeline ................................................................................. 59
Table 7 Tests of Normality ........................................................................................................... 69
Table 8 Common Method Bias Test Results ................................................................................ 73
Table 9 Means and Standard Deviation of Observed Variables ................................................... 75
Table 10 EFA Total Items Variance ............................................................................................. 76
Table 11 EFA Items Matrix ......................................................................................................... 77
Table 12 Cronbach's Alpha for PB & BC Items ........................................................................... 77
Table 13 Correlation Matrix ........................................................................................................ 78
Table 14 Measurement Model Unstandardized Regression Weights .......................................... 80
Table 15 Measurement Model Standardized Regression Weights .............................................. 81
Table 16 Model Fit Summary ...................................................................................................... 84
Table 17 Structured Equation Model Unstandardized Regression Weights ................................ 86
Table 18 Structured Equation Model Standardized Regression Weights .................................... 87
Table 19 Regression Weights, Hypotheses Analysis................................................................. 100
Table 20 Standardized Regression Weights, Hypotheses Analysis ........................................... 101
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Research Model .............................................................................................................. 16

Figure 2 Normal Q-Q Plots for Variables ..................................................................................... 69
Figure 3 Measurement Model, Confirmatory Factor Analysis ..................................................... 79
Figure 4 Structured Equation Model............................................................................................. 85
Figure 5 Perceived Benefits by Value .......................................................................................... 90
Figure 6 Business Concerns by Value .......................................................................................... 91
Figure 7 Intention to Migrate Current Technology to the Cloud .................................................. 93
Figure 8 Adoption Intention.......................................................................................................... 95
Figure 9 Adoption Intention by Value .......................................................................................... 95
Figure 10 Preferred Deployment Model ....................................................................................... 97
Figure 11 Preferred Pricing Mechanism ....................................................................................... 98
Figure 12 Structured Equation Model, Hypotheses Analysis ..................................................... 100
Figure 13 Adjusted SEM Model for Significance ...................................................................... 109
8
Chapter 1: Introduction
Instant access to current and relevant information despite a catastrophic failure or natural
disaster is one of many critical missions for the information systems pillar called availability.
Together, with confidentiality and integrity, this information systems (IS) triad ensures that
business systems and resources are accessible against an array of possible risks (Aminzade,
2018). Traditional methods to ensure data availability have included elaborate data backup
strategies, often requiring business data to be physically and remotely archived on a daily or
weekly basis. More expensive options to enforce the triad require the build-out of a hot site. Hot
sites are remote sites that mirror the infrastructure and business systems at a primary site. Hot
sites are also continually active, connected to the primary site, and are ready to become primary
at a moment’s notice. Prior to cloud computing, manual backups, cold sites, and hot sites had
been the only solution for infrastructure continuity and information assurance. According to Son
and Lee (2011), today’s cloud solutions not only provide for information assurance but have the
potential of reducing total cost of ownership (TCO) for organizations.
Cloud computing is growing indiscriminate to industry. The scalability and elasticity of
information technology (IT) driven cloud solutions is attractive to businesses of all types (Hsu et
al., 2014). Cloud computing offers tremendous possibilities for businesses of all sizes. Cloud
computing is becoming as common as a public utility (Alkhater et al., 2018; Priyadarshinee et
al., 2017).
There are three service models for cloud computing. According to the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), Software as a Services (SaaS) allows organizations to
access applications from internet-based hosts without the need to manage supporting
infrastructure (Mell & Grance, 2011). Platform as a Service (PaaS) allows organizations to place
9
their own customized programs and applications on internet-based hosts using that host’s
supported controls and supported programming languages (Mell & Grance, 2011). The last type
of cloud service is Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), which allows businesses to purchase
processing, storage, networks, and other technology resources from internet hosts (Mell &
Grance, 2011).
Organizations choosing to adopt cloud innovations first choose a cloud service model, as
governed by organizational requirements. Organizations also determine an appropriate
deployment model; hybrid, private, or public cloud (Mell & Grance, 2011). Public cloud
providers like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and IBM own and control the infrastructure hosted
for cloud solutions, while private cloud providers allow the organizations themselves to purchase
and host their own cloud solutions. As an alternative, organizations can choose a hybrid
deployment model to capitalize on the benefits of both.
Cloud solutions are so new and have evolved so fast that some organizations struggle to
establish clear grounds for accepting, implementing, and integrating cloud technologies (Hyson,
2014). Public cloud solutions can differ so much from private solutions. Detailed analysis is
required before deciding to transition to the cloud. Bandwidth levels, data management schemes,
information operation processes, data resiliency, and data security are possible negative risks
faced when implementing cloud solutions (Gangwar & Date, 2016; Hsu et al., 2014). Many
organizations still do not trust the cloud and have security concerns about the risks (Velazquez,
2014). Nevertheless, positive benefits may include cost advantage, scalability, flexibility, shared
resource access, and automatic updates and upgrades (Gangwar & Date, 2016; Hsu et al., 2014).
Despite the indecision of some organizations, the adoption of cloud computing is growing as
10
influenced by cost benefits, however, growth remains slow (Al-Mascati & Al-Badi, 2016; Raza
et al., 2015).
Not for profit organizations thrive on the efficient use of funding. Their philanthropic
nature would suggest that the prevailing cloud benefit of cost (Son & Lee, 2011) alone would be
a clear driver for the adoption of cloud technologies. They are often constrained by inconsistent
fiduciary support, relying on grants and other forms of financial benevolence (Blalack, 2016;
Sontag-Padilla et al., 2012). Nonprofit organizations do not often have complex information
technology (IT) infrastructure or advanced IT management staffing hierarchies (Sontag-Padilla et
al., 2012). Their philanthropic nature often constricts IT infrastructure to limited budgets. Less
money spent toward technology services could mean more money for charitable endeavors.
Empirical research on this business demographic and the diffusion of cloud computing
innovation has been investigated by only one researcher (Wright et al., 2017). Wright et al.
(2017) investigated the diffusion of SaaS solutions among nonprofit Salesforce clients, one of the
three cloud computing service models. With this research vacancy, this study focused on whether
current research findings on factors leading to cloud computing adoption among for-profit
organizations lend validity among nonprofit organizations. Current research finding on the
organizational diffusion of cloud computing continue to grow and produce consistent research
findings with decision-making theories, such as technology acceptance and innovation diffusion
theories.
Statement of the Problem
For-profit organizations are the focus of current research on factors influencing the
adoption of cloud computing (Gangwar & Date, 2016; Ghobakhloo & Arias-Aranda, 2011; Lian
et al., 2014; Lin & Chen, 2012; Oliveira et al., 2014). There is a growing need for research on the
11
factors leading to cloud computing adoption and their influence on business operations. Building
on the most recent findings, we find that there are several factors empirically shown to influence
the acceptance of cloud computing within organizations. Research reveals that perceived benefits
and business concerns influence the diffusion of cloud computing among for-profit business
industries (Al-Mascati & Al-Badi, 2016; Hassan et al., 2017; Hsu et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2018;
Rohani & Hussin, 2015). Previous findings have also established cost and security as common
factors shown to influence organizational support for adopting cloud computing.
The problem to be addressed by this study was the lack of external validity for cloud
computing adoption factors among nonprofit organizations (Wright et al., 2017). For research in
the field to approach external validity, constructs must be supported across domains of culture,
business type, and economic prejudice, among other variances (Weerd et al., 2016). For
generalization of the technology acceptance theory, cloud computing adoption factors must also
be investigated among the nonprofit organization. Only one research study was found addressing
the factors of innovation adoption among nonprofit organizations in the United States and
globally (Wright et al., 2017). Additionally, a thorough research investigation between 2009 and
2019 revealed only two research studies on cloud computing adopting by U.S. based
organization. Nevertheless, there is an overwhelming amount of global for-profit research on this
area of study. The structure, goals, and missions of nonprofit organizations often vary from those
of profit driven organizations. This research investigated whether nonprofit factors of innovation
adoption are consistent with current factors among for-profit organizations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative, non-experimental study was to build on previous studies
in technology adoption theory by addressing the lack of external validity for cloud computing
12
adoption factors among nonprofit organizations. This study used a survey research instrument.
Findings showed an influence of for-profit cloud computing adoption factors on nonprofit
organizations. Previous researchers have suggested that nonprofit organizations be added in
future research adaptations (Wright et al., 2017). This study builds on the most recent research of
Hsu et al. (2014) utilizing one dependent variable, cloud computing adoption, and several
independent variables categorized as either a perceived benefit or a business concern. The
independent variables are shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
In accordance with established technology acceptance research practices, a survey was
conducted using the same research questionnaire from the validated research findings (Hsu et al.,
2014). The survey was sent to nonprofit organizations in Alaska and the results were used for
statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis, and structured equation
modeling was performed consistent with previous research. Adoption factors were analyzed
against the dependent variable of deployment models. The most common and generally accepted
research framework for this type of research, Technology Organizational Environmental (TOE),
was used consistent with Hsu et al. (2014) work and current technology acceptance research (Al-
Mascati & Al-Badi, 2016; Ghobakhloo & Arias-Aranda, 2011; Hassan et al., 2017; Hsu et al.,
2014; Kim et al., 2018; Lian et al., 2014; Lin & Chen, 2012; Oliveira et al., 2014; Rohani &
Hussin, 2015). The results of this study contributed to existing technology acceptance theory
research and provided findings with external validity for cloud computing adoption research.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
Theoretical frameworks are used as guidelines for understanding research problems using
empirical research (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Many theoretical frameworks have been developed
by information systems researchers to understand the factors that are core drivers for the
13
adoption of new technologies (Yuvaraj, 2016). Consistent with previous information systems
research in this field, this study used a derivative of the diffusion of innovation theory known as
technology organization environment.
Many researchers favor technology organization environment (TOE) as a predominant
theoretical framework to understanding factors influencing innovation adoption in organizations,
but there are several others of interest (Ray, 2016). Some researchers prefer the technology
acceptance model (TAM) (Alfifi, 2015) while others singularly prefer diffusion of innovations
(DOI) theory (Hyson, 2014; Polyviou & Pouloudi, 2015; Polyviou et al., 2014). Researchers
have also found promising results when combining primary theories like TOE, TAM, and DOI
together (Gangwar & Date, 2016; Hsu et al., 2014; Sabi et al., 2016; Tehrani, 2013). A few
researchers have even proposed the use of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) or actor network
theory (ANT) (Lee, 2014; Saedi & Iahad, 2013).
This study used the TOE framework. This was the framework used by Hsu et al. (2014),
whose research was validated against the new nonprofit domain (Hsu et al., 2014). Furthermore,
based on prior review of cloud computing adoption research and general technology acceptance
adoption, TOE remains the most consistently used framework for technology acceptance theory,
particularly at organizational level adoption. In this theory, “the process of technology adoption
and diffusion is understood via the organizational, environmental and the technological context”
(Ray, 2016, p. 5). The factors leading an organization to adopt a new technology are categorized
into one of the three causal contexts. For this study, we focused on the technological context
only, providing initial scope limitation for this newly investigated domain, nonprofit
organizations.
Nature of the Study

14
This study used a survey instrument and a non-experimental research design using
quantitative statistical data analysis with structured equation modeling as the methodological
approach. This strategy was chosen for two reasons. This research decision provided consistency
with previous research work (Hsu et al., 2014). Additionally, this strategy also maintained
consistency with prior common research practices in this field of study. Tornatzky and Klein’s
(1982) literary review noted that most innovation adoption studies collected data using surveys
or interviews. This study also used a survey as previously validated by Hsu et al. (2014). Survey
questions were adapted for the Alaskan nonprofit organization domain. In like manner, the
independent variables for this study were also derived from findings in current research as
determinants experimentally supporting causation with cloud computing adoption.
A non-experimental quantitative approach provided significant statistical data from
decision maker roles within Alaskan nonprofit organizations. The use of a survey research design
provided data that was objective and quantifiable. The participants answered questions pertaining
to each of the independent variable modifiers in correlation with the dependent variable, cloud
computing adoption, as shown in the research model, Figure 1. Participants gave their opinions
on independent variables. Then they establish their current or potential adoption status as the
dependent variable along with their preferred service and deployment models. Only the
participant results from federally recognized nonprofits were used.
Research was analyzed in accordance with previous research standards on the adoption of
innovation. This research was predictive and followed deductive research strategy which tries to
find an explanation for associations between concepts. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
addressed statistical analysis and variable relationships were addressed using structured equation
modeling (SEM). Survey items were based on a 5-point Likert scale.

15
Statistical results were tested for independent variable significance, bias, the direction of
the correlation coefficient, and which indicators most significantly influenced innovation
adoption. First, CFA was used to determine construct validity and reliability. Then, to test the
hypothesis, SEM modeling was used to predict the level of significance and correlation for
constructs influencing the adoption of cloud computing, the dependent variable. Latent variables
and their relationship with the dependent variable were visually depicted using SEM. Finally,
descriptive statistics and hypothesis analysis was used to summarize research results.
16
Figure 1 Research Model
Technology constructs emphasize the characteristics of technologies and how they
influence the diffusion of innovation (Tornatzky, 1990). As shown in Figure 1, perceived benefit
is a technology construct. There is a significant amount of literary research concerning the
correlation between an organizations’ perceived benefit, business concerns, and the diffusion
17
technology innovation (Al-Mascati & Al-Badi, 2016; Alshamaila et al., 2013; Gangwar & Date,
2016; Grandon & Pearson, 2004; Hassan et al., 2017; Hsu et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2018; Lian et
al., 2014; Morris & Venkatesh, 2000; Nkhoma et al., 2013; Oliveira et al., 2014; Rohani &
Hussin, 2015; Zhu, Kraemer, & Xin Xu, 2006; Zhu, Kraemer et al., 2006). Operational and
strategic advantages an organization may expect to receive from the adoption of cloud
computing technologies is determined to be a perceived benefit. The other technological
construct shown in Figure 1. (business concerns). This construct refers to organizational
perceptions of operational risks that may occur if cloud computing is adopted (Tornatzky, 1990).
The latent variables perceived benefits and business concerns along with their indicators are
listed in Figure 1, direct adaptations from those selected by Hsu.
Research Questions
Building on the foundation of previous literary research in the diffusion of cloud
computing, this study investigated the influence of perceived benefits and business concerns on
the decision to implement cloud innovations among Alaskan nonprofit organizations. The
findings of Hsu revealed that both perceived benefits and business concerns supported
significance on influencing the decision to adopt cloud computing, however, perceived benefits
showed positive influence while business concerns showed negative influence (Hsu et al., 2014).
Using the same variables, this study sought to empirically test the phenomenon, reliability, and
validity in the domain of nonprofit organizations.
Existing research has validated 6 independent variables for perceived benefits and 7
independent variables for business concerns (Hsu et al., 2014; Lian et al., 2014; Lin & Chen,
2012). The observed variables of the latent variable perceived benefits are listed and described in
18
Table 1. Similarly, the observed variables of business concerns are found in Table 2. With these
independent variables we investigated the questions:
Research Q1: What influence does perceived benefits have on the acceptance of cloud
computing among nonprofit Alaskan businesses?
Research Q2: How do operational business concerns influence the acceptance of cloud
Table 1
Variables for Perceived Benefits
Independent Variable Description

adaptability of cloud computing
1. Customizability solutions with existing company
needs
2. Concurrent Remote Data ability to access business data
Analysis simultaneously across the internet
3. Reduce Information Systems
shortened technology deployments
Deployment Time
reduction of technology expense
4. Reduce IT Overhead
costs
5. Reduce IT Personnel Costs reduction of technology personnel
6. Mobility capability of teleworking
(Hsu et al., 2014)
Table 2
Variables for Business Concerns
Independent Variable Description

compromise of sensitive business
1. Information Assurance
information
unproductive systems performance
2. Performance Assurance
(software/hardware)
3. Quality Assurance inability to guarantee quality
4. Network Assurance unproductive data transfer rates
5. Service Assurance unpredictable service outages
19
difficulty with integrating with

6. Legacy Systems Interoperability
existing technology
7. Service Provider Contract difficulty of the ability to switch
Flexibility service providers
(Hsu et al., 2014)
Hypotheses
From these research questions, previous studies on determinants for technology adoption,
and the research of Hsu et al. (2014), the following indicators and hypotheses were adopted.
Research Question 1: Perceived Benefits
H10 Perceived benefits have no influence on cloud computing adoption among nonprofit
Alaskan organizations.
H1a Perceived benefits positively influence cloud computing adoption among nonprofit
H1b Customizability positively influences cloud computing adoption among nonprofit
H1c Concurrent remote data analysis positively influences cloud computing adoption
among nonprofit Alaskan organizations.
H1d Reduced information systems deployment time positively influences cloud
computing adoption among nonprofit Alaskan organizations.
H1e Reduced IT overhead positively influences cloud computing adoption among
nonprofit Alaskan organizations.
H1f Reduced IT personnel costs positively influences cloud computing adoption among
H1g Mobility positively influences cloud computing adoption among nonprofit Alaskan
organizations.
Research Question 2: Business Concerns

20
H20 Business concerns have no influence on the adoption cloud computing among
Alaskan nonprofit organizations.
H2a Business concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing among
H2b Information assurance concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud
computing among Alaskan nonprofit organizations.
H2c The interoperability of legacy systems negatively influence the adoption of cloud
H2d Quality assurance concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing
among Alaskan nonprofit organizations.
H2e Network assurance concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing
H2f Service assurance concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing
H2g Performance assurance concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud
H2h Vendor and data lock-in negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing
Significance of the Study
Cloud Computing is impacting how businesses view technology by transforming IT into
an organization’s utility service such as electricity or gas instead of an expendable expense
(Buyya et al., 2009; Hsu & Chuan-Chuan Lin, 2016). Research suggests there are many factors
influencing the adoption of this utility by industries (Al-Mascati & Al-Badi, 2016; Hassan et al.,
21
2017; Hsu et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2018; Oliveira et al., 2014; Rohani & Hussin, 2015).
However, nonprofit organizations, who would benefit most from many of the characteristics of
cloud computing, appear to have been missed in previous studied. Utilizing the TOE as the most
frequently used framework investigating innovation adoption in organizations, this study sought
to explore external validity for determinants found, shown in Table 1 and Table 2, by Hsu et al.
(2014) in the nonprofit organization domain.
Definitions of Key Terms
Cloud Computing. Cloud Computing is on-demand access to network or internet hosted
organizational resources through a shared pooling model on which consumers may share
backend computing architecture or information systems through a configurable end user
interface from which computing technologies can be dynamically provisioned or
deprovisioned without interactions from the hosting provider (Mell & Grance, 2011).
Hybrid Deployment Model. Choosing to integrate both a private deployment model
along with public deployment model as a solution for cloud computing technology (Mell
& Grance, 2011).
Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). The offering of full computing infrastructure, such
as virtual computers, servers, or storage devices, as products via remove delivery
methodology such as the Internet (Mell & Grance, 2011).
Nonprofit Organization. An organization federally recognized as an active 501(c)3 tax
exempt organization (www.irs.gov).
Platform as a Service (PaaS). A locally managed software application would require
hardware, an operating system, a database, web servers, middleware, and sometimes
other software. Consequently, administrators for each of these computing sub-systems are
22
also required for operational stability. However, under PaaS, cloud computing service
providers now offer and host these capabilities remotely (Mell & Grance, 2011).
Private Deployment Model. Organizations who choose to purchase the infrastructure
necessary to locally manage and host their own cloud computing solutions in-house (Mell
& Grance, 2011).
Public Deployment Model. Organizations who elect to allow external companies to host
all the infrastructure and services necessary to provide their cloud computing solutions
(Mell & Grance, 2011).
Software as a Service (SaaS). Software applications are delivered through remote
mediums, such as the internet, as a service. In place of installing and maintaining
software locally, it is executed through the remote medium reducing software integration
complexities and compatibility issues (Mell & Grance, 2011).
Summary
There is a need for more research on the adoption of cloud computing among nonprofit
organizations (Wright et al., 2017). While DOI provides a wonderful base for general technology
acceptance, TOE remains the most pervasive theoretical framework explaining and predicting
innovation diffusion in organizations (Ray, 2016). This research built on the work of Hsu et al.
(2014) by using already validated findings to test external validity against another domain (Hsu
& Chuan-Chuan Lin, 2016). A validated survey was distributed to Alaskan nonprofit
organizations and observed variables were statistically tested using factor analysis for dependent
variable significance. A SEM model was used to visualize the finding variable relationships.
This research adds to the existing body of cloud computing adoption research while providing
cross domain research validity.

23
of technology adoption theory by addressing the lack of external validity for cloud computing
adoption factors among nonprofit organizations. In this chapter, the TOE theoretical framework
and the foundational research work of Hsu et al. (2014) are together used to explore whether for-
profit determinants for computing adoption also explain nonprofit adoption intention. The
research question is whether perceived benefits and business concerns influence nonprofit
organizations as they do for-profit organizations. As a result of this question, eight hypotheses
were created in support of the construct perceived benefits and nine hypotheses were created in
support of the construct business concerns. The dependent variable is cloud computing adoption
intention. There are six independent variables for perceived benefits and seven for business
concerns. Nonprofit organizations in Anchorage Alaska completed a survey with questions
previously submitted to for-profit organizations by Hsu et al. Findings may help extend the body
of knowledge in technology innovation adoption to the domain of nonprofit organizations and
explain which factors influence their decision to adopt cloud computing technologies. In chapter
2, we investigate in greater detail cloud computing history, models, growth, advantages, and
disadvantages. We also expand on nonprofit organizations and their differences with for-profit
organization to lay a foundation for the motivation behind extending research validation to this
domain. Then innovation adoption theory is explored from its origin to the current most used
theoretical framework, TOE.

24
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The purpose of this study was to empirically establish whether external validity exists
between factors influencing cloud computing adoption among for-profit organizations and
factors among nonprofit organizations. Findings were expected to be similar but nonprofit
organizations operate under different organizational strategies. Wright suggested that future
research be conducted on the nonprofit domain for research resiliency (Wright et al., 2017). This
study adds to existing technology acceptance theory research while determining the relationship
for-profit adoption determinants have among nonprofit organizations who adopt cloud
computing. This study builds on the most recent research of Hsu et al. (2014) utilizing one
dependent variable, cloud computing adoption, and several independent variables categorized as
either a perceived benefit or a business concern. After communication directly with researcher
Hsu by email and analyzing the TOE framework in detail, their research was determined to
reflect Tornatzky’s design principles most directly for and ideal study (Tornatzky et al., 1990).
This literary review is a culmination of exhaustive research in technology acceptance
theory from peer reviewed sources between 2014 and 2019. In total, 44 databases were queried
and at least 656,639 results were returned, Appendix A. Nevertheless, some peer reviewed
research sources may have been omitted due to the inaccessibility of research databases, such as
those hosted by private corporations or universities.
In this chapter, we review innovation adoption theories and their related frameworks. We
look at the TOE framework in further detail. We review and summarize current research utilizing
the TOE framework and explain why TOE was chosen. A systematic process was used to
aggregate relevant research works from peer-reviewed databases worldwide. This research query
process is explained and all peer reviewed research on cloud computing adoption using the TOE
25
framework during the period of this study were organized using a table detailing each study’s
research scope, innovation factors, and significance in cloud computing adoption. This chapter
summarizes characteristics of the TOE framework generally accepted to typify an ideal study.
We explain the relationship of this research study to the previous research work of Hsu et al.
(2014), on which it builds. Cloud computing is defined. We analyze nonprofit organizations and
comparing them to for-profit organizational structures. Finally, we review Alaskan nonprofit
organizations and their relevance to this research study.
Innovation Adoption
Diffusion of Innovation Theory
The study of why organizations decide for or against the adoption of new technologies
begins with diffusion of innovation theory (DOI). In DOI theory researchers began to extrapolate
determinants for the diffusion of innovation. This theory has matured as other researchers have
empirically build onto its constructs (Ray, 2016).
Everett Rogers, a professor of rural sociology wrote on DOI theory in 1962 (Rogers,
1962). While the concept of DOI theory was used by several earlier researchers since Ratzel’s
research on trans-cultural diffusion in 1928, it was the work of Rogers that formalized it for
technology innovation theory (Rogers, 1995). The theory is grounded in the sociology discipline
and originated in anthropology, education, industrial, medical, and rural sociology. The theory
aims to understand successful and unsuccessful agents of change in transforming systems
(Rogers, 2003).
Diffusion of innovation theory focuses on how new technological innovations progress
from inception to implementation. Rogers (1995) research focuses on common factors for
adoption, understanding diffusion strategy, and predicting the possible success of implementing
26
new innovations. Rogers diffusion theory can be applied at firm-level, though originally
designed to focus on individual modifiers for adoption. However, for the scope of this study,
firm-level adoption decision making has been chosen over individual to maintain congruence
with the existing research this study is building on. Firm-level adoption theory is also
quantitative in general and more objective. Diffusion theory research at the individual level will
be subjective and incorporated qualitative research strategy.
Rogers (1995) research established two contexts for innovation adoption at the firm-
level: the innovation context and the organizational context. Rogers defines the innovation
context as representing the perceived attributes of an innovation. He established these attributes
to be relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability (Rogers, 1995).
Furthermore, he asserts that attributes of the innovation context can explains 49% to 87% of the
variance in rates of innovation adoption. The organizational context of DOI at the firm-level
focuses on attributes of centralization, size, slack, formalization, and interconnectedness (Rogers,
1995).
The attributes and the empirical foundation that Rogers (1995) laid in innovation
adoption theory can adequately represent the idea of innovation diffusion at an organizational
level as moderated by technological and organizational characteristics but is limited in
explaining external characteristics, environmental contexts. It was for this reason that researchers
have extended the foundation of DOI theory to incorporating environmental characteristics and
focusing more on the quantitative objectivity of firm-level innovation diffusion. The research of
Tornatzky and Fleischer has become a prominent standard incorporating firm-level DOI theory
along with an environmental context into a common framework called the technology,
organization, and environment (TOE) framework (Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990). It is

27
undoubtable that the TOE framework is the most utilized framework for current research on
innovation adoption at the firm-level as shown in Appendix B.
The TOE framework is not the only context modification to DOI theory. There are at
least 19 theories used in IT adoption studies (Salahshour Rad et al., 2017). Furthermore, the
growing number of research studies on the topic each year, since 2006, demonstrates a growing
interest in the diffusion of innovation (Salahshour Rad et al., 2017). The top theories recently
used in understanding innovation adoption are technology acceptance model (TAM), diffusion of
innovations (DOI), unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), theory of
planned behavior (TPB), and technology organization environment (TOE) framework
(Salahshour Rad et al., 2017). The most used model for understanding IT adoption, TAM, tries to
explain the variances in user’ behavioral intention while isolating determinants of acceptance for
a large variety of computing technologies (Davis, 1986, 1989). Venkatesh et al. developed
UTAUT in 2003 after a comprehensive literary review in which they combined TAM with seven
other theories: theory of reasoned action (TRA), motivational model (MM), theory of planned
behavior (TPB), combination of TAM and TPB (C TAM-TPB), model of PC utilization
(MPCU), innovation diffusion theory (IDT), and social cognitive theory (SCT). Ajzen’s TPB
posits that and individual’s reaction, adoption intention, is the result of his/her behavioral
intentions, prejudices toward an innovation (Ajzen, 1991; Sharma & Mannan, 2015). The top
five theories used to explain and predict the diffusion of innovation offer only two firm-level
frameworks, DOI and TOE (Chandra & Kumar, 2018). This study was designed to understand
firm-level adoption intentions among non-profit organization in Alaska. The most popular and
comprehensive theory used by previous researchers to address this type of study is TOE.
Technology Organization Environment Framework

28
The TOE framework is an enterprise level theory of planned behavior divided into three
contexts of innovation adoption; technology, organization, and environment (Tornatzky et al.,
1990). The technology context describes the organizations decision making behavior through
characteristics of the technology that influence its adoption. The organizational context describes
this behavior through traits of the organization which impact adoption potential. Lastly, the
environmental context describes the arena in which an organization operates to explain its impact
on innovation diffusion. The TOE was designed to explain and predict adoption of general
technological innovations (Liang et al., 2017; Mokhtar et al., 2016).
Tornatzky et al. (1990) believe that that perceived internal and external attributes of a
technology impacts an organizations decision to adopt the technology (Al-Mascati & Al-Badi,
2016). Tornatzky’s research and Rogers (1995) DOI theory provide five common technology
characteristics that support this context: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
trialability, and observability (Ray, 2016; Tornatzky et al., 1990). They describe relative
advantage as the perceived advantage of using an innovation when compared to the current status
quo. The degree of integration of an innovation with an organization’s needs, expectations or
beliefs represents the compatibility of a technology. The difficulty by which an organization
associates with understanding and implementing an innovation is its complexity. Trialability of a
technology reflects the ability to use it on a trial basis. A technologies observability characterizes
the ability of a technology to be seen externally after implementation. Emerging research also
includes perceived cost and security as technology characteristics (Weerd et al., 2016). The
technology context describes both current technologies in use by the organization as well as
emerging relevant technologies (Weerd et al., 2016). An innovations compatibility has

29
empirically been shown to have the most significant influence on an innovation’s diffusion
(Weerd et al., 2016).
Organizational characteristics can also explain and predict an organizations persuasion
for or against the diffusion of innovation. An organizations size, managerial structure, personnel
skills, and availability of slack resources influence innovation diffusion (Aktepe & Saatcioglu,
2017). The formal and informal communications process among organizational employees also
represent organizational characteristics (Salahshour Rad et al., 2017). Along with an
organization’s size, other descriptive characteristics of an organization impacting innovation
diffusion include the organizations degree of centralization and its structure (Salahshour Rad et
al., 2017). The support of top management and an organizations readiness for innovation are also
characteristics that may explain and predict innovation diffusion (Weerd et al., 2016). Current
research revealed top management support as the most significant factor influencing innovation
diffusion (Weerd et al., 2016).
Environmental characteristics impact the diffusion of innovation. These characteristics
arise from the domain in which an organization conducts its business. The organizations
competition, industry, and governmental regulation explain and predict its decision to adopt an
innovation (Kim et al., 2018). Environmental factors are extended to include the availability of
support from the providers of an innovation (Njenga et al., 2018). Competitive pressure is the
most significant factor, according to recent research, explaining and predicting an organizations
decision to adopt an innovation (Weerd et al., 2016).
TOE Previous Research
The technology organization environment (TOE) framework has been exercised
prolifically in the IT field to explain and predict determinants for the adoption of innovation
30
since its design by Tornatzky in 1990. It remains the most consistently used framework for
interpreting innovation diffusion phenomena at the organizational level (Arvanitis et al., 2017;
Hsu & Chuan-Chuan Lin, 2016; Kim et al., 2018; Ray, 2016).
A systematic process was used to identify relevant articles on cloud innovation diffusion
between 2014 and 2019. First, a comprehensive key word search was performed using both
google scholar and EBSCO’s roadrunner search discovery service, filtered for scholarly peer
reviewed journals. The first search term was “cloud computing” and “adoption”. A brief initial
review of the resulting 27 journals revealed that TOE framework was the research methodology
design of choice for quantitative research on innovation diffusion. The term “TOE”,
“Tornatzky”, and “Technology Organization Environment” were used in various searches
independently and in various combinations with “cloud computing”, “innovation”, and
“diffusion” resulting in 99 journals from 1800 to 2019. Next, the resulting articles were reviewed
and sorted by research methodology. The results revealed many research designs in addition to
and in combination with the TOE framework. However, this study is designed to be discovery
within the domain of nonprofit organizations, thus, a foundational innovation theory framework
was preferred. Finally, articles incorporating the TOE framework were filtered by quantitative
analysis resulting in 27 relevant sources between 2014 and 2019 for synthetic use in this study.
Only one source was found exploring innovation diffusion among nonprofit organizations.
Ideal TOE Framework Design
In the first literary filter, previous research with the scope of cloud computing innovation
was chosen. This is the scope of this study. Then, research using quantitative analysis was
chosen. Tornatzky et al. (1990) recommends quantitative analysis implementing surveys for data
collection when using the TOE framework. The majority of previous research adaptions of the
31
TOE model used quantitative analysis. Finally, resulting articles were categorized by sector;
public, private, or nonprofit. The search revealed only one previous study performed on a
nonprofit organization despite a review of innovation diffusion research starting from 2006.
Appendix B presents a summary of cloud computing research from 2014 through 2019
implementing the TOE framework quantitatively along with its research sector and determinants.
A total of 18 studies were found during this period. The table also includes whether determinants
were found statistically significant in explaining and predicting the phenomenon of cloud
computing diffusion.
Several peer reviewed research papers are linked to Universities in the United States
(U.S.) due to the researcher origin, but only two research works could be found exclusively
performed on U.S. based organizations (Nkhoma et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2017). Most of cloud
computing adoption research was carried out on companies in Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia,
Canada, and Europe. The first U.S. based research finding was found analyzing research data
purchased from IBM, purported to be U.S. IT manager participants (Nkhoma et al., 2013). The
second study investigated SaaS adoption by U.S. Salesforce clients (Wright et al., 2017). In
addition to the scarcity of U.S. based cloud adoption research, only one study was found
involving nonprofit organizations (Wright et al., 2017). This was an excellent opportunity to
continue empirical research and validate findings from the international research community.
Additionally, this study adds publicly available data on U.S. based demographics to the research
community.
The review of previous research on cloud computing adoption supported several
associations with elements of this study. Firstly, the determinant relative advantage has been
analyzed most for significant influence on the decision to adopt cloud computing. Relative
32
advantage, also known as perceived benefits, is the perception of an organization that adopting
the innovation of cloud computing is more beneficial that without it (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982).
However, as a technology characteristic, it is considered weak when used alone empirically. It
must be qualified with more specific constructs (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). This study used
relative advantage as a technology context characteristic but adhered to Tornatzky’s analysis
design by itemizing the construct into six factors; customization, easy analysis of data on
internet, reduced deployment time, reduced IT cost, reduced IT employee costs, and ubiquitous
access (Hsu et al., 2014). To further improve the predictive capability of relative advantage,
business concern including confidentiality, incompatibility, insufficient service quality
guarantee, internet bottlenecks, service outages, underperformance, and vendor lock-in were
added. The increase of factors improve predictability for a context (Chandra & Kumar, 2018). In
previous studies, relative advantage tends to explain, predict, and significantly influence the
decision to adopt cloud computing in organizations.
The analysis of previous research also revealed top management support as the top
analyzed organizational factor. Traits of an organization that influence its decision to adopt and
innovation are organizational characteristics (Tornatzky et al., 1990). Recent research suggests
an organizations IT capability defined by its size, resources, and personnel, significantly
influences said organizations ability to adopt new technologies (Hassan et al., 2017; Hsu et al.,
2014; Wang et al., 2016). When aggregated with the similar environmental characteristics,
named differently by previous researchers, IT capability also tied as the top organizational factor.
This was one of the organization characteristics used in this study. In previous studies, IT
capability inconsistently explains and predict the decision to adopt cloud computing as an
innovation in organizations. This may be due to the diverse domains and organization types used
33
in previous research. Recent cloud computing adoption research has analyzed small and medium
enterprises, hotels, the semiconductor industry, oil and gas industry, healthcare industry,
educational institutions, ERP firms, and general IT staff. However, the nonprofit domain was not
studied. This study further itemized IT capability with two independent variable constructs,
number of IT employees and annual budget for IT department. However, the organizational
context is not within the scope of this study.
The last inference from analysis of previous research revealed external pressure as the top
environmental determinant. This was determined after all research was aggregated by similar
research characteristics. This environment context refers to characteristics of the general industry
an organization exists in (Tornatzky et al., 1990). The characteristics of this context are itemized
by competitors’ pressure, government policy support, partners pressure, and regulations. This
context was not explored further because it is not within the scope of this study.
Research Adaptation
The constructs of this study are adapted from the previously validated research work of
Hsu et al. (2014). They are outlined in Table 3. Their research has been selected as a model for
this study for several reasons. First, this study was able to contact Hsu via email for collaboration
on this study. Next, current researchers suggest that future research on cloud computing adoption
should be carried out against more than just the binary dependent variable, adoption (Hassan et
al., 2017; Ray, 2016). Hsu et al. (2014) adapted pricing mechanisms and deployment models as
additional dependent variables of cloud computing adoption in their 2014 study. Cloud
computing adoption has dependent variables of pricing mechanism, deployment model, IaaS,
PaaS, and SaaS which may influence an organizations innovation decision. Their study examined
several characteristics of innovation across several dependent variables and implemented all
34
seven of Tornatzky’s recommendations for an “ideal study” (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982, p. 29).
Finally, Hsu has been published at least three times in the last 5 years, consistently studying the
area of innovation diffusion. She recently used the SaaS context to study innovation adoption as
it relates to developing an effective freemium strategy. She demonstrated that security and
transaction efficiency significantly influence a consumer’s decision to leave free services to
become a paying subscriber (Hsu & Tsai, 2017).
Table 3
Research Constructs
TOE Construct Cloud Computing Attribute

Customization
Easily analyze data on Internet
Reduce deployment time
Perceived Benefits
Reduce IT costs
Reduce IT employee costs
Ubiquitous access
Confidentiality
Technology
Incompatibility
Insufficient service quality
guarantee
Business Concerns
Internet Bottleneck
Service Outages
Underperformance
Vendor lock-in
Number of IT employees
Organization IT Capability Annual budget for IT
department
Competitors Pressure
Government policy support
Environment External Pressure
Partners pressure
Regulations
(Tornatzky et al., 1990) (Hsu et al., 2014)
This study was designed to provide generalization for Hsu’s research (Hsu et al., 2014).
This study aimed to fulfill their suggestion to have future research “collect data from other
35
countries” (Hsu et al., 2014, p. 485) while also fulfill suggestions for “more research in the
nonprofit area” (Wright et al., 2017, p. 525). Finally, Hsu research is built on the findings,
factors, and measures of previous researchers (Armbrust et al., 2010; Zhu, Kraemer, & Xin Xu,
2006).
Cloud Computing
History
The idea of cloud computing originates in the use of mainframes by academia and
corporation in the 1950’s (Tehrani, 2013). The cost of a mainframe computer for every
individual was not pliable, as a result, the architecture today known as cloud computing evolved.
Terminals were distributed to users who remotely connected to a single shared mainframe
(Chandrasekaran, 2015). In addition to the cost reduction, stakeholder benefited from a return on
investment as computing power and time received greater utilization. Posthumously, the
pioneering computer scientist John McCarthy, who first coined the term ‘artificial intelligence’,
would also foretell the convergence of computing toward that of a ubiquitous public utility
(Alkhater et al., 2018; McCarthy, 1960; Priyadarshinee et al., 2017). Today researchers have
echoed the idea by suggesting cloud computing will become as common as water, electric, gas,
and telephone utilities (Buyya et al, 2009).
The term network cloud and cloud initially evolved in the early 1990’s as a concept
referring to a logical layer connecting corporate clients to their business organizations from
remote locations through virtual private network (VPN) access using public internet service
providers (Chandrasekaran, 2015). A user would remote into his/her office through the “cloud”.
Eventually, Salesforce became the first cloud computing service in 1999 offering application
services on their website. While the dot-com collapse forced companies to rethink their strategies
36
for internet use, Amazon introduced Amazon Web Service in 2002 giving customers data storage
and information collaboration capabilities hosted on the internet. In 2006, Amazon allowed
organizations to rent computing and processing power for enterprise use through their Elastic
Compute Cloud (EC2) services. Google immediately followed suite offering internet hosted
Google apps, such as email, along with other enterprise solutions (Erl et al., 2013).
The impact of cloud computing is found in day-to-day operations. Applications derived
from cloud computing such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Office 365 are casually used
with consideration for their relationship with cloud computing. E-Commerce through Best Buy,
Walmart, Amazon, EBay and other popular commodity sites are now mobile apps requiring data
services for cloud computing connectivity and updates (Chandrasekaran, 2015). The full scope of
the impact of cloud computing can also be found among the diversity of mobile games. While a
user may download a free mobile application, the use of cloud computing resources supporting
the application requires a payment.
Definition
The most common definition for cloud computing among previous research comes from
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Cloud computing is a model for
enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable
computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be
rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider
interaction. This cloud model is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models,
and four deployment models (Mell & Grance, 2011, p. 2). The NIST definition establishes clear
expectations of consistent and accessible resource availability. The resource could be a server,
37
computer, application, database, or other type of internet sourced system but it should be
available when needed as needed.
To further define cloud computing NIST established five essential characteristics. They
are on-demand self-service, broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity, and
measured service. On-demand self-service customers of cloud computing should be able to
“unilaterally provision computing capabilities” (Mell & Grance, 2011, p. 2) at their discretion
without requiring interaction from service providers. Broad network access gives cloud
customers the ability to use network communications to access organizational capabilities using
multiple platform types: mobile phones, tablets, laptops, (Mell & Grance, 2011). Cloud
computing providers allow multiple customers to share their computing resources as pooling
using an operating model called multi-tenant (Mell & Grance, 2011). A providers virtual and
physical resources are dynamically provisioned and deprovisioned to customers according to
demand. Cloud computing providers manage customer pooled requests for storage, memory,
processor utilization, and network bandwidth. Horizontal scaling of customer demands, known
as elasticity, offer the opportunity to have resources scaled dynamically and instantly to meet
upscaling or downscaling requests (Mell & Grance, 2011). When a customer’s resource demands
more availability to support the business need, it can be added immediately and later reduced as
demands drop. The final characteristic, measured service, provide the meter for cloud computing
services, reporting on usage and costs transparent to both the provider and the consumer (Mell &
Grance, 2011). This metering of cloud computing is called a pay-as-you-go service (Hsu &
Chuan-Chuan Lin, 2016; Hsu et al., 2014).
Deployment Models
38
Access to cloud computing services is through one of four operating designs. The
deployments models are private, community, public, and hybrid. As a private cloud, computing
infrastructure is provisioned by single organization and accessed by multiple organizational
business units or consumers (Mell & Grance, 2011). Cloud computing resources are owned by
the organization either on or off premise. This leverages the internal equity technical resources
within an organization. Similarly, a community cloud is privately owned, however, it’s owned by
multiple private organization utilizing shared technical resources for exclusive benefit (Mell &
Grance, 2011). Such organization often form a cloud computing community around their
collaborative security, policy, or compliance restraints (Mell & Grance, 2011). In contrast, a
public cloud design will leverage the combined technical resource of a business, university, or
government entity as a cloud computing resource available for public use (Mell & Grance,
2011). Examples public cloud hosts include Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. Any consumer can
pay these providers for pay-as-you-go resources. Finally, the hybrid cloud is a combination of
two or more of the three deployment model mentioned afore. Each deployment model will
remain distinctly independent but will unite over some standardized or proprietary technology in
interest of data and application portability (Mell & Grance, 2011). For example, a McDonalds
internal marketing employee might acquire user statistics and analytics from their mobile
applications. A private, community, public, or hybrid cloud represent the four deployment
models available to organizations looking to establish a cloud presence or operate cloud
resources.
Service Models
Cloud computing provides one of three types of services, Software as a Service (SaaS),
Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) for use by consumers A
39
consumer would use cloud computing IaaS to provision networks, servers, operating systems, or
storage as a cloud resource (Mell & Grance, 2011). In leu of purchasing hardware and operating
system resources, consumers rent them as needed from cloud providers to facilitate, host, or
support private resources capabilities on top of IaaS capabilities. This lowest level of service will
require the consumer to interact with provisioned resources for updates, application transfers,
and operating systems repairs (Talmizie Amron et al., 2017). An organization might provision
desktop virtualization as a cloud resource to allow employees access to corporate networks using
workstations hosted with cloud providers, instead of inhouse. At the next level, PaaS, basic
infrastructure resources are managed by the cloud provider leaving consumers and organization
managing only applications being used and respective data (Talmizie Amron et al., 2017). This
service level provides for the provisioning of customized proprietary software applications
leaving cloud providers to manage all subordinate basic infrastructure. The top-level service,
Software as a Service, includes examples like Facebook and Gmail representing applications
accessible from various platform types (tablet, mobile phone, laptop, etc.) through an internet
browser whose entire applications support infrastructure is hosted within the cloud computing
domain (Talmizie Amron et al., 2017).
Cloud Computing Economic Growth
North America and Western Europe are the largest cloud computing market sectors
(Kazmi et al., 2016). From 2010 through 2015, the cloud market has grown at a 26% Compound
Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) from $37 billion dollars to $121 billion dollars revenue growth in
just 5 years (Kazmi et al., 2016). From 2006 through 2016, the amount of traditional IT services
replaced by cloud services increased from 2% worldwide to 15% (Chandel et al., 2018).
Worldwide, the IT workload has increased from 29 million items in 2006 to 160 million items in
40
2016. The current cloud computing services annual growth rate is 30% (Chandel et al., 2018).
With this growth rate, cloud computing remains a viable market for innovation and a stable
source for the adoption of innovations.
The largest cloud services provider, Amazon Web Services, has seen an average 46%
industry growth every year since 2015 (Donnelly, 2019). Amazon’s market share is bigger than
its competitors combined, including Microsoft and Google. There remains market competition
for consumer services interested in risk mitigation, nevertheless, amazon remains the market
leader.
Advantages and Disadvantages
The organizational use of cloud computing can offer significant saving in capital
expenditure and operation expenditure (Alkhater et al., 2018; Kazmi et al., 2016; Ray, 2016;
Talmizie Amron et al., 2017). Capital expenditures, such as the purchase of computing
equipment, is converted into on-demand subscription fees as operational expenditures. Due to
this advantage, initial business start-up costs are lowered and transformed into utility computing
costs based on usage, requiring fewer in-house IT skills (Lee et al., 2014). A cost benefit analysis
can be instrumental in convincing organizations of this advantage (Ilin et al., 2017). Businesses
can budget information communications technology (ICT) based on the predictable utility of
cloud computing resulting in greater profitability and lower risk (Kazmi et al., 2016).
The infrastructure of information communications technology (ICT) rests under the
management oversight of cloud computing providers, so businesses can refresh their focus on
analytics, collaboration, and other aspects of organizational growth (Ray, 2016). Organizational
resources previously directed toward ICT can now focus on operational statistics and key drivers
for future success of the organization. There is more availability for strategic consumer and
41
partner alliances with less attention on physical aspects of ICT administration. An organizations
decision for and investment in internet solutions can offer strategically positive benefits (Popa et
al., 2018).
Organizations who adopt cloud computing must also accept some disadvantages. An
organization may no longer have physical control of its operational data (Ilin et al., 2017; Ray,
2016). The security of cloud ICT is governed by globally recognized open standards (Ilin et al.,
2017). The standards may not be enough for security at higher levels of data and communication
classification. Bandwidth outages or degradation can impact the performance and functionality
of data-intensive cloud applications (Ray, 2016). Organizations must also be willing to trust
cloud providers with the physical security of their sensitive data against the risk of a security
breach (Ray, 2016).
Organizations can benefit greatly from the ICT cost savings. Furthermore, the redirection
of ‘slack’ resources towards business advancements may also drive greater innovation (Herold et
al., 2006; Wang et al., 2016). The disadvantages like data control and physical security can be
mitigated by a hybrid cloud computing deployment model. Bandwidth control and
communications standards can be mitigated by implementing a private cloud computing
deployment model. With these advantages and the ability to mitigate disadvantages, why are
some organizations reluctant to adopt cloud computing? Why do organizations adopt cloud
computing? What determinants influence the decision to adopt cloud computing and are the
determinants of previous research applicable to the nonprofit domain?
Nonprofit Organizations
Public, Private, Nonprofit Sectors

42
Nonprofit organizations make up one of three business sectors. The other two sectors are
public and private. All organizations fall into one of these three sectors. Therefore, an
understanding of these sectors and their distinctions lay a foundation for the need of further
research in innovation diffusion among nonprofit organizations.
The public sector are businesses with a public mission who are managed and supported
by the government (Wright et al., 2017). Examples include law enforcement, public schools,
roads, and transportation services. They provide public goods and are largely or wholly
dependent on governmental support by way of public tariffs (Wright et al., 2017). These
organizations are at the mercy of bureaucratic legislation and fiduciary allocations.
The private and nonprofit sectors differ from public sectors by being self-managed and
free from reliance on bureaucratic subsidies or oversight (Wright et al., 2017). Private for-profit
organizations are corporations, partnerships, and owner-managed businesses. Their purpose is
profit maximization and revenue comes from sales and services (Wright et al., 2017).
Nonprofit organizations strive toward a goal of improving community welfare and their
funding is charitable donations (Wright et al., 2017). Furthermore, nonprofits organizations
operate under different managerial practices and marketing strategies (Wright et al., 2017). The
differences between the nonprofit sector and their counterparts offer an opportunity to discover
whether current determinants for assimilation of ICT innovations concur in the nonprofit sector.
An overwhelming majority of research in this field has been performed utilizing public sector
and private sector organizations.
Current research suggests that nonprofit organizations not only differ from other sectors,
but they also tend to adopt innovations differently (Henderson et al., 2002; Wright et al., 2017).
Nonprofit organizations are more fiscally thrifty than for-profit organizations (Henderson et al.,
43
2002; Sontag-Padilla et al., 2012). The reliance of nonprofit organizations on competitive access
to multiple external funding sources may be a critical barrier preventing this sector from
investing in technology innovations (Sontag-Padilla et al., 2012). The benefits of the cloud
computing utility appear to offer advantages for this sector. Wright discussed differences in the
managerial practices of nonprofits. This bears acknowledgement since previous research of this
type has typically analyzed data results from for-profit managerial participants. Will nonprofit
managers respond differently concerning existing for-profit determinants of cloud computing
adoption? There is a need for more innovation assimilation research among the nonprofit sector
(Wright et al., 2017). An understanding of innovation adoption drivers and barriers among
nonprofit organizations adds value to the sector and provide external validity for existing
research.
Alaska Nonprofit Organizations
The vast nonprofit domain is constrained in this research study and the scope is limited to
Alaskan nonprofit organization. The Foraker Groups a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
providing current statistics on nonprofit organization in Alaska (www.theforakergroup.org).
They are based in Anchorage Alaska and are great source for statistics on Alaskan nonprofits. A
partnership with their organization and this research study was originally anticipated as a helpful
leveraging in obtaining the dataset required for this study. Their research analysis reports have
already provided strategic clarity on the impact nonprofit organization are having throughout the
State of Alaska.
Alaskan nonprofits employ 17% of all Alaskans which is 7% higher than the national
average (The Foraker Group, 2018). Nonprofit organizations are the second largest employer in
the state after the for-profit oil and gas industry. Within rural areas of Alaska, nonprofit
44
organizations employ 40% of Alaskans (The Foraker Group, 2018). Of all Alaskan nonprofits,
501(c)(3) nonprofits make up 77%, representing 4,447 of 5,765 total nonprofit organizations
representing 68% of the $6.98 billion dollars in revenue generated by nonprofits (The Foraker
Group, 2018). The scope of this research will be limited to 501(c)(3) nonprofits.
Within the United States, the Alaskan nonprofit domain provides an excellent data source
for investigating the determinants for cloud computing adoption. According to the Foraker
Group, “charitable nonprofits are shrinking while the overall number of nonprofits remains
steady” (The Foraker Group, 2018, p. 7). The last ten years of data have shown that nonprofits
continue to have a viable impact on the economic stability of the State of Alaska (The Foraker
Group, 2018). Nonprofit organization provide 67,567 jobs and represent a $3.89 billion-dollar
income industry (The Foraker Group, 2018). One out of every four non-government jobs in
Alaska are a nonprofit job, with healthcare and education as the strongest nonprofit employers
(The Foraker Group, 2018). Alaskan nonprofits received 18% of federal grants given to the State
of Alaska in 2016 (The Foraker Group, 2018). The dependency of Alaskan nonprofit
organization on federal funding is not as significant as income derived from earnings and
charitable contributions, the leading source of funding for Alaskan nonprofits. In fact, 16% of
Alaskans show charitable donations on their tax returns compared to the average of 24%
nationwide (The Foraker Group, 2018).
An understanding of the Alaskan nonprofit sector can offer insights into their motivations
for innovation adoption. As the second largest employer in the state, nonprofits may be slower to
make innovation changes due to size. This may particularly apply to Alaska’s leading nonprofit
employment sector, the healthcare industry. Current research suggests that larger ICT
departments resist change more than smaller ICT departments (Hassan et al., 2017). However,
45
funding does not appear to be an issue. Resources may be available to support drivers for
innovation adoption. Alaskan nonprofits may exhibit the same factors that drive for-profit
organizations to innovation adoption resulting from their size and complexity (statewide impact),
but their organizational processes and managerial stratum may account for variances in current
innovation adoption research. There may also be environmental factors, such as industry
competition or regulations which may impact nonprofit decisions to adopt cloud computing
solutions.
Summary
The idea of cloud computing began in the 1950’s and has evolved into a ubiquitous utility
service with diverse deployment models and types to meet fiscal and on-demand needs of a
growing consumer base (Buyya et al., 2009). Nonprofit organizations represent a sector of
business presently lacking research on the phenomena of innovation diffusion (Wright et al.,
2017). As of 2019, the nonprofit sector represents the second largest employment sector in the
state of Alaska and plays a significant role in the local economy (The Foraker Group, 2018).
Understanding the determinants for adoption among nonprofit organizations requires an
understanding of innovation theory. Tornatzky’s TOE framework is the most popular model for
understanding innovation theory at the firm level (Arvanitis, Kyriakou, & Loukis, 2017).
Building on the research of Hsu et al. (2014) this study sought to apply innovation theory to the
nonprofit sector and investigate their relationship with for-profit determinants for technology
adoption. This papers focus was providing validation for factors previously shown to explain and
predict firm level diffusion of innovation among for-profit organizations. Consistent with the
research methodology used by Hsu et al., confirmatory factor analysis and structured equation
46
modeling was used to establish factor significance and represent the relationships between
factors and their dependent variable, cloud computing adoption intention.
adoption factors among nonprofit organizations. Several theories on innovation diffusion were
investigated but Tornatzky’s TOE framework remains the most consisted theory in research
practice for understanding firm level technology adoption factors. The literary review focused on
the facts regarding cloud computing, nonprofit organizations, and Alaskan nonprofit
organizations. Chapter 3 outlines this study’s research methodology with greater detail. The
problem statement and purpose are restated. Then the research design including instrumentation,
procedures, data collection, and analysis are followed by assumptions, limitation, delimitations,
and ethical assurances.

47
Chapter 3: Research Method
The problem to be addressed by this study is the lack of external validity for current
cloud computing adoption factors among nonprofit organizations. For research in the field to
approach external validity, constructs must prove influential across domains of culture, business
type, and economic prejudice, among other variances. The purpose of this quantitative, non-
experimental study is to provide generalization for cloud computing adoption factors among
nonprofit organizations. Only one research study was found addressing the factors of innovation
adoption among nonprofit organizations in the United States or globally (Wright et al., 2017).
The structure, goals, and missions of nonprofit organizations often vary from those of profit
driven organizations (Henderson et al., 2002; Wright et al., 2017). This research will investigate
whether nonprofit factors of innovation adoption are consistent with current factors among for-
profit organizations.
First, this chapter explains detail the research methodology and design for this study.
Consistent with the research methodology used by Hsu, confirmatory factor analysis and
structured equation modeling will be used to statistically describe the technology context of the
TOE framework for this research. Then, the variables are defined for the technology and
organization attributes used by this study. Next, the populations sample for this study is
established along with the instrumentation used in this study for data collection. Then, the steps
are outlined that will be used to carry-out this research study, including the data collection
process. Finally, research assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and ethics are addressed.
Research Methodology and Design
The purpose of this quantitative, non-experimental study is to provide for the lack of
external validity for cloud computing adoption factors by investigating the phenomenon among
48
nonprofit organizations in Alaska, USA. This study will use survey instrument for data collection
by adapting constructs from the TOE framework founded on diffusion of innovation theory. All
studies involving hypothesis testing will generally use quantitative data (Hassan et al., 2017).
Additionally, the TOE framework has been established as the de facto baseline for enterprise
level innovation diffusion theory based on the tenure of previous research work (Wilson et al.,
2015). This study is predictive research patterned after a positivism research paradigm with a
deductive research model. As an extension of the previous research work of Hsu et al. (2014) and
with an aim to add to the existing body of knowledge on innovation adoption theory, other
research methodologies and designs were not chosen to maintain study consistency while
supporting for the problem and purpose of this study.
Population and Sample
As of 2016, there was 4,447 501(c)(3) registered nonprofit organization in Alaska.
Nonprofit organizations who are federally registered offer additional access to organizational
demographic data for enhanced descriptive analysis. Revenue and federal categorical break down
can be collected from IRS records and the U.S. National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities,
respectively, for each federally recognized nonprofit organization (Wright et al., 2017). For this
study, nonprofit organizations were limited in scope to 501(c)(3) registered and physically
located in Alaska. A random sample of decision makers (Alkhater et al., 2018; Chandra &
Kumar, 2018; Hsu et al., 2014) from nonprofit organizations in Alaska were selected from the
population of Alaskan nonprofits.
The population size of 4447 Alaskan nonprofits with a 95% confidence level and 5%
margin of error would have require a sample size of 354 respondents (SurveyMonkey, 2019).
This is consistent with the previous research of Hsu et al. (2014) who had a target population of
49
623 with 200 respondents a 95% confidence level and 5.75% margin of error. Their original
population of 5000, prior to limiting its scope to a target population of 623, produced a 6.8%
margin of error. Additionally, the Wright et al. (2017) nonprofit cloud computing adoption
research had a target population of 600 with 258 respondents. At a 95% confidence level, his
margin of error was 4.62%. A margin of error of goal of 5% for this study sits between the
margin of error 6.8% for previous nonprofit cloud computing adoption research and the margin
of error 4.62%, the model for this study.
Further restrictions on data collection required the scope for this study to be limited even
further. Due to the time and expense required to survey a population 4447 participants, a target
population was chosen. All 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations with postal addresses within the city
of Anchorage, Alaska were selected in the target population. This totaled to 2310 participants in
the target population. With a 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error, this study’s goal was
to obtain 280 sample participants. The confidence level and margin of error was chosen to
represent an optimum statistical power and strongest data reliability (Goodman & Berlin, 1994).
Instrumentation
Consistent with previous quantitative research explaining and predicting determinants for
cloud computing adoption, a survey was used as the instrument for data collection. According to
Tornatzky, an ideal TOE framework study should be replicable and permit cross-study
comparability to effectively generalize finding. He suggested that “surveys, secondary data
analysis, and experiments” be used for generalization of the innovation process (Tornatzky &
Klein, 1982, p. 29). He further establishes that surveys are not only key to replicable and reliable
research approaches, but they also enable the use of statistical analysis.
50
Surveys, interviews, and case studies are the most appropriate designs for TOE framework
analysis (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). Hsu et al. (2014), Wilson et al. (2015), Al-Mascati and Al-
Badi (2016), Hsu and Chaun-Chaun Lin (2016), Mokhtar et al. (2016), Rahi et al. (2016), Wang
et al. (2016), Alkhalil et al. (2017), Wright et al. (2017), Ilin et al. (2017), Alkhater et al. (2018),
Chandra and Kumar (2018), Kim et al. (2018), Njenga et al. (2018), and Senarathna et al. (2018)
all used survey instruments for their studies in innovation diffusion. Both Hassan et al. (2017)
and Wright et al. (2017) used interview styles for data collection. Four of the previous
researchers used a 5-point Likert scale. Three researchers used a 7-point Likert scale. One study
used a 4-point Likert scale, and the others could not be determined from their articles. Consistent
with Hsu et al. (2014)’s research model, this study used a 5-point Likert scale.
A previously validated survey by researcher Hsu et al. (2014) was used for this study.
Their survey implements questions that were previously validated by not only their research but
also the research of Armbrust et al. (2010), Zhu, Kraemer, and Xin Xu (2006), and several other
earlier innovation researchers. Hsu et al. (2014) had each question, which correlates to an
independent variable item in this study, validated by an expert panel made up of faculty members
whose work focused on cloud computing along with practitioners, and industry consultants.
Their questions were pilot tested on ten firms of their sample and then revised based on response
feedback for clarity. They used China Credit Information Service, Ltd as their survey company
which executed the survey through telephone calls to over 5000 Taiwan companies within their
population.
The most appropriate participant type for this kind of study are organizational decision
makers as they represent the firm level influence. Organizational decision makers provide high
operationalization and replicability when measuring innovation attributes in a study (Tornatzky

51
& Klein, 1982). Previous studies of this kind have used CEO, CIO, CTO, senior manager, and IT
staff participants. This study used senior managers and CIO’s of nonprofit organizations in
Alaska as participants.
Operational Definition of Variables
The TOE framework model, as outlined in the previous research work of Hsu (Hsu et al.,
2014), was chosen as the model for this study. After careful literary review, the research work of
Hsu was determined to reflect Tornatzky’s seven requirements most comprehensively as the
most predictive examination of TOE framework factors (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). Tornatzky
established that ideal studies incorporating characteristics for innovation should be predictive
and not exploratory in nature (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). All previously discovered quantitative
research was found using predictors. Next, he further suggested that innovation characteristics
focus on more than just dichotomous yes or no adoption decision variable but also incorporate
the implementation as a dependent variable (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). Hsu was one of a few
researchers to incorporated both adoption potential and post implementation dependent variables
within the same study. Additionally, a good TOE framework study should utilize surveys
because they are “reliable, replicable, and permit some degree of statistical power” (Tornatzky &
Klein, 1982, p. 29). Every researcher used surveys. Furthermore, only characteristics interpreted
by firm level decision makers are enough to ensure research can be validated in the future
(Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). The use of firm level decision makers as survey participants was also
unanimous in all previous studies. All previous studies also incorporated multiple determinants
simultaneously as recommended for good TOE research design (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982).
Determinants should also be measured across multiple simultaneous innovations to ensure results
52
are distinct to the innovation (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). Hsu was the only researcher to examine
innovation determinants against additional dependent variables of pricing mechanism and
deployment model types. The final attribute for best research design will focus innovation at the
organizational level, not individual level. All previous quantitative research was found to
incorporate organizational level design factor. In conclusion, only the research of Hsu (Hsu et al.,
2014) was found to incorporate all seven features reflecting an ideal TOE framework design.
TOE Framework
Tornatzky’s (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982) TOE framework explains and predicts the
diffusion of innovation by classifying determinants into contexts of technology, organization,
and environmental. Technology characteristics of an innovation are determinants which
influence cloud computing adoption based on an innovation’s inherent internal and external
attributes. Meanwhile, the features of an organizations structure and operation are the
determinants impacting cloud computing adoption from an organizational context. Lastly, the
characteristics of an organizations industry are determinants which impacts cloud computing
adoption from an organizational context.
Building upon the previously validated research study of Hsu et al. (2014), this study
limited its research to technology characteristics impacting the adoption of cloud computing in
nonprofit organizations. This limitation still maintained features of an ideal TOE framework
design while allowing the study to perform a more focused initial analysis on the nonprofit
domain. Despite the vast amount of previous research and literary support for the diffusion of
innovation in the public and private sectors, the nonprofit sector lacks exploratory research. The
three contexts of the TOE framework should be analyzed sequentially and separately to provide
53
greater attention to analysis since a limited amount of aggregated research currently exists for
this sector.
The technology characteristics being explained and analyzed as predictors for cloud
computing adoption are perceived benefits and business concerns (Hsu et al., 2014). These
determinants have been consistently empirically tested in explaining an organizations innovation
decision making behavior (Hassan et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2018; Tornatzky et al., 1990). Both
characteristics are overarching general characteristics.
Most researchers have itemized their technology characteristics as constructs, but Hsu et
al. (2014) represents their constructs categorically as either a perceived benefit or a business
concern. This has no significant impact on analysis and is merely a preference in how
independent variables are presented. Perceived benefits are the operational advantages received
from adopting cloud computing while business concerns are the potential threats the organization
might face from adopting an innovation (Hsu et al., 2014). Hsu et al. defined perceived benefits
and business concerns with individual attributes, shown in Table 4. Other researchers in similar
studies have chosen only to itemized variables without categorization. By categorizing
independent variables, Hsu et al. could test for statistical significance at both the individual
characteristic level and categorical level. There are 13 independent variables (Table 5) which
support two constructs, perceived benefits, and business concerns.
Table 4
Technology Attributes
TOE Construct Cloud Computing Attribute

Perceived Benefits- Customization
"the operational and Easily analyze data on Internet
Technology strategic benefits a Reduce deployment time
firm can expect to Reduce IT costs
receive from cloud Reduce IT employee costs
54
computing" (Hsu et
al., 2014 pg 477) Ubiquitous access
Confidentiality
Business Concerns- Incompatibility
"perceived problems Insufficient service quality
or risks that a firm guarantee
can encounter
Internet Bottleneck
adopting innovations"
(Hsu et al., 2014 pg Service Outages
477) Underperformance
Vendor lock-in
(Tornatzky et al., 1990; Hsu et al., 2014)
Table 5
Operational Definition of Variables
TOE Construct Cloud Computing Attribute Variable

Customization PB1
Easily analyze data on Internet PB2
Perceived Benefits Reduce deployment time PB3
(PB) Reduce IT costs PB4
Reduce IT employee costs PB5
Ubiquitous access PB6
Confidentiality BC1
Technology
Incompatibility BC2
Business Concerns guarantee BC3
(BC) Internet Bottleneck BC4
Service Outages BC5
Underperformance BC6
Vendor lock-in BC7
References: (Tornatzky et al., 1990; Hsu et al., 2014)
Based on a review of previous literature utilizing the TOE framework between 2014 and
2019 shown in Appendix B and the previously validated work of Hsu et al. (2014), variables
shown to significantly influence cloud computing adoption were selected as determinants. There
are 15 independent variables in this study. Two are categorical and 13 are item level as shown in
55
Table 5. All variables are interval type measurements commonly used for Likert scalar data
collections. The item level variables are defined below (Hsu et al., 2014):
PB1. Customization: the customizability and design of cloud computing services to meet
organizational needs.
PB2. Easily analyze data on Internet: multiple data can be analyzed simultaneously on
the internet with cloud computing services.
PB3. Reduce deployment time: IS deployment time can be shortened with cloud
computing services.
PB4. Reduce IT costs: Expenses like IT hardware and IT maintenance can be reduced
using cloud computing services.
PB5. Reduce IT employee costs: IT personnel expenses can be reduces using cloud
computing services.
PB6. Ubiquitous access: Users can access cloud computing services from mobile
locations utilizing internet access.
BC1. Confidentiality: The leak of confidential or customer information using cloud
computing services.
BC2. Incompatibility: The difficulty to integrate existing IT systems with cloud
computing services.
BC3. Insufficient service quality guarantee: The inability of cloud computing services to
provide a guaranteed assurance of quality.
BC4. Internet Bottleneck: Poor network transfer speeds when using cloud computing
services.
56
BC5. Service Outages: Cloud computing services interruptions by unexpected service
outages.
BC6. Underperformance: Cloud computing hardware and software services
underperforming.
BC7. Vendor lock-in: Difficulty in switching cloud providers due to data lock-in.
Along with the decision for or against adoption of an innovation, pricing mechanism and
deployment models were also be analyzed as dependent variable by Hsu et al. (2014). Pricing
mechanisms are characterized into three categories by which an organization might pay for cloud
computing services. The pricing mechanisms for cloud computing are pay-as-you-go, license,
and unlimited access with monthly fee (Hsu et al., 2014). In the pay-as-you-go scheme, cloud
computing customers exchange up-front investment costs for IT resources for dynamic and
scalable on-demand cloud resources (Weerd et al., 2016). The license alternative assesses a fee
per cloud computing user or per cloud computing technology used. However, an organization
can choose unlimited access to cloud computing services by subscribing monthly.
An organizations decision to adopt cloud computing also requires the selection of a
deployment model. They can choose from a private, public, or hybrid model. Their selection may
be influenced by security concerns or fiduciary limitations. To address Tornatzky’s (Tornatzky
& Klein, 1982) suggestion for improving research it was important to also acknowledge this
characteristic of cloud computing adoption as a dependent variable. Both pricing mechanism and
deployment model should be analyzed. The survey for this study was designed to gather the data
on these additional dependent variables. Nevertheless, the scope of this study was limited to the
single dependent variable, cloud adoption intention.

57
Cloud adoption intention is the only dependent variable for this study. The decision to
adopt cloud computing requires the selection of a service model: IaaS, PaaS, or SaaS. Each
deployment model represents a different type of innovation service within an organization. In,
IaaS and organization will exchange or extend in-house hardware for cloud resources. But in
PaaS, an organization is exchanging internal back-end software development resources for cloud
hosted back-end resources. Finally, SaaS solutions allow an organization to host both front end
and back end software solution entirely in the cloud. To explain and predict determinants for
cloud computing adoption, it was critical that all features of the innovation’s adoption participate
in the analysis process just as they would in the implementation (Hsu & Chuan-Chuan Lin, 2016;
Hsu et al., 2014). This was a critical aspect of explaining adoption behavior (Tornatzky & Klein,
1982) overlooked by some innovation theory researchers, most likely due to the added
complexity of a multi-modal innovation adoption research design (Hsu & Chuan-Chuan Lin,
2016). The cloud computing adoption intention construct for this study is the summation of the
three service models survey indicators.
Study Procedures and Data Collection
The first step in this study was to establish a relationship with the Foraker Group.
Preliminary investigation into Alaskan nonprofit statistics, revealed The Foraker Group as the
leading company for statistical analysis in Alaska (The Foraker Group, 2018). They are also
located in Anchorage Alaska. They provide several annual reports including statistical analysis
of the impacts nonprofit organizations have on the State of Alaska. In ‘Focus on Sustainability:
A Nonprofits journey’ they use their customized sustainability model to suggest concepts for
nonprofit viability in Alaska. Annually they produce a ‘Salary Report’ and the ‘Alaska’s
Nonprofit Sector: Generating Economic Impact’ report. Their charitable venue and support for
58
nonprofit health in Alaska suggested that they would overwhelmingly support this research
study. They were contacted but only able to support this research by offering their source for
nonprofit 501(c)3 statistical data, GuideStar.org.
GuideStar.org is a paid service, however, they offer sponsorship for selective customers
providing research or educational benefit. An application was placed with GuideStar.org to
request free premium account access as a University researcher. The application was reviewed,
and the application was approved. Through GuideStar.org this study had access to all the
federally registered nonprofit organizations in Alaska. More information on GuideStar.org
researcher sponsorship can be found at https://learn.guidestar.org/products/resources/guidestar-
for-education.
The next step involved preparing the survey modality. Survey Monkey has been used by
previous researchers (Alkhalil et al., 2017) but was planned as a backup option for this study.
Qualtrics was used as the primary methodology for survey distribution. By post card, participants
were given the same URL and respondents were anonymous. The long Qualtrics URL was
simplified into an easy to remember URL redirector, studyak.org. Data was automatically
aggregated into a secure database within Qualtrics which was used later with IBM SPSS Amos
for statistical analysis and descriptive statistics. This study anticipated a strong number of
respondents given the strong local support for nonprofit organizations in Alaska. However,
response was very poor. But the survey was validated and modeled after the Hsu et al. (2014)’s
study. The survey for this study is outlined in Appendix E.
The survey questionnaire included two additional sections which were not within the
direct scope of this study but allow for research extensibility. The external pressure section
represented the environmental context of the TOE framework. Four questions were added to
59
gather the participants perception how environmental factors influenced their decision to adopt
cloud computing. The IT capability section reflected the organizational context of the TOE
framework. Two questions were added to explain organizational factors which may impact the
organizations decision to adopt cloud computing. Nevertheless, the scope of this study was
technological characteristics of cloud computing including only the perceived benefits and
business concerns section of the survey. The other questions allowed the survey to remain intact
as originally distributed by the previous researcher while offering a potential for further research
analysis under different studies.
The procedure for this study required the target population to be extracted from
GuideStar.org. GuideStar.org was contacted and this study was given full researcher access to
their nonprofits database. The process of procuring contact information for all 2310 nonprofits in
Anchorage was extremely time consuming. GuideStar.org offered to export the contact required
for this study, but it required a cost of approximately $8,000. The budget for this study was only
$1,500, so the tedious task of manually copying postal data for each participant began and ended
two months. The data had to be extracted on a part-time basis, competing with the researcher’s
other full-time obligations. A summary of the research data collection timeline can be found in
Table 6.
Table 6
Research Data Collection Timeline
Research Requirement Timeline
GuideStar.org Researcher Access, IRB Approval, Budget Limit to $1500 November 2019
Manual Procurement of Contact Info for 2310 nonprofits in Anchorage March 2020
Alaska
60
Post Cards Printed and Mailed, Research Deadline for Data Collection April 2020
Data Collection and Analysis via Qualtrics at StudyAK.org May 2020
The survey was built in Qualtrics. It was located at:
https://ncu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6yf8slaMcqsSwyV. Next, the survey invitations were
distributed via post card invitations. Over an additional two-week period, the post cards were
manually printed, stamped, and then mailed. The period of data collection was is planned to run
for two months but was reduced to 4 weeks to meet the timing requirements for this study.
Finally, the results were statistically be analyzed using IBM SPSS Amos and findings on the
predictability of determinants on cloud computing adoption were reported.
Analysis
The results of the survey produced a self-reported dataset. For this reason, the reliability
of the data was examined through reliability statistics (Hsu et al., 2014). Establishing the quality
of the dataset is a critical first step in data analysis. This was done through analysis of
assumptions, data reliability, and instrumentation bias. First, assumptions were address including
notions of statistical normality. Then, the question of statistical power was addressed through
data reliability analysis. Finally, the studies instrumentation was reviewed. There was no
demographic data collected on participants, so the chi-square reliability analysis was not
performed on the population by comparing the data of subset demographics. This was Hsu et al.
(2014)’s first reliability analysis and commonly performed by comparing results from
respondents with those of non-respondents (Alkhater et al., 2018; Ilin et al., 2017; Njenga et al.,
2018; Wang et al., 2016). The chi-square significance is a difference test intended to establish the
randomness of the respondent dataset. However, harman’s single-factor test was executed to
61
investigate common method bias which could surface in behavioral research survey data (Hsu &
Chuan-Chuan Lin, 2016; Jarvenpaa & Majchrzak, 2008; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Podsakoff et
al., 2003).
Content validity, construct reliability and construct validity were also important aspects
of data analysis. First, content validity investigated the quality of the survey questions. Then,
exploratory factor analysis was used to investigate construct reliability and determine how well
the items and constructs worked together empirically. Finally, SPSS Amos was used to perform
confirmatory factor analysis and SEM. The dependent variable, adoption, was analyzed using
factor analysis along with the indicators and their respective latent variables, perceived benefits
and business concerns, to determine their relationship with the decision to adopt cloud
computing. The p value for latent variables was calculated to understand the significance of their
relationship on dependent variable. SEM path modeling was used to visually articulate the
relationship between the latent variables and the dependent variable. Significance was
determined by p < 0.05. SEM was also used for hypothesis testing and to perform construct
validity, including convergent validity, discriminant validity, and composite reliability.
Once the experiment is validated and checked for reliability, IBM SPSS was used to
provide descriptive statistics. First, the top perceived benefit influencing cloud computing
adoption among Alaskan nonprofits is explained. Then the top business concern for Alaskan
nonprofits seeking cloud computing adoption was explained. Next, descriptive statistics was
used to understand which cloud computing service model was most popular and least popular
among nonprofit organization in Alaska. Finally, the study looked at which deployment model
and pricing strategy was more popular among Alaskan nonprofit organizations.
Assumptions
62
The dataset for this study was be examined to ensure assumptions for parametric
statistical test are met. Bivariate correlations between independent and dependent variables
require bivariate normal distributions and variable independency. Independent sample t tests
would require normal distribution. Furthermore, multiple regression analysis also required
normal distributions and linearity along with variable independence. The dependent variable was
dichotomous and independent variable will be treated as interval variables (Tehrani, 2013;
Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). These assumptions were tested with IBM SPSS SEM.
There were other assumptions which were not statistical in nature. First, this study
assumed that CEO, CIO, and IT senior management were the decision makers for their
respective nonprofit organization. Some organizations operate under a management board who
makes decisions about innovation diffusions. Furthermore, the collection responses from a single
decision maker of each nonprofit organization, instead of multiple decision makers, is assumed
to be an acceptable bias due to its consistency with previous research. Another similar
assumption in this study was that outside guidance or pressure was not impacting decision maker
perceptions. Next, this study assumed that decision makers had a general knowledge of cloud
computing and had a basic understanding of the terms and factors represented in the
questionnaire. Additionally, the absence of internet access might play a factor in the survey
responses of some nonprofits. This study assumed that the number of organizations impacted by
this limitation would not significantly impact enough survey responses.
Limitations
This study had several limitations. First, the participants of this study may have already
been at the adoption stage of cloud computing or already through the implementation stage of
cloud computing. If most nonprofit organizations are still in the decision-making stage of cloud
63
computing adoption, this could cause a dataset bias. Next, there are many determinants
unaccounted for in this study. As a result, this study may have only been successful in explaining
a portion of the variance in Alaskan nonprofit organizations cloud adoption decision. Another
limitation is the domain of Alaskan nonprofit organizations. It was not presently clear what the
impact may have been statistically, but unknown elements of this study related to the study’s
geographical location could impact results in a bias manner. If this same study were performed
across the entire country said bias could have minimal effect. Next, this study was limited to
organization level cloud computing adoption factors. A qualitative study investigating individual
level determinants influencing cloud computing adoption potential would have also added to the
body of knowledge on nonprofit innovation diffusion. SaaS cloud computing services is an end
user service. Thus, factors lending to its adoption potential would have rested at the user level,
outside the scope of this study. Finally, the addition of adding pricing mechanism and
deployment types to the antecedent factors of this study increases the complexity of this study.
The relationship between the causal variable, adoption, pricing strategy, and deployment types
was still unclear since the body of knowledge on this phenomenon is extremely limited.
Delimitations
This study was delimited by several imposing factors. First, the study was delimited to
include only nonprofit organization in the city of Anchorage Alaska. Next, this study did not
include demographic nor skillset information on participants. Their understanding of cloud
computing remained an assumption. This was an assumption consistent with previous research
when determining innovation diffusion potential at the enterprise level. Finally, deployment
types in this study did not include the ‘community’ type. Community is a new deployment model
by which organizations pool together resources to product a shared cloud for use only by the
64
organizations of the community. This was a recently added deployment type along with
Information Technology as a service (ITaaS) which was a new deployment model not included
in this study.
Ethical Assurances
Approval from the IRB of Northcentral University was obtained before conducting this
study and data collection. This study complied with all federal standards for an ethical research
study. Ethical research training and certification was maintained throughout this study. The
nature of human participants in this study required attention to issues involving confidentiality,
privacy, informed consent, protection from harm, and academic integrity. This study did not
handle confidential or private data. Nevertheless, the information submitted by nonprofit
respondents was handled as if confidential information had been provided. The survey began
with informed consent and participants were informed of the scope and nature of this study as
shown in Appendix C and D. As such, participants were free to withdraw from the study at any
time as shown in Appendix D. This study tried to accommodate participants requiring American
Disabilities Act (ADA) support by providing online survey options for the hearing and vision
impaired.
Only individuals with direct connection to this research were able to access its data. All
data was handled in accordance with academia best practices and policy. Appendix C also stated
that this study accepted no liability for risks sustained while using a mobile device to complete
the survey. Contact information was also provided for both the University and this study’s
researcher. Nonprofit organizations are already bound to both legal and ethical obligations
(Sontag-Padilla et al., 2012). This helped efforts to establish trust in the ethical standards that
governed this study. At the completion of data collection, the data was downloaded from the
65
cloud Qualtrics server to the researcher’s computer. The cloud server’s database with the data
was password protected and backed up. When all variances of this study are complete, all data
will be removed from the cloud server and stored locally in a passive encryption format.
Summary
This study was quantitative and designed to explain and predict determinants for the
adoption of cloud computing among Alaskan nonprofit organizations. It was designed around the
most common framework used for this type of study, TOE. A sample from the population of
Alaskan nonprofits was randomly chosen with the goal of reaching a 95% confidence level with
a 5% margin of error. A Qualtrics survey was used containing questions that have already been
validated by previous research work. Participant organizations were invited via postcard
invitation with a short URL to mask the long Qualtrics URL. Ethical issues were transparently
addressed, and informed consent was built into the survey. After the survey results were
collected, SEM was used to describe the findings using both confirmatory factor analysis and
path modeling. Descriptive statistics were also used to describe the survey results. This study
addressed several assumptions, limitation, and delimitations. Nevertheless, the results of this
study were met with several unexpected findings.
The purpose of this quantitative, non-experimental study was to build on previous studies of
technology adoption theory by addressing the lack of external validity for cloud computing
adoption factors among nonprofit organizations. The research methodology was addressed in this
chapter. The study’s plan for instrumentation, data collection and analysis were followed by an
investigation into assumptions, limitation, delimitations, and ethical issues. In chapter 4, the
results of the data collection were analyzed for validity and reliability. Descriptive statistics
summarizes findings, the research questions were tested, and findings evaluated.
66
Chapter 4: Findings
This study was designed to add to the general body of research on cloud computing
adoption and expand upon the previous research work of Hsu (Hsu et al., 2014). The domain of
nonprofit organizations was chosen for generalization and research validation. The problem
addressed by this study was the need for external validity with nonprofit organizations
concerning factors empirically shown to influence cloud computing adoption among for profit
organizations. The theoretical framework for this study was Tornatzky’s Technology
Organizational Environmental (TOE). The theory states that innovation adoption is a factor of
technological characteristics, organizational characteristics, and environmental characteristics.
The relationship between for-profit determinants for innovation adoption and nonprofit
organizations were studied through application of the TOE framework.
The analysis of findings began with an investigation into research assumptions and data
reliability. Then instrumentation bias and content validity are evaluated. Findings are expanded
exploring construct reliability and construct validity. Construct validity is further explored by
investigating convergent validity, divergent validity, and construct reliability. Then nomological
validity is analyzed. Finally, descriptive statistics are reported along with the results of
hypothesis testing and where the findings are evaluated and summarized.
Validity and Reliability of the Data
The research in this study was built on the consistency and accuracy of findings from
Hsu’s hypotheses on technology adoption theory (Hsu et al., 2014). The adaptation of this
research used the same instrument to generalize Hsu’s findings (Hsu et al., 2014). After using the
same instrument and altering the domain from Taiwanese companies to Alaskan nonprofit
organizations, experimentation was executed, and the results tested for consistency and accuracy.
67
The TOE framework suggests perceived benefits positively influence an organizations
intention to adopt a technological innovation. Furthermore, it suggests business concerns
negatively influence organizational intentions to adopt technology innovations. The theory has
found generalization and validity among for profit organizations. Therefore, this study
investigated the relationship of these innovation characteristics on nonprofit organizations.
Assumptions
The validity and reliability of this study began with testing the data for statistical
normality. This study was predicated on the assumption that the sample for this study would be
normally distributed with enough statistical power for parametric testing. The sample was
analyzed in SPSS using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The Shapiro-Wilk test has been shown as a valid
normality test for small samples (Afeez et al., 2018). For this assumption, the null hypothesis for
each variable is normally distributed in the population. Table 7 contains the results of the
Shapiro-Wilk test for normal distribution for each of the independent variables. For every
variable there is a significant difference (p < .05). This leads to rejecting the null hypothesis for
each variable, establishing that all variables were not normally distributed.
The small sample size of 22 respondents warranted further analysis for confirmation.
Small sample sizes often do not have enough power for statistical analysis. The generally
established lowest number of responses is 30 with a minimum of 100 nonprofit responses, as
sub-groups of all organization types (Delice, 2010). Therefore, skewness and kurtosis are
evaluated by SPSS, as displayed in Appendix F. Skew and kurtosis can be used to test for
normality by dividing them by their corresponding standard errors to determine z-scores (Kim,
2013). A positive normality test results in z-scores between -1.96 and 1.96 for the skewness and
kurtosis of variables with less than 50 participants (Kim, 2013). Five of the variables in this
68
study have either skewness or kurtosis z-scores outside the generally accepted range. Using
asymmetry and the peaks of a distribution for normality testing resulted in five of the fourteen
variables BC1, PB1, PB4, PB5, and PB6 continuing to reject the null hypothesis, failing
normality testing.
Figure 2 shows the Q-Q Plots for all variables. For all variables, a clear visual correlation
between the observed values and the expected normal regression line is apparent. In plots of the
variables, the values visually align closely to the normal distribution curve. Additionally, plots
for the 5 variables failing skewness and kurtosis clearly show linearity but all have one outlier.
The outlier is the reason for the skewness and kurtosis testing failures with the five variables.
The five variables had visual alignment with their expected normal regression line using Q-Q
plots, but the small sample size may be a factor in their outcome. Nevertheless, for all variables,
further analysis revealed plot aggregations along regression lines and/or z-values within
tolerances.
This study is built on the normal distribution of a larger study conducted by Hsu et al.
(2014). The same validated survey instrument was utilized for this study. Similar variables, as
shown in Appendix B, from previous quantitative studies on technology adoption all resulted in
normal distributions (Adon et al., 2017; Alkhater et al., 2018; Chuan-chuan et al., 2016; Rohani
& Hussin, 2015; Senarathna et al., 2018). Therefore, with these observations to justify
assumptions of normality the researcher continued data and instrumentation analysis.

69
Table 7
Tests of Normality
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig.
PB1 Customization .729 22 .000
PB2 Easily Analyze Data on Internet .873 22 .009
PB3 Reduce Deployment Time .844 22 .003
PB4 Reduce IT Costs .733 22 .000
PB5 Reduce IT Employee Costs .811 22 .001
PB6 Ubiquitous Access .459 22 .000
BC1 Confidentiality .608 22 .000
BC2 Incompatibility .885 22 .015
BC3 Insufficient Service Quality .896 22 .025
Guarantee
BC4 Internet Bottleneck .865 22 .006
BC5 Service Outages .836 22 .002
BC6 Underperformance .844 22 .003
BC7 Vendor Lock-In .825 22 .001
Adoption Intention .864 22 .006
Figure 2 Normal Q-Q Plots for Variables

70
71
72
Data Reliability
The result from normality testing required an investigation into the accuracy of this
study’s data. The reliability of data found in this study is related to its statistical power. Initial
analysis of statistical power indicated that a minimum sample size of 280 respondents would be
required to achieve the desired confidence level of at least 95%. However, only 22 responses
were received resulting in a margin of error of 21% at 95% confidence level as reported by
Survey Monkey. This means that if this study were repeated indefinitely with 22 respondents,
precision of results could fall as low as 74% suggesting that the reliability of this data is good,
but not very strong. In other words, any determinants in this study found to influence cloud
computing adoption can be assured with 74% accuracy. Therefore, the data may not provide
enough statistical power to represent all Alaskan nonprofit organizations.
Instrumentation Bias
A web-based survey was the instrument used to collect participant data. This type of
instrument is vulnerable to response bias and method bias. Such bias can influence the quality of
the research sample (Atif et al., 2012), as a result, common method bias was used to investigate
bias resulting from the instrumentation, Table 8. The instrument was not used to collect
demographic data, therefore, non-response bias could not be analyzed and none of the other 8
techniques, such as wave analysis, were applicable to anonymous surveys (Atif et al., 2015).
Participants must be able to submit survey responses based on their unique
predispositions without influence from the instrument. This form of bias can lead to faulty
interpretations in research results (Aguirre-Urreta & Hu, 2019). Hsu et al. tested this form of bias
on their sample using Harman’s single factor test and concluded that no single factor was able to
73
account for data variances (Hsu et al., 2014). The most popular technique for common method
bias testing is Harman’s Single-Factor Test (Aguirre-Urreta & Hu, 2019).
Common method bias testing was performed on this sample using Harman’s Single-
Factor test. The results are shown in Table 8. No single factor accounted for data variance. The
greatest variance was 41.5% and is less than the accepted significance cut-off of 50% (Aguirre-
Urreta & Hu, 2019). Therefore, no significant common method bias was found among the 13
independent variables of the dataset for this research. This finding is consistent with that of Hsu
et al. (2014).
Table 8
Common Method Bias Test Results
Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 5.404 41.571 41.571 5.404 41.571 41.571
2 3.967 30.514 72.085
3 1.284 9.874 81.959
4 .627 4.823 86.782
5 .437 3.363 90.145
6 .344 2.649 92.794
7 .314 2.418 95.212
8 .229 1.758 96.970
9 .161 1.238 98.207
10 .111 .854 99.062
11 .084 .645 99.707
12 .026 .198 99.905
13 .012 .095 100.000
74
Content Validity
Content validity is concerned with how well the questions of the survey captured the
intent of the observed indicators. Content validity was assured by using validated questions from
another research study whose empirical results concluded with significant findings. Both
constructs and factors from the research work of Hsu et al. (2014) were replicated in this study.
Hsu et al. developed their analysis using the TOE framework and created constructs from the
observed variables of previous studies in the same field of technology adoption.
Construct Reliability
The constructs and variables adapted in this study were already validated and derived
from literary review. Table 5 contains in detail the constructs and items used for this study. Hsu
et al. (2014) validated this study testing for construct reliability and construct validity. The same
tests were also performed on this study. Construct reliability tests for the internal consistency of
a construct’s items. This study has two constructs, perceived benefits and business concerns.
There are six perceived benefit predictors and seven business concern predictors.
The indicators in this study should load reliably together in support of their apriori
constructs. To investigate the relationship between items of this study, exploratory factor
analysis was performed. Literary review and previous research on adoption theory have
discovered influence between the observed variables and the subsequent latent variables of this
study. To investigate the relationship between items and their constructs, confirmatory factor
analysis was performed. First, Hsu et al. (2014) performed exploratory factor analysis and
confirmed no cross loading for the indicators of this study (Hsu et al., 2014). Then Hsu et al.
used SEM modeling to perform confirmatory factory analysis revealing influences between
75
constructs and their items. Predictors should load together to support their construct as shown in
Table 9.
Table 9
Means and Standard Deviation of Observed Variables
Construct Items Mean Std. Deviation

Perceived Benefits (PB) PB1 Customization 4.09 1.192
PB2 Easily Analyze Data on Internet 3.45 1.335
PB3 Reduce Deployment Time 3.68 1.211
PB4 Reduce IT Costs 4.23 .973
PB5 Reduce IT Employee Costs 3.86 1.246
PB6 Ubiquitous Access 4.64 .902
Business Concerns (BC) BC1 Confidentiality 4.36 1.177
BC2 Incompatibility 3.23 1.270
BC3 Insufficient Service Quality Guarantee 3.45 1.224
BC4 Internet Bottleneck 3.68 1.249
BC5 Service Outages 3.77 1.307
BC6 Underperformance 3.64 1.399
BC7 Vendor Lock-In 3.91 1.231
Based on previous research into adoption theory and the work of Hsu et al. (2014), items
PB1 through PB6 are expected to load together in support of the unidimensional construct
perceived benefits. Furthermore, items BC1 through BC7 should load together on the
unidimensional business concerns. The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 9. The
results of an exploratory factor analysis in SPSS are shown in Table 10, indicating three factors
together explaining 81.9% of the total variance. Moreover, the two constructs of this study were
confirmed by the first two factors representing 72% of total variance in this study having the
highest Eigenvalue quality scores. This was further explained by the rotated component matrix in
Table 11. The analysis from SPSS displays factors and calculated the weights for all items. All
weights are above the generally accepted 0.5 level suggesting influence except for item BC5
76
service outages, which reported weight on the 3rd factor. The component matrix validates Hsu et
al.’ finding that proposed items are related to their respective proposed constructs. However, it
may be possible that the small sample size is cause for the surfacing of a third construct which
includes PB6, BC4, BC5, and BC6 as predictors, but it could also be evidence of some unknown
relationship between those items. Then the scale used for data collection was found consistent
and reliable as shown by the Cronbach’s alpha (Į >0.7) reliability tests in Table 12.
Table 10
EFA Total Items Variance
Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 5.404 41.571 41.571 4.672 35.940 35.940
2 3.967 30.514 72.085 4.032 31.014 66.954
3 1.284 9.874 81.959 1.951 15.005 81.959
4 .627 4.823 86.782
5 .437 3.363 90.145
6 .344 2.649 92.794
7 .314 2.418 95.212
8 .229 1.758 96.970
9 .161 1.238 98.207
10 .111 .854 99.062
11 .084 .645 99.707
12 .026 .198 99.905
13 .012 .095 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
77
Table 11
EFA Items Matrix
Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3
PB4 Reduce IT Costs .937
PB3 Reduce Deployment Time .910
PB1 Customization .890
PB5 Reduce IT Employee Costs .860
PB2 Easily Analyze Data on Internet .827
PB6 Ubiquitous Access .726 .532
BC7 Vendor Lock-In .847
BC2 Incompatibility .838
BC1 Confidentiality .825
BC3 Insufficient Service Quality .794
Guarantee
BC4 Internet Bottleneck .671 .511
BC6 Underperformance .669 .566
BC5 Service Outages .405 .873
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.
Table 12
Cronbach's Alpha for PB & BC Items
Perceived Benefits Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Based on
Alpha Standardized Items N of Items
.929 .932 6
Business Concerns Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
78
.911 .911 7
Finally, the SPSS correlation matrix for all items, found in Table 13, revealed
correlations (>0.5) between items of constructs. However, in perceived benefits there appeared to
be a weaker relationship between easily analyzing data on the internet (PB2) and ubiquitous
access (PB6). Additionally, business concerns showed weak correlation coefficients for both
confidentiality (BC1) and incompatibility (BC2) when related to service outages (BC5). The
results of the SPSS exploratory factor analysis suggested both validity and reliability for
relationships between the independent items of Hsu et al. (2014)’s study.
Table 13
Correlation Matrix
Correlation Matrix
PB1 PB2 PB3 PB4 PB5 PB6
PB1 Customization 1.000
PB2 Easily Analyze Data on
.751 1.000
Internet
PB3 Reduce Deployment Time .813 .830 1.000
PB4 Reduce IT Costs .762 .723 .833 1.000
PB5 Reduce IT Employee Costs .650 .583 .728 .813 1.000
PB6 Ubiquitous Access .652 .381 .543 .804 .589 1.000
BC1 BC2 BC3 BC4 BC5 BC6 BC7

BC1 Confidentiality 1.000
BC2 Incompatibility .579 1.000
BC3 Insufficient Service
.541 .696 1.000
Quality Guarantee
BC4 Internet Bottleneck .536 .468 .597 1.000
BC5 Service Outages .180 .377 .633 .712 1.000
BC6 Underperformance .605 .558 .657 .666 .734 1.000
BC7 Vendor Lock-In .616 .623 .787 .631 .579 .699 1.000
79
Construct Validity
The next step after analyzing independent variable relationships through exploratory
analysis is to validate the measurement models, perceived benefits and business concerns. This
was done in SPSS AMOS using confirmatory factor analysis. This study developed a fit
measurement model from the items and constructs found by Hsu et al. (2014) to influence the
adoption of cloud computing.
Figure 3 Measurement Model, Confirmatory Factor Analysis

80
The standardized results of the measurement model are shown in Figure 3. The formative
constructs perceived benefits and business concerns are latent factors for their respective
indicator values and residuals. First, regression weights were analyzed in SPSS AMOS as shown
in Tables 14 and 15. Covariances from unstandardized regression weights were all significant at
p<.05 and correlation and correlation coefficients from the standardized weights are all above the
generally accepted .05 threshold revealing that all indicators load significantly on their respective
latent factors. All variables have a strong effect on the factors except PB6 ubiquitous access and
BC2 incompatibility who have moderate effects. These values support results from the
exploratory analysis adding loading values for each independent variable in the measurement
model.
Table 14
Measurement Model Unstandardized Regression Weights
Unstandardized Estimate S.E. C.R. P

PB1 <--- PerceivedBenefits 2.037 0.628 3.245 0.001
PB4 <--- PerceivedBenefits 1.728 0.443 3.902 ***
PB6 <--- PerceivedBenefits 1
BC1 <--- BusinessConcerns 0.91 0.263 3.465 ***
BC2 <--- BusinessConcerns 0.808 0.276 2.923 0.003
BC7 <--- BusinessConcerns 1
81
Table 15
Measurement Model Standardized Regression Weights
Standardized Estimate
PB1 <--- PerceivedBenefits 0.864
BC1 <--- BusinessConcerns 0.728
The measurement model was validated using model fit testing. The goodness of fit test
for a statistical model is required to summarize the discrepancy between observed values and the
values expected under normal distribution (Alkhater et al., 2018; Arbuckle 2011; Priyadarshinee
et al. 2017). To continue using the measurement model for statistical hypothesis testing in the
structured equation model, it should meet model fit requirements (Alkhater et al., 2018; Arbuckle
2011; Priyadarshinee et al. 2017). No items needed to be dropped due to factor loading so
standardized residuals were investigated first. It is generally accepted that indicator variables
with significant standardized residual covariances above 4 should be removed from the model
while significant standardized residual covariances of less than 2.5 do not suggest problems
(Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). After reviewing the AMOS covariances in Appendix G and
finding no values above the 2.5 threshold, no items were removed. It is also generally accepted
that a chi-square for a fit model more than 5 is a weak model (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985). The chi-
square, shown in Table 16, for the measurement model was 1.765 with a significance of less than
82
.001 showing closeness between the observed values of this model and their standardized
estimates. Then, the model indices were reviewed determine if the model was ready for
hypothesis testing. As shown in Table 16, both the goodness of fit index (GFI) and the
comparative fit index (CFI) were above the generally acceptable value of .5. However, when the
discrepancy between the observed data and the hypothesized model are compared, CFI shows a
stronger value of .825. This was closer to the desire value of .9 or higher for GFI and CFI. It may
be that the limited sample size has influenced the optimization of these values. Additionally,
Table 16 shows root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was very low and less than
the general .8 cutoff. It was concluded that the difference between the observed and the
estimated model is low. Finally, it was also concluded that all goodness of fit tests are within
limits to declare the measurement model ready for hypothesis testing.
The next step in construct validity is testing for convergent validity. The generally
accepted value for average variance extracted (AVE) is greater than .5 but values greater than .7
are preferred to show how closely together indicators are in determining their latent variable
(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The convergent validity for perceived benefits was calculated 0.681 and
the convergent validity of business concerns was calculated as 0.592 using the standard formula
for AVE. Convergent validity was obtained for all latent variables, thus, the indicators appear to
be from the same population sample. It may be that a stronger sample would have demonstrated
greater convergence.
Discriminant validity was investigated to determine how apart our constructs were from
one another. The degree by which constructs diverge from each other is called discriminant
validity and is tested by taking the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) to
determine if it is larger than the other correlations, establishing construct distinction (Hsu & Tsai,
83
2017). The square root of the AVE is the discriminant validity for each construct. Perceived
benefits was calculated to be 0.825 and business concerns was 0.769. It is generally accepted that
the square root of the AVE must be more that the latent variables correlations. The correlation
score between perceived benefits and business concerns was determined to be 0.274 by the SPSS
AMOS output. This was less than both square root values. Thus, it was determined that
discriminant validity was present for the latent variables in this study as both calculations
exceeded the correlation score between them.
Finally, composite reliability (CR) was invested to determine the shared variance of the
indicator variables on the latent variables. The recommended cut-off value for CR is a
Cronbach’s alpha value greater than 7.0 to establish the quality assurance for the variables of this
study (Chandra & Kumar, 2018; Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hassan et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2018;
Rahi et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2017). After performing the standard calculation, composite
reliability for perceived benefits was 0.830 and business concerns was 0.909. It is generally
accepted that composite reliability scores must be greater than 0.6 to determine internal
consistency reliability. It was concluded that both constructs showed internal consistency
reliability between their respective indicator variables.
In summary, chi-square was significant below the 0.05 for the model and both
confirmatory factor analysis and root mean square error of approximation appear good. Overall,
the fit statistics suggested that the estimated model reproduces the sample covariance matrix
reasonably well. Additionally, evidence suggests good construct validity. The observed measures
behaved unidimensional as expected.

84
Table 16
Model Fit Summary
Chi-Square 1.765
P 0.000
GFI 0.644
CFI 0.825
RMSEA 0.191
After determination was made that the model was fit, IBM SPSS AMOS was then used to
build and test the structured equation model (SEM). The purpose of SEM analysis was to
validate the theoretically proposed influences between predictors and their factors. The research
of Hsu et al. (2014) revealed that all indicators were found to correlate and showed significant
weight in supporting their latent variables.
The SEM model is found in Figure 4. The endogenous latent variable of cloud adoption
intention was added as a construct for the adoption intention indicator. After review of
covariances in Appendix H and finding no value above the 2.5, no items required removal as the
items showed consisted statistical power to reflect their constructs.
Model fit was analyzed. Chi-square demonstrated good statistical ability to explain
causation as defined by the estimate model. The chi-square value was within general acceptance
at 2.009 and significant at less than .001. Additionally, GFI, CFI, and RMSEA remained within
generally accepted values at .587, .753, and .219 respectively. The model remained strong
enough to use for hypothesis analysis.

85
Figure 4 Structured Equation Model

86
The regression weights were analyzed again in SPSS AMOS as shown in Tables 17 and
18. Except for the factor loadings, both covariances from unstandardized regression weights
remained significant and correlation coefficients were within tolerances. However, business
concerns and perceived benefits did not support cloud adoption intention with statistical
significance. Furthermore, loadings were also weak in explaining cloud adoption intention with
business concerns (.196) at 19% influence and perceived benefits (.401) at 40% by weight.
Despite their weak statistical power, business concern did have less influence on adoption
intention than perceived benefits. This was also true for Hsu et al. (2014)’s findings. However,
business concerns did not have a negative correlation coefficient. This study was unable to show
that adoption intention relates to business concerns in an inverse relationship. Nevertheless,
Appendix H shows that all indicators of business concerns, except ubiquitous access (BC6), are
inversely related to adoption intention.
Table 17
Structured Equation Model Unstandardized Regression Weights
Estimate S.E. C.R. P

CloudAdoptionIntention <--- BusinessConcerns 0.269 0.377 0.714 0.475
CloudAdoptionIntention <--- PerceivedBenefits 0.925 0.751 1.232 0.218
PB6 <--- PerceivedBenefits 1
PB4 <--- PerceivedBenefits 1.725 0.441 3.916 ***
BC1 <--- BusinessConcerns 1
87

Adoption_Intention <--- CloudAdoptionIntention 1.079 0.31 3.48 ***
Table 18
Structured Equation Model Standardized Regression Weights
Estimate
Adoption_Intention <--- CloudAdoptionIntention 0.778
CloudAdoptionIntention <--- BusinessConcerns 0.196
CloudAdoptionIntention <--- PerceivedBenefits 0.401
Nomological Validity
The theoretical prediction as outline by the work of Hsu et al. (2014) was that indicators
would have an influence on the dependent variable of adoption intention. All construct
correlations with the dependent variable of adoption intention were validated as shown in Figure
4. However, the hypothetical prediction of an inverse relationship between business concerns
and adoption intention were not validated. This may be due to the small sample size or other
unknown factors. Nevertheless individually, indicators of business concerns did demonstrate
inverse covariance with adoption intention. There appears to be a relationship between adoption
88
intention, perceived benefits, and business concerns as theorized. Furthermore, perceived
benefits did appear to have a stronger correlation with adoption intention than business concerns
as hypothesized.
The findings of Hsu et al. (2014)’s original study could not all be validated. Business
concerns did not have a negative correlation with adoption intention. The present study suggests
that both business concerns and perceived benefits positively influence adoption intention, but
business concerns showed less than half the influence of perceived benefits. This indicated a
negative impact of business concerns but not a negative correlation. Despite the contradiction
with the study of Hsu et al., it was concluded that this study’s model does align in theoretically
predicted ways with measures of different but related constructs. Constructs related and the
proposed model validly reflected the proposed theory.
Results
In March of 2020, 2,310 postcards were mailed to all 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations
with addresses in Anchorage Alaska. The postcards stated the purpose of the survey,
requirements for participating in the survey, and a short URL to access the survey. The postcard
format and survey were pre-approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Northcentral
University.
After two months, 290 postcards were returned as undeliverable, leaving 2020 in the
target population. There were 36 participants who attempted the survey and initially a 1.7%
response rate, however, 12 participants completed less than half, one completed just over half,
and one participant missed a single question. In summary, 22 participants successfully completed
this study, resulting in a 1.1% response rate.

89
Participants of this study answered the same questions originally validated by researcher
Hsu et al. (2014). Hsu et al. used a telephonic method to contact participants in contrast to the
online survey method used in this study. In 2010, Hsu et al. used a publicly published listed of
the top 5000 companies of Taiwan to contact 623 potential participants with a response rate
32.1%, 200 participants. Participants of this study were anonymous, but Hsu et al. started their
study with demographic information for each of their participants. Hsu et al. requested the
number of employees, type of industry, and annual information technology budget for their
participant organizations.
It is common for web-based surveys to produce lower response rates than other
methodologies (Blumenberg & Barros, 2018). This was found to be relatively true in comparing
a response rate of 32.1% by Hsu et al. (2014) with 1.1% in this study. The telephone
methodology for this instrument supported Blumenberg and Barros’s (2018) assertion. Despite a
web-survey distribution of 2020 postcards compared to 623 phone calls, the phone calls resulted
in greater response rates. The process of first receiving notification by postal service and then
obtaining internet access for the URL added further requirements for participants as compared to
those in Hsu et al. (2014)’s study.
Descriptive Statistics
The sample characteristics were captured to provide a general overview of results from
the 22 respondents. First, the relative importance index scale was used to determine the value
participants placed on specific construct items. In Figure 5, participants from this study chose
PB6 ubiquitous access as their most important perceived benefit which contrasted with PB4,
reduced IT costs, chosen most valuable in Hsu et al. (2014)’s study. Current global health
conditions may have influenced this item. As more offices were suddenly implementing and
90
utilizing telework capabilities to prevent viral spread the predisposition toward ubiquitous access
of business resources might have naturally surfaced as a new priority. Nevertheless, the second
most valuable perceived benefit in this study did agree with Hsu et al. (2014)’s primary
perceived value, PB4 reduced IT costs.
Figure 5 Perceived Benefits by Value
Characteristics of business concerns were reviewed. This study found that participants
chose BC1 confidentiality as their most important business concern as shown in Figure 6. This
was the second most valuable concern in Hsu et al. (2014)’s study after BC5 service outages.
The finding did not align exactly with Hsu et al. but confidentiality of business resources was a
high priority for nonprofit Alaskan organizations as with for-profit organizations looking to
adopt cloud technologies. Taiwan had national problems with power and internet connectivity
91
which could explain the primary concern of BC5 service outages for Hsu et al. (2014). However,
in the United States the recent publicity of largescale security breaches at nationwide companies
may be a factor influencing privacy as priority. Thus, geographical predispositions may have
influenced results. Clearly, business concern may be geographically based but this is the purpose
of generalizing research findings.
Figure 6 Business Concerns by Value
It was important to investigate the migration intentions of the respondents from this
study. The stacked bar chart of Figure 7 displays the intention of respondents to migrate by cloud
technology on a 100 percent ratio scale. Video teleconferencing surfaced as an important cloud
technology sought after by respondents. A relationship may be surfacing among respondent
values and the current global health pandemic. Participants chose a solution directly related to
telework capabilities. Video teleconferencing is a cloud solution being aggressively used during
92
the global pandemic to mitigate the spread of viral infection. It allows organization to continue
meetings and events without physical contact or proximity. This observation contrasted with
email systems chosen by the respondents of Hsu et al. (2014)’s study as their most potential
migration option. Nevertheless, Hsu et al. (2014)’s findings also found video teleconferencing a
high priority for migration. Their participants made it their second most sought after technology
innovation. Video teleconferencing remained a high priority for participants from both studies. It
was also noted that cloud email solutions are currently the most utilized technology among
nonprofit organization in Anchorage Alaska. Additionally, supply chain management was not a
solution being used among any participants of this study.

93
Figure 7 Intention to Migrate Current Technology to the Cloud

94
The researcher investigated adoption intention by participants. This was the dependent
variable of this study. The stacked bar chart of Figure 8 displays the intention of respondents
migrate to specific cloud service models on a 100 percent ratio scale. Of the three service
models, platform as a service was selected as the most popular adoption intention for the next
year. This means that solutions like Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services are being
targeted by organization as a replacement for traditional on-premises solutions. Participants are
also heavily using software as a service solution and currently have weak intentions to adopt
infrastructure as a service solution. The three deployment models are cumulative. Thus, platform
as a service generally will not require a customer to use infrastructure as a service as it is already
included in the solution and managed by the cloud host (Chandrasekaran, 2015). In the same
manner, a software as a service solution is already utilizing platform and infrastructure as a
service managed by the cloud host (Chandrasekaran, 2015). Relative importance index is an
appropriate analysis tool for prioritizing indicators rated on Likert scales (Muhammad et al.,
2018). Thus, using the standard formula, it was used again, as shown in Figure 9, to determine
that a majority of 77% of participants valued software as a service as their top service model.
Therefore, the strong value towards software as a service solution may also indicate willingness
to delegate infrastructure and platform services to the respective cloud host. The current use of
software as a service may be further strengthened by the expensive living costs of the state. The
current high cost of living in Alaska ranks it the 7th most expensive state (Fried, 2019).
95
Figure 8 Adoption Intention
Figure 9 Adoption Intention by Value

96
Finally, the other dependent variables of this study are analyzed, pricing mechanism and
deployment model. They were not used empirically in this study but offer further insight into the
adoption nature of nonprofit organization in Anchorage Alaska. The preferred deployment model
of nonprofit organizations in Anchorage Alaska was public cloud. The results from relative
importance index (RII) analysis are shown in Figure 10. Nonprofits preferred to host their
organization assets with public cloud hosting providers like Google, Amazon, and Azure. In fact,
86% of participants preferred public hosting over private hosting solutions. This speaks to the
assurance public hosting provider have given Anchorage organizations regarding privacy and
security concerns. In contrast, Hsu et al. (2014)’s for-profit participants chose private cloud
hosting as their preferred deployment model by 93%.
Choosing a pricing mechanism seems to be an independent decision unrelated to the
deployment model. Nonprofit organization preferred to purchase a one-time license for their
cloud services. Results from RII analysis are in Figure 11. However, only 36% preferred this
method. The other 64% was split equally between pay-as-you-go and unlimited access monthly
fees. This could show that Anchorage nonprofit organizations are diverse in their fiscal decision
making. It could also point to some unknown variable influencing pricing mechanisms. In
contrast, Hsu et al. (2014)’s for-profit participants chose unlimited access as their preferred
pricing method with 66% support.
The disparity between pricing mechanism and deployment models between Alaskan
nonprofits and Taiwan for-profits could be influenced by several factors. First, the weakness of
this study’s sample may influence these differences. There may be unaccounted geographical
variances which impact pricing and deployment fidelities. Lastly, this study may be pointing to
97
distinctions between the way nonprofits and for-profits decision models and needs are
assessments.
Figure 10 Preferred Deployment Model

98
Figure 11 Preferred Pricing Mechanism
The global health pandemic may have not only influenced this study’s survey response
rate but also responses of participants. Sample characteristics appeared to support both Hsu et al.
(2014)’s general findings and the current global health climate regarding cloud technology
adoption. Most findings remained consisted with Hsu et al.’s study. We investigated our
hypotheses against the results of this study.
Research Question 1. Perceived Benefits
This study began with the two research questions. The first question asked what influence
perceived benefits had on the acceptance of cloud computing among nonprofit Alaskan
businesses. The hypothesis predilection for this study was generalized on the Hsu et al. (2014)’s
original hypothesis. To address Research Question 1, the following seven hypothesis-pairs were
postulated for evaluation using null hypothesis significance testing.

99
H1a Perceived benefits positively influence cloud computing adoption among nonprofit Alaskan
organizations.
Analysis using a statistically fit model calculated a significance of 0.218 and a loading of 0.401
on adoption intention, Table 17, Table 18, and Figure 4. There was not sufficient statistical
power in the latent variable to suggest correlation. The empirical findings for perceived benefits
were not enough to reject the null hypothesis. Hsu et al. (2014)’s study showed statistical
significance for perceived benefits at p<0.05 and loading of 0.219. This study was unable to
generalize this finding. The six perceived benefits do not collectively influence the cloud
computing adoption intention of nonprofit Alaskan organizations.

100
Figure 12 Structured Equation Model, Hypotheses Analysis
Table 19
Regression Weights, Hypotheses Analysis
Estimate S.E. C.R. P

Adoption_Intention <--- PB1 .054 .115 .465 .642
Adoption_Intention <--- PB2 -1.589 .103 -15.434 ***
Adoption_Intention <--- PB3 .144 .114 1.271 .204
Adoption_Intention <--- PB4 2.569 .141 18.168 ***
Adoption_Intention <--- PB5 .490 .110 4.436 ***
Adoption_Intention <--- PB6 -1.716 .152 -11.255 ***
Adoption_Intention <--- BC1 -.436 .117 -3.729 ***
Adoption_Intention <--- BC3 1.382 .112 12.299 ***
Adoption_Intention <--- BC4 .572 .110 5.197 ***
101
Adoption_Intention <--- BC5 -1.007 .105 -9.574 ***

Adoption_Intention <--- BC6 .802 .098 8.162 ***
Table 20
Standardized Regression Weights, Hypotheses Analysis
Estimate
Adoption_Intention <--- PB1 .014
Adoption_Intention <--- PB2 -.450
Adoption_Intention <--- PB6 -.328
Adoption_Intention <--- BC1 -.109
Adoption_Intention <--- BC3 .359
H1b Customizability positively influences cloud computing adoption among nonprofit Alaskan
organizations.
Using factor analysis, customizability was significant at 0.001 and loaded well with
perceived benefits at 0.86, Table 17 and 18. However, it failed to explain adoption intention.
Customizability was loaded against the dependent variable of adoption intention as shown in
Figure 12. As determined by the results in Table 19 and 20 this item was not significant in
explaining adoption intention with P equal to 0.642. Furthermore, it had the smallest weight of
approximately 1.4% on perceived benefits. The null hypothesis could not be rejected empirically
102
for this variable. The ability to customize cloud computing capabilities to meet organizational
requirements did not influence adoption intention for nonprofit Alaskan organizations.
H1c Concurrent remote data analysis positively influences cloud computing adoption among
This item loaded well with perceived benefits and had a loading of .86 and significance of
0.006. It significantly explained adoption intention and had the highest weight of -0.450. The
results revealed an inverse relationship with adoption intention. As a result, the null hypothesis
could not be rejected empirically for this variable. Alaskan nonprofit organizations appear to
view their ability to access and analyze data by multiple participants at the same time as negative
influence on their decision to adopt cloud computing.
H1d Reduced information systems deployment time positively influences cloud computing
adoption among nonprofit Alaskan organizations.
This item had very strong loadings and significance at .0922 and 0.004 respectively on
the construct of perceived benefits. However, Tables 19 and 20 show this was the second item to
insignificantly impact adoption intention. It only had correlation of 4% with adoption intention.
As a result of these findings, the null hypothesis was accepted for this variable. Alaskan
nonprofit organizations did not value the rapid delivery of new computing technologies as
motivation for adopting cloud computing.

103
H1e Reduced IT overhead positively influences cloud computing adoption among nonprofit
This item was significant at p<0.001 with a strong weight of 0.905 as an indicator for
perceived benefits. It showed significant correlation with adoption intention and had a moderate
loading of 0.530. As a result, the null hypothesis was rejected. The technology cost savings
implied by migrating to cloud computing does influence the adoption intention of Alaskan
nonprofits.
H1f Reduced IT personnel costs positively influences cloud computing adoption among
The significance was .008 and the correlation was 0.792 in support of the construct
perceived benefits. Regarding adoption intention, there was significant influence but with only
0.129 weight. The null hypothesis is rejected. Nonprofit Alaskan organizations did value the
technology personnel cost savings as a factor in their decision to adopt cloud computing.
H1g Mobility positively influences cloud computing adoption among nonprofit Alaskan
organizations.
This item provided support for the construct with a significance of 0.008 and a loading of
0.555 but it was the weakest loading for the construct perceived benefits. The item had a
104
significant loading of -0.328 on adoption intention. Furthermore, the relationship was negative
suggesting an inverse relationship. The null hypothesis was accepted. Alaskan nonprofits
interpret their ability to access organizational resources from any location as a negative feature
when deciding to adopt cloud computing. Alaskan nonprofits may not want their organizational
data accessible from the internet.
Research Question 2. Business Concerns
The second question asked how operational business concerns influenced the acceptance
of cloud computing among nonprofit Alaskan businesses. These business concerns are also
generalizations of those hypothesized by Hsu et al. (2014). To address Research Question 2, the
following eight hypothesis-pairs were postulated, to be evaluated using null hypothesis
significance testing.
H20 Business concerns have no influence on the adoption cloud computing among Alaskan
nonprofit organizations.
H2a Business concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing among Alaskan
After SEM Analysis a significance of 0.475 and a loading of 0.196 was found on
adoption intention, Table 17, Table 18, and Figure 4. Results were not significant with very weak
loadings so a correlation could not be assured. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Hsu
et al. (2014)’s study showed statistical significance for business concerns at p<0.1 and loading of
-0.185. This study was unable to generalize this relationship against nonprofits. The seven
business concerns do not collectively influence the cloud computing adoption intention of

105
H2b Information assurance concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing
This factor loaded well on business concerns with a significance of 0.007 and loading of
0.730. It also had a loading of -0.109 on adoption intention which was also significant. Thus, the
null hypothesis was rejected. The possibility of new information security risks and data
vulnerabilities resulting from migrating to cloud computing negatively influenced the adoption
intention of Alaskan nonprofit organizations.
H2c The interoperability of legacy systems negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing
This item successfully loaded as an indicator for business concerns. It was significant
with a weight of 0.593. It also showed significant causation on adoption intention with a loading
of -0.242. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Alaskan nonprofits organizations interpret
the difficulty of integrating existing information systems with cloud computing technologies as a
negative influence on their adoption intention.
H2d Quality assurance concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing among

106
This item showed a strong influence of 0.756 on business concerns along with
significance. It has a positive relationship with adoption intention and a loading of 0.359. The
null hypothesis was accepted due to the positive relationship. As concerns for quality of cloud
services grow, the intention to adopt cloud computing technologies appear to also grows among
H2e Network assurance concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing among
Network assurance significantly influenced the construct of business concerns with a
loading of 0.816. Furthermore, it had a positive significant influence on adoption intention with a
weight of 0.151. As a result of the positive relationship, the null hypothesis was accepted. The
lack of network fidelity for cloud computing services appears not to be a concern for Alaskan
nonprofits. In contrast to Hsu et al. (2014)’s findings, the growth of this concerns seems to rise
with their positive intention to adopt cloud computing technology.
H2f Service assurance concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing among
Service assurance had a significant and strong loading of 0.820 on business concerns. It
also had a significant loading of -0.279 on adoption intention. Thus, the null hypothesis was
rejected. Alaskan nonprofit organizations may want cloud solutions to operate consistently and
107
without interruptions. The growth of unexpected service outages could negatively influences
their intentions for adopting cloud computing technologies.
H2g Performance assurance concerns negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing
This indicator had a strong loading of 0.867 on business concerns and it was significant.
It also has a significant inverse loading of 0.238 on adoption intention. Consequently, the null
hypothesis was accepted. Alaskan nonprofit organizations viewed performance issues positively.
Inconsistent with Hsu et al. (2014)’s findings, their intent to adopt cloud computing technologies
increased with increasing concerns for service performance.
H2h Vendor and data lock-in negatively influence the adoption of cloud computing among
This item was significant and had a weight of 0.760 on the construct of business
concerns. It also significantly influences adoption intention with a loading of -0.130. As a result,
the null hypothesis was rejected. Alaskan nonprofit organizations do not like their data being
locked with a specific cloud services provider. They want the flexibility of being able to change
providers, thus, vendor lock-in negatively influenced their intentions to adopt cloud computing.
The results of this study were expected to align with findings from Hsu et al. (2014)’s
work on cloud adoption intention. In their findings, all perceived benefits positively loaded on
the dependent variable of adoption intention. On the other hand, all their business concerns
108
loaded inversely. The results from this study’s analysis were inconclusive in generalizing all the
relationships of independent variables on the dependent variable. This may be the result of the
sample size or other variables unknown to this study. Statistically, the model was fit but there
may not have been enough data to support hypothesis testing for all assertions and assumptions.
Nevertheless, all indicators correlated with their constructs and 11 of the 13 were related
with the dependent variable, adoption intention. However, only six variables successfully
generalized the findings of Hsu et al. (2014). Two perceived benefit predictors had positive
correlation coefficients on adoption intention and four business concerns were negative. Based
on a priori, the relationship of adoption intention with all seven business concern predictors were
expected to be negative and the six perceived benefit predictors positive.
Lastly, the predictors with high standardized residuals were removed from the SEM
model to see if significance of the two constructs could be achieved despite the small sample
size. Figure 13 shows the business concern construct was able establish an inverse relationship of
-0.10 with adoption intention when four predictors were removed. But the loading became less
significant at the higher value of 0.629. Additionally, the latent variable perceived benefits
significantly influenced adoption intention at p<0.05 but four of its indicators had to be removed.
Goodness of fit testing for the model improved. The chi-square decreased to 1.523 with a
stronger GFI of 0.873 and a stronger CFI of 0.923. Perceived benefits significantly influenced
adoption intention and business concerns could also achieve an inverse relationship despite its
lack of significance. The additional analysis was able to conclude that alignment with Hsu et al.
(2014)’s finding may be possible with a sample of stronger statistical power.

109
Figure 13 Adjusted SEM Model for Significance
Evaluation of the Findings
Overall, empirical findings resulted in only two of six perceived benefits and four of
seven business concerns accepted as alternate hypothesis. Many of the hypotheses tests in this
study resulted in accepting the null hypothesis. Therefore, complete generalization and validation
with Hsu et al. (2014)’s study could not be obtained. This is believed to be the result of weak
statistical power and is further supported by all items failing Shapiro-Wilks normality testing.
Factor analysis showed statistically significant covariances and correlation coefficients.
Additionally, convergent validity was able to show population consistency and the SEM model
was able to meet measures of generally acceptable standards for goodness of fit testing. A final
modification of the model was able to generate a better chi-square and achieve significance for a
construct, perceived benefits. Overall, analysis demonstrates both the experiment was executed
and the data was collected in a manner which can be repeated, validated, and tested for
reliability.
The theoretical framework for this study was Tornatzky’s Technology Organizational
Environmental (TOE). The theory states that innovation adoption is a factor of technological
110
characteristics, organizational characteristics, and environmental characteristics. Very little
research was found to exists in the field on the relationship between for-profit determinants for
innovation adoption and nonprofit organizations. This study was designed to extend the existing
body of knowledge by applying the TOE framework to the nonprofit domain. Unforeseen global
health conditions and their impact on this area of study may have impacted the ability of
participants to collect their postal mail for the duration of this study’s survey. Responses were
low and statistical power was not significant enough to generalize existing research findings.
Results were consistent with theory and hypotheses were able to show significant
relationships. However, relationships with the dependent variable, adoption intention and its
constructs, perceived benefits and business concerns, could not be determined. Furthermore, item
level relationships could only be found with six variables and adoption intention. Reduced IT
costs PB4 and reduced IT employee costs PB5 did empirically report a positive influence on the
intention of nonprofit organization in Anchorage Alaska to adopt cloud computing technologies.
Additionally, confidentiality BC1, incompatibility BC2, service outage BC5, and vendor lock-in
BC7 empirically reported negative influences on adoption intention. Alaskan nonprofits have
clear concerns for technology adoption, despite a 68% adoption intention rate. Nevertheless, the
overall experiment had a 21% margin of error. This suggests a 79% confidence level for this
study, however, the general standard for research confidence is a 10% margin of error or less.
Summary
The findings of this study resulted in diverse conclusions. Alignment with Hsu et al.
(2014)’s work was inconsistent with all findings. Nevertheless, confirmatory factor analysis was
able to replicate the relationships between indicators and latent variables as described in Hsu et
al. (2014)’s study. Furthermore, six of the thirteen items were found to have significant influence
111
on cloud adoption intention. Unfortunately, there did not appear to be enough statistical power to
support hypothesis testing for the unidimensional constructs. Perceived benefits and business
concerns did not have a statistically significant relationship with adoption intention.
Despite inconsistent results with previous studies, relationships between some indicators
of the independent variables perceived benefits and business concerns and the dependent variable
Adoption Intention were successfully determined. The 13 latent variables all related with their
respective constructs in both exploratory and confirmatory analysis. Reductions in IT costs and
IT personnel costs were perceived benefits for Alaskan nonprofits who intended to adopt cloud
computing. Furthermore, confidentiality, interoperability with existing systems, service
interruptions, and vendor data lock-in surfaced as business concerns against adoption. The null
hypothesis was therefore accepted for all other indicators of adoption intention. Empirically, the
Hsu et al. (2014)’s proposed model validly reflected the proposed TOE framework that perceived
benefits and business concerns are related to adoption intention. Despite the sample size and
failing normality testing with Shapiro-Wilks, Q plots, and skew/kurtosis could be used to address
assumptions. Reliability and validity were found for content, constructs, and instrumentation.
But reliability was not assured for the data because the results of power analysis were weak.
adoption factors among nonprofit organizations. The findings of Chapter 4 did support existing
research and theory as predictors aligned in support of their constructs, perceived benefits, and
business concerns. The alignment was further supported with a fit SEM model. However, there
was not sufficient data for reliable hypotheses testing and rejected null hypotheses have weak
support. The global pandemic may have introduced an unexpected effect on data collection.
112
Thus, in Chapter 5 we discussed the implications of weak findings, practice recommendations
resulting learned from unexpected data collection limitation, and pathways for stronger future
research.
113
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions
Nonprofit organizations may operate their organizations differently from for-profit
organizations. This difference could influence how they choose to adopt innovations. Hsu et al.
(2014) found that perceived benefits and business concerns have a significant influence on how
for-profit organization in Taiwan chose cloud computing technologies. The problem addressed
by this study was the need for external validity with nonprofit organizations concerning factors
empirically shown to influence cloud computing adoption among for profit organizations. This
study explored whether the same determinants influence the intention of Alaskan nonprofits to
adopt cloud computing technologies. The purpose of this study was to provide generalization for
technology acceptance theory while providing external validation for Hsu et al. (2014)’s
research. Using the TOE framework, identical factors, and the same survey the study explored
how well results fit the theoretical model. Confirmatory factor analysis and SEM modeling were
used to investigate the results.
The results for this study did fit the theoretical model and all items loaded together well
as constructs, however, the sample did not offer enough reliability and for most variables, the
null hypothesis could not be rejected. Only six of the thirteen factors were observed having
significant influence on the intention by Alaskan nonprofits to adopt cloud computing.
Constructs appeared not to have enough statistical power to support Hsu et al. (2014) finding that
perceived benefits and business concerns influence the adoption of innovations. Hsu et al. (2014)
observed that perceived benefits had a positive relationship and business concerns had a negative
relationship with cloud computing adoption intention.
There were several limiting factors in this study. First, this study used a survey
instrument which depended on the postal service for delivery of invitations. Among other IRB
114
approved components, the post card contained an easy to remember link to initiate the survey.
Hsu et al. (2014) used a telephone call center based in China to call all their participants by
phone. This gave them a greater degree of confidence that invitations reached the targeted
population. This study could not assure that all post cards reached their destinations. In fact, 290
out of 2310 post cards returned undeliverable.
The next limitation added further challenge. Postcards were mailed two days prior to a
statewide emergency order which shutdown all businesses for two months. All businesses and
nonessential services were closed to prevent the rapid spread of the Novel Corona Virus
(COVID-19). The mayor of Anchorage reopened basic services and businesses with limitations
on May 25, 2020, after this study closed. Respondents for this survey may not have received
their organizational mail while their organization was closed for business. It is also possible that
many post cards were piled into full mailboxes and possibly weeks later discarded as junk mail.
This is evident by the number of additional survey responses which have arrives since the study
has ended and business resumed daily services. The statewide health protection conditions and
subsequent emergency orders could have negatively influenced the response rate for this study’s
web survey.
This study noticed a possible pattern between perception of new business priorities
during the global pandemic and results in this study. Video teleconferencing became the top
cloud upgrade intention, and the number one perceived benefit was ubiquitous (mobile) access to
office resources (PB6). This study cannot be certain that the impact of COVID-19 virus on
business operations did not skew sample data by introducing an external bias.
Finally, the sample size was small. The margin of error did not meet the original
expectations of this study. As a result, the statistical power of this study may have influenced the
115
inability of this study to provide external validity for the research findings of Hsu et al. (2014).
Furthermore, other factors unique to nonprofit organizations in Alaska could have also impacted
results. The researcher then summarizes this study by interpreting implications and offering
recommendations.
Implications
The results of this study were not statistically strong as revealed by normality testing.
Nevertheless, the study did support innovation adoption theory and offered some generalization
in support of existing research. The TOE framework suggests that an organizations intent to
adopt an innovation is influenced by technological, organizational, and environmental
characteristics. Existing research in the field of cloud computing adoption suggests business
concerns and perceived benefits are technological characteristics which significantly influence
innovation acceptance, Appendix B. Business concerns have been found to negatively correlate
with adoption intention while perceived benefits correlate positively.
Research Question 1, What influence does perceived benefits have on the acceptance of cloud
The perceived benefits of this study were observed as having theoretical soundness and
support for existing research. The null hypothesis for perceived benefits stated that no effect
would be observed on adoption intention. The null hypothesis was accepted for four of the six
factors. Adoption intention was not influenced by reduced deployment time (PB3) and
customizability (PB1). The other two factors were observed to have negative affect on adoption
intention. This could suggest a decrease in the intent of nonprofit organizations to adopt cloud
computing as their concerns for ubiquitous access (PB6) and the ability to perform analysis on
the internet (PB2) increase. Ubiquitous access had a 32% influence on adoption intention and
116
internet data analysis had a 45% influence. Alaskan nonprofits interpret their ability to access
organizational resources from any location as a negative feature when deciding to adopt cloud
computing. They also appear to view their ability to access and analyze data by multiple
participants at the same time as negative influence on their decision to adopt cloud computing.
The implication is nonprofit organizations may see the mobility of their data as a concern. They
may not want their data accessible from the cloud or analyzed by cloud resources. Nonprofit
organizations do not appear to share the same perceived benefits from the adoption of cloud
computing. While this nonprofit deviation may be explainable, it did not support existing for-
profit research findings.
There were two factors of perceived benefits that supported existing findings. Reduction
of IT costs (PB4) and employee costs (PB5) were found to significantly influence cloud
computing adoption. Reduced IT costs had a stronger 53% loading on adoption intention than
employee costs at 13%. Overall, the theorem was supported. These technology characteristics of
perceived benefits influenced adoption intention. As with for-profit organizations, nonprofit
Alaskan organizations did value the technology personnel cost savings as a factor in their
decision to adopt cloud computing. They also valued the technology personnel cost savings as a
factor in their decision to adopt cloud computing. These factors findings were consisted with the
existing for-profit research suggesting that nonprofit and for-profit organizations value cost
savings in deciding on adopting cloud computing technologies.
Only two perceived benefits from this study significantly influenced cloud computing
adoption providing acceptance of alternate hypotheses. Two were inconsistent with previous for-
profit findings and suggest a deviation in how mobility and data analysis are perceived by non-
profits organizations. The final two were not significant.

117
Research Question 2, How do operational business concerns influence the acceptance of
cloud computing among nonprofit Alaskan businesses?
Business concerns were also observed as having theoretical soundness and showed more
consistent support for existing research. The null hypothesis for business concerns stated that no
effect would be observed on adoption intention. All factors of business concerns were observed
significantly influencing adoption intention. However, the null hypothesis was accepted for three
business concerns. Three of the seven factors were observed to have positive affect on adoption
intention in contrast to existing research. This could imply that as organizations increase their
intention to adopt cloud computing, their concern for the lack of service quality guarantees
(BC3), internet bottlenecks (BC4), and poor network speeds (BC6) decreases. The factor with
the strongest influence was BC3 with a 35% loading followed by BC6 24% loading and BC4
15% loading.
As concerns for the quality of cloud services grow among Alaskan nonprofits, the
intention to adopt cloud computing technologies appear to also grows among nonprofit
organizations. The lack of network fidelity for cloud computing services also appears not to
concern the adoption intent Alaskan nonprofits. Additionally, Alaskan nonprofit organizations
view cloud performance issues positively. These results contrast existing research findings
among for-profit organizations. Alaskan organizations, in contrast to Hsu et al. (2014)’s findings,
may find these business concerns actually positively influence their intent to adopt cloud
computing technology. This implication may not be too surprising because cloud computing
solutions have been around for many years. Over the years, the utility has become more reliable
and businesses may have less concern for the stability of the solution, particularly as internet
speeds have increased to gigabit ranges and hosting providers have been able to assure their
118
service level agreements, including the standard 99.9% uptime. So, the correlation could be
explained despite lacking support for existing research. Hsu et al. (2014)’s study was performed
in Taiwan where internet and power fidelity were lower than utility service standards in Alaska.
Nevertheless, four factors of business concerns did support existing findings. Data
confidentiality (BC1), incompatibility with existing technologies (BC2), service outages (BC5),
and vendor/data lock-in (BC7) were found significantly influencing cloud computing adoption.
Service outages was observed as the strongest business concern having a 28% influence against
adoption intention. The possibility of information security risks and data vulnerabilities resulting
from migrating to cloud computing negatively influenced the adoption intention of Alaskan
nonprofit organizations. They also interpret the difficulty of integrating existing information
systems with cloud computing technologies as a negative influence on adoption intention.
Alaskan nonprofit organizations may want cloud solutions to operate consistently and without
interruptions. The growth of unexpected service outages appeared to hinder their intent to adopt
cloud computing technologies. Lastly, they did not like their data being locked with a specific
cloud services provider and it negatively influences their technology adoption intention. The
implication is nonprofit organizations and for-profit organizations agree that data confidentiality,
technology compatibility with legacy systems, service outages, and vendor lock-in may prevent
them from openly accepting new cloud computing technologies. This is consistent with existing
research findings.
The theorem was again supported. Four factors of business concerns significantly
influenced adoption intention providing acceptance for an alternate hypothesis. However
inconsistent with for-profit findings, nonprofits in Alaska did not see service quality guarantees,
internet bottlenecks, and network speeds as negative influences on their intention to adopt cloud
119
technologies. Therefore, only four business concerns from this study were observed to support
existing research findings.
The items of perceived benefits and business concerns all correlated well and supported
their respective construct. Items loaded as a single factor with good covariances. However, all
indicators did not support existing research finding by supporting the dependent variable,
adoption intention. Furthermore, the constructs of business concerns and perceived benefits were
observed as not statistically significant. Overall, findings supported the theoretical foundation
that technological characteristics influence adoption intention but when loaded together as
constructs perceived benefits and business concerns did not produce enough statistical power to
support previous findings. The results of the two constructs could have been influenced by the
weakness of this study’s statistical power.
The study could not answer the research questions proposed. Items of the perceived
benefits and business concerns constructs correlated well. They also supported the proposed
theoretical foundation. Technological characteristics as defined in the TOE framework do
influence adoption innovation. However, only six out of the 13 items significantly influenced
cloud computing adoption intention and showed support for existing research findings. An
additional 5 items were inconsistent with current findings and suggest that the intent of
nonprofits in Alaska to adopt cloud computing is influenced inversely by the same for-profit
determinants.
This study demonstrated general support for the research theory but inconsistent support
for previous research findings. The data sample may not have been strong enough. Therefore, the
inconsistency of observed findings may not suggest causation and consistent findings are
weakened by the overall high margin of error accompanying this experiment.

120
Recommendations for Practice
Generalization is designed to offer a wider population for theoretical influences and
research findings. The outcome of generalizing experimentation is to provide context for the
effect of finding and analysis of their theoretical implications. This study was designed to
understand if prevailing determinants of technology acceptance theory at the firm level applied
to organizations who are funded by charitable sources. The results were only able to support
previous studies partially. Furthermore, the statistical power of this study resulted in findings
with a higher margin of error than generally accepted. The research structured equation model
(SEM) was fit, and the indicators loaded well as factors, but the data in this study was observed
as having weak reliability. This study recommends that the experiment be repeated.
Alternatively, the experiment can be repeated as a second wave testing for population bias and
increasing statistical power by obtaining more respondents.
Environmental issues can impact firm level experimentation and should be considered in
advance along with alternatives. Businesses were expected to receive mailed survey invitations
and respond within a few weeks. Business closures were not anticipated as a risk in the ability
for participants to submit responses. The decision to submit a response online already had
inherent concern such as internet accessibility and the availability of technology resources. The
study’s response window was extended 2 time longer than the original plan of one month and
response rates did not significantly improve. However, responses started to come in after the
study closed and the state approved businesses to reopen. It cannot be assured if the global
pandemic influenced postal service deliveries or if businesses operated under different mail
checking procedures. The environmental issues could have had no influence on the ability of this
121
study to reach its target population. Early in research planning, environmental changes should be
diligently analyzed for their potential influence on the instruments of experimentation.
The environmental impact should be weighed for its potential influence on collected data.
The question should be asked does my instrument collect data in a manner unbiased by
environmental influences? Language in the survey could also be modified help focus
respondents. For example, one might ask how a participant would have elected during “normal
busines operations” as opposed to a contingent or an unusual business state. During a contingent
business operation, such as the teleworking of Alaskan businesses, did respondents choose
ubiquitous access to work resources (PB6) as their primary perceived benefit due to
environmental conditions or as a true their intention. Did the environment introduce a bias in the
data? Taiwanese participants saw the underperformance of cloud hosts (BC6), internet
performance (BC4), and poor guarantees of quality (BC3) as a negative influence on adopting
cloud computing but Alaskan nonprofits found these a positive influence. The stability of
network infrastructure and hosting providers could have influenced results as an external
environmental bias. Results could be influenced by regional or global characteristics acting as a
form of environmental bias. Researchers should consider the influence of environmental bias on
sample data when designing instrumentation.
Parametric studies require statistical power to validate findings. The sample population
data should be strong enough to represent the target population. Generally, 100 participants are
the accepted minimum. It is also generally accepted that data distribution is normal. This study
did not have enough participants. This study used the alternative method of skew and kurtosis to
support normality after traditional tests for normality failed due to the sample size. Researchers
122
should continue data collection until there is enough data for traditional normality tests, like
Shapiro-Wilks, to support parametric study and analysis.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research should continue studies and analysis into the effect of technology
adoption among nonprofit organizations. A small amount of generalization exists with findings
among this domain. Hsu et al. (2014)’s instrument was validated, and their indicators were
observed correlating as factors. Further studies should continue building on the work of previous
findings but seek generalization on nonprofit organizations. In addition, the TOE framework was
supported by the model proposed in this study. Technology characteristics were observed to
influence adoption intention. It remains a strong framework for exploring innovation adoption
intention at the firm level. However future studies may modify the instrument to account for the
influence of environmental bias. Obtaining local validity for the instrument would also be
generally preferred.
Nonprofit organizations operate under different fiscal and operational motivations from
for-profit organizations. The difference may be significant enough for research to continue
exploring determinants for innovation adoption. Generalization of existing findings in
technology acceptance theory is still required for external validity. Furthermore, the question
remains if the intention of Alaskan nonprofit organization to adopt cloud computing is
influenced by determinants of previous studies observed influencing for-profit organizations.
This study was able to significantly observe six nonprofit determinants consistent with previous
for-profit findings. Therefore, a larger sample is required with a lower margin of error before
researchers will be able to empirically answer the questions proposed by this study.
123
Conclusions
Alaskan nonprofits in Anchorage had adoption preferences consistent with current
research. They valued reduced IT costs and confidentiality as did participants of Hsu et al.
(2014)’s study. But the current global health pandemic which had influenced day to day
operations for nonprofit organizations may have influenced some predispositions. The top
perceived benefit was ubiquitous access which was inconsistent with previous research. This
delineation from Hsu et al. (2014)’s study could point to the new need for nonprofits to be able
to work remotely during current pandemic conditions or simply some other domain specific
preference. Their top choice for Internet Communications Technology (ICT) migration was
video teleconferencing, another key technology for success during remote and pandemic
operations. It was also inconsistent with previous findings. Alaskan nonprofits chose platform as
a service as their most desired service model for migration in the next year. But software as a
service was their strongest current adoption intention.
Perceived benefits and business concerns are technological characteristics observed
influencing cloud computing adoption among for-profit organizations. This study investigated
the relationship between these technological characteristics and nonprofit organizations.
Experimentation was built on the previous research work of Hsu et al. (2014) and determinants
tested on a target population of nonprofit organizations in Anchorage Alaska. The study
validated the instrument, constructs, and a fit SEM model. Nevertheless, only six of the 13
determinants were observed significantly influencing the intention of nonprofit Alaskan
organization to adopt cloud computing technologies. Additionally, five determinants
significantly and inversely influenced the adoption intentions of nonprofits inconsistent with
current for-profit findings but were outside the scope of this study.
124
The research was observed supporting theoretical expectations, but some findings were
inconsistent with existing research and others did not have enough statistical significance to
explain causation. Therefore, the relationships between determinants for technology acceptance
and cloud computing adoption intention remain open for further and stronger empirical analysis
among nonprofit organizations (Wright et al., 2017).

125
References
Afeez, B. M., Maxwell, O., Otekunrin, O. A., & Happiness, O.-I. (2018). Selection of validation
of comparative study of normality test. American Journal of Mathematics and Statistics,
8(6), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ajms.20180806.05
Aguirre-Urreta, M. I., & Hu, J. (2019). Detecting common method bias: Performance of the
harman's single-factor test. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in
Information Systems, 50(2), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330472.3330477
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Process, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Aktepe, C., & Saatcioglu, O. Y. (2017). Cloud computing adoption in logistic firms in Turkey:
An exploratory study. Ordu University Journal of Social Science Research, 7(1), 11–22.
Al-Mascati, H., & Al-Badi, A. H. (2016). Critical success factors affecting the adoption of cloud
computing in oil and gas industry in Oman. 3rd MEC International Conference on Big
Data & Smart City, 1(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBDSC.2016.7460365
Alfifi, F. (2015). Factors influencing the adoption of cloud computing by CIOs and decision
makers in higher education institutions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 77(1).
http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1730289702?accountid=28180
Alkhalil, A., Sahandi, R., & John, D. (2017). An exploration of the determinants for decision to
migrate existing resources to cloud computing using an integrated TOE-DOI model.
Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems, and Applications, 6(2).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13677-016-0072-x
Alkhater, N., Walters, R., & Wills, G. (2018). An empirical study of factors influencing cloud
adoption among private sector organisations. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 38–54.
126
Alshamaila, Y., Papagiannidis, S., & Li, F. (2013). Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the
north east of England: A multi-perspective framework. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 26(3), 250–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410391311325225
Aminzade, M. (2018). Confidentiality, integrity and availability: finding a balanced IT
framework. Network Security, 2018(5), 9–11.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). IBM SPSS Amos 20 Users Guide. IBM Corporation.
Armbrust, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A., Katz, R., Konwinski, A., Lee, G., Patterson, D.,
Rabkin, A., Stoica, I., & Zaharia, M. (2010). A view of cloud computing.
Communications of the ACM, 53(4), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/1721654.1721672
Arvanitis, S., Kyriakou, N., & Loukis, E. N. (2017). Why do firms adopt cloud computing? A
comparative analysis based on South and North Europe firm data. Telematics and
Informatics, 34(1), 1322–1332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.05.013
Atif, A., Richards, D., & Bilgin, A. (2012). Estimating non-response bias in a web-based survey
of technology acceptance: A case study of unit guided information systems. 23rd
Australasian Conference of Information Systems, 1–10.
Atif, A., Richards, D., Busch, P., & Bilgin, A. (2015). Assuring graduate competency: A
technology acceptance model for course guide tools. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 27(2), 94–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9095-4
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Blalack, H. M. (2016). The financial stability of nonprofit organizations. Finance Undergraduate
Honors Thesis, 1(1), Paper 29. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/finnuht/29

127
Buyya, R., Yeo, C., Venugopal, S., Broberg, J., & Brandic, I. (2009). Cloud computing and
emerging IT platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th
utility. Future Generation Computer Systems, 25(6), 599–616.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2008.12.001
Chandel, S., Ni, T.-Y., & Yang, G. (2018). Enterprise cloud: Its growth and security challenges
in China. 2018 5th IEEE CSCLOUD-EDGECOM Cyber Security and Cloud Computing,
144–152. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCloud/EdgeCom.2018.00034
Chandra, S., & Kumar, K. N. (2018). Exploring factors influencing organizational adoption of
augmented reality in e-commerce: Empirical analysis using technology-organization-
environment model. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 19(3), 237–265.
Chandrasekaran, K. (2015). Essentials of cloud computing. Taylor & Francis Group.
Committee on National Security Systems. (2015). Committee on National Security Systems
(CNSS) Glossary. National Security Agency. https://www.cnss.gov/CNSS/issuances/
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results. Doctoral Dissertation, Sloan School of
Management. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15192
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Delice, A. (2010). The sampling issues in quantitative research. Educational Science: Theory &
Practice, 10(4), 2001–2018.
Donnelly, C. (2019, January 15). High-flying clouds: AWS bucks traditional growth trends with
help from enterprise. Computer Weekly, 8–13.

128
Erl, T., Puttini, R., & Mahmood, Z. (2013). Cloud computing: Concepts, technology &
architecture. Prentice Hall. https://doi.org/10.1145/2632434.2632462
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Fried, N. (2019). The cost of living 2018 and early 2019. Alaska Economic Trends, 1–13.
https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/col/col.pdf
Gangwar, H., & Date, H. (2016). Understanding cloud computing adoption: A model comparison
approach. Human Systems Management, 35(2), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-
150857
Ghobakhloo, M., & Arias-Aranda, D. (2011). Adoption of e-commerce applications in SMEs.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(8), 1238–1269.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111170785
Goodman, S. N., & Berlin, J. A. (1994, August 1). The use of predicted confidence intervals
when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. American
College of Physicians - Internal Medicine Society, 121(3), 200–206.
https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-3-199408010-00008
Grandon, E., & Pearson, M. J. (2004). E-Commerce adoption: Perceptions of managers/owners
of small and medium sized firms in Chile. Communications of the Association of
Information Systems, 13(1), 81–102. http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol13/iss1/8

129
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your house. Administrative
Issues Journal, 4(2), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
Hassan, H., Mohd Nasir, M., Khairudin, N., & Adon, I. (2017). Factors influencing cloud
computing adoption in small and medium enterprises. Journal of ICT, 16(1), 21–41.
https://doi.org/10.15226/2474-9257
Henderson, D. A., Chase, B. W., & Woodson, B. M. (2002). Performance measures for npos.
Journal of Accountancy, 193(1), 63–68.
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2002/jan/performancemeasuresfornpos.ht
ml
Herold, D. M., Jayaraman, N., & Narayanaswamy, C. R. (2006). What is the relationship
between organizational slack and innovation? Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(3), 372–
392.
Hsu, C.-L., & Chuan-Chuan Lin, J. (2016). Factors affecting the adoption of cloud services in
enterprises. Information Systems E-Business Management, 14(1), 791–822.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-015-0300-9
Hsu, P.-F. (2013). Cloud computing adoption in Taiwan: An empirical study. International DSI
and Asia Pacific DSI Conference, 2013(1), 907–927.
Hsu, P.-F., & Tsai, W.-C. (2017). From free to pay: A three-stage freemium strategy. Thirty
Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, South Korea, 1–14.
Hsu, P.-F., Ray, S., & Li-Hsieh, Y.-Y. (2014). Examining cloud computing adoption intention,
pricing mechanism, and deployment model. International Journal of Information
Management, 34(4), 474–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.006

130
Hyson, D. E. (2014). Factors influencing the adoption of cloud computing by medical facility
managers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 76(1).
http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1649198320?accountid=28180
,OLQ9,YHWLü- 6LPLü'$XJXVW8QGHUVWDQGLQJWKHGHWHUPLQDQWVRIH-business
adoption in ERP-enabled firms and non-ERP-enabled firms: A case study of the Western
Balkan Peninsula. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 125(1), 206–223.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.025
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2008). Knowledge collaboration among professionals
protecting national security: Role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledge
networks. Organization Science, 19(2), 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0315
Kazmi, S., Abid, M., Iqbal, M., & Hai, L. (2016). Impact of cloud services on economic growth.
2016 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analysis, 1(1),
268–272. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCBDA.2016.7529569
Kim, D. J., Hebeler, J., Yoon, V., & Davis, F. (2018). Exploring determinants of semantic web
technology adoption from IT professionals’ perspective: Industry competition,
organization, innovativeness, and data management capability. Computers in Human
Behavior, 86(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.014
Kim, H.-Y. (2013, February 26). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal
distribution using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endonontics, 38(1),
52–54. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
Lee, K., Lee, S., & Yang, H.-D. (2014). Towards on cloud computing standardization.
International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 9(2), 169–176.
https://doi.org/10.14257/IJMUE.2014.9.2.17
131
Lee, Y.-H. (2014). A decision framework for cloud service selection for SMEs: AHP analysis.
SOP Transactions on Marketing Research, 1(1), 51–61.
https://doi.org/10.15764/MR.2014.01005
Lian, J.-W., Yen, D. C., & Wang, Y.-T. (2014). An exploratory study to understand the critical
factors affecting the decision of adopt cloud computing in Taiwan hospital. International
Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 28–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.09.004
Liang, Y., Qi, G., Wei, K., & Chen, J. (2017). Exploring the determinant and influence
mechanism of e-Government cloud adoption in government agencies in China.
Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 481–495.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.06.002
Lin, A., & Chen, N.-C. (2012). Cloud computing as an innovation: Perception, attitude, and
adoption. International Journal of Information Management, 32(6), 533–540.
https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.04.001
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of
self-concept: First- and higher-order factor models and their invariance across groups.
Psychological Bulletin, 97(1), 562–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562
McCarthy, J. (1960). Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by
machine, Part I. Communications of the ACM, 3(4), 184–195.
https://doi.org/10.1145/367177.367199
Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2011). The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing (SP 800-145). National
Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-145

132
Mokhtar, S. A., Al-Sharafi, A., Ali, S. S., & Al-Othmani, A. Z. (2016). Identifying the
determinants of cloud computing adoption in higher education institutions. International
Conference on Information and Communication Technology, 115–119.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICTM.2016.7890787
Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption: implications for
a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 375–403.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2013.362
Muhammad Rooshdi, R. R., Majid, M. A., Sahamir, S. R., & Adillah Ismail, N. A. (2018).
Relative importance index of sustainable design and construction activities criteria for
green highway. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 63(1), 151–156.
https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1863026
Njenga, K., Garg, L., Bhardwaj, A. K., Prakash, V., & Bawa, S. (2018). The cloud computing
adoption in higher learning institutions in Kenya: Hindering factors and
recommendations for the way forward. Telematics and Informatics.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.007
Nkhoma, M. Z., Dang, D. P., & De Souza-Daw, A. (2013). Contributing factors of cloud
computing adoption: a technology-organization-environment framework approach.
Proceedings of the European Conference on Informaton Management & Evaluation,
1(1), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.24924/ijise/2013.04/v1.iss1/30.41
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., & Espadanal, M. (2014). Assessing the determinants of cloud
computing adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors. Information
& Management, 51(1), 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.006

133
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 531–544.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879
Polyviou, A., & Pouloudi, N. (2015). Understanding cloud adoption decisions in the public
sector. 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1(1), 2085–2094.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2015.250
Polyviou, A., Pouloudi, N., & Rizou, S. (2014). Which factors affect software as a service
selection the most? A study from the customer’s and the vendor’s perspective. 47th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1(1), 5059–5068.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.621
Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P., & Pérez-González, D. (2018). An investigation of the effect of
electronic business on financial performance of Spanish manufacturing SMEs.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136(1), 355–362.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.012
Priyadarshinee, P., Raut, R. D., Kumar Jha, M., & Gardas, B. B. (2017, July 26). Understand and
predicting the determinants of cloud computing adoption: A two staged hybrid SEM -
Neural networks approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 76(1), 341–362.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.027
134
Rahi, S. B., Bisui, S., & Misra, S. C. (2017). Identifying the moderating effect of trust on the
adoption of cloud-based services. International Journal of Communication Systems,
30(11). https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.3253
Ray, D. (2016). Cloud adoption decisions: Benefitting from an integrated perspective. Electronic
Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 19(1), 3–22.
http://www.ejise.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=1007
Raza, M. H., Adenola, A. F., Nafarieh, A., & William, R. (2015). The slow adoption of cloud
computing and IT workforce. Procedia Computer Science, 52(1), 1114–1119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.128
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). The Free Press.
Rohani, M. B., & Hussin, R. C. (2015). An integrated theoretical framework for cloud computing
adoption by universities technology transfer offices (TTOs). Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Information Technology, 79(3), 415–430.
Sabi, H. M., Uzoka, F.-M. E., Langmia, K., & Njeh, F. N. (2016). Conceptualizing a model for
adoption of cloud computing in education. International Journal of Information
Management, 36(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.010
Saedi, A., & Iahad, N. A. (2013, June 18). An integrated theoretical framework for cloud
computing adoption by small and medium-sized enterprises. Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems 2013 Proceedings, 1(1). https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2013/48

135
Salahshour Rad, M., Nilashi, M., & Mohamed Dahlan, H. (2017). Information technology
adoption: A review of the literature and classification. Universal Access in the
Information Society, 17(2), 361–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0534-z
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural
equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods
of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
Senarathna, I., Wilkin, C., Warren, M., Yeoh, W., & Salzman, S. (2018). Factors that influence
adoption of cloud computing: An empirical study of Australian SMEs. Australasian
Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v22i0.1603
Sharma, U., & Mannan, H. (2015). Do attitudes predict behavior: An (un)solved mystery?
International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, 6(1), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620150000006005
Son, I., & Lee, D. (2011, July 9). Assessing a new IT service model, cloud computing. Pacific
Asia Conference of Information Systems 2011 Proceedings.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/179
Sontag-Padilla, L. M., Staplefoote, L., & Morganti, K. G. (2012). Financial sustainability for
nonprofit organizations: A review of the literature. Rand Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR100/RR121/RAND_R
R121.pdf
SurveyMonkey. (2019, June 7). Sample size calculator. SurveyMonkey Inc.. Retrieved June 7,
2019, from https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/

136
Talmizie Amron, M., Ibrahim, R., & Chuprat, S. (2017). A review on cloud computing
acceptance factors. Procedia Computer Science, 124(1), 639–646.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.200
Tehrani, S. R. (2013, January 1). Factors influencing the adoption of cloud computing by small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Ryerson University Theses and Dissertations,
1(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07863-2_60
The Foraker Group. (2018). Alaska’s nonprofit sector: Generating economic impact (2018th
ed.). https://www.forakergroup.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/Research/Alaskas-
Nonprofit-Sector-Generating-Economic-Impact-Jan-2018.pdf
Tornatzky, L. G. (1990). The process of technological innovation. Lexington Books.
Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-
implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions of Engineering
Management, EM-29(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.1982.6447463
Tornatzky, L. G., Fleischer, M., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1990). The process of technological
innovation. Lexington Books. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02371446
Velazquez, M. O. (2014). Trust in the cloud: A cognitive-behavioral framework of technology
adoption for cloud computing in organizations. Dissertation Abstracts International,
75(1). https://gurabo.uagm.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/Centro-Estudios-
Doctorales/Tesis_Doctorales/2014/MOcasio.pdf
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
137
Wang, Y.-S., Li, H.-T., Li, C.-R., & Zhang, D.-Z. (2016). Factors affecting hotels’ adoption of
mobile reservation systems: A technology-organization-environment framework.
Tourism Management, 53(1), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.09.021
Weerd, I. V., Mangula, I. S., & Brinkkemper, S. (2016). Adoption of software as a service in
Indonesia: Examining the influence of organizational factors. Information &
Management, 53(1), 915–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.05.008
Wilson, B. M., Khazaei, B., & Hirsch, L. (2015). Enablers and barriers of cloud adoption among
small and medium enterprises in Tamil Nadu. 2015 IEEE International Conference on
Cloud Computing in Emerging Markets, 140–145.
https://doi.org/10.1109/CCEM.2015.21
Wright, R. T., Roberts, N., & Wilson, D. (2017). The role of context on IT assimilation: A multi-
method study of a SaaS platform on the US nonprofit sector. European Journal of
Information Systems, 26(5), 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0053-2
Yuvaraj, M. (2016). Determining factors for the adoption of cloud computing in developing
countries. Emerald Insight, 29(4), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-02-2016-0009
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., & Xin Xu, S. (2006). The process of innovation assimilation by firms
in different countries: A technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Management
Science, 52(10), 1557–1576. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0487
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., Gurbaxani, V., & Xin Xu, S. (2006). Migration to open-standard
interorganizational systems: Network effects, switching costs, and path dependency. MIS
Quarterly, 30(SI), 515–538. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148771

138
Appendix A: Research Databases
Complementary Index
Business Source Complete
Regional Business News
IEEE Xplore Digital Library
Academic Search Complete
ScienceDirect
OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson)
Supplemental Index
MEDLINE Complete
International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center
Education Research Complete
Gale Virtual Reference Library
CINAHL Complete
Directory of Open Access Journals
Credo Reference
Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition
Social Sciences Citation Index
SAGE Knowledge
Bibliotheksverbund Bayern
PsycINFO
RCAAP
SPORTDiscus with Full Text

139
PsycARTICLES
ERIC
GreenFILE
LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews
Alexander Street Press
Research Starters
Ebooks Central
Journals@OVID
BioOne Complete
University Press Scholarship Online
Britannica Online
ScholarVox
Films on Demand
ReferenceUSA - U.S. Businesses
eBook Collection (EBSCOhost)
PsycTESTS
SSOAR – Social Science Open Access Repository
CogPrints
PsycBOOKS
Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print
Henry Stewart Talks
Mergent Online
140
Appendix B: Previous Cloud Computing Adoption Research
Statistically
Article Sector Determinants Identified Significant
Perceived Benefits Yes
Technology
Business Concerns Yes
(Hsu, 2013) Private - Taiwan
Organization IT Capability Yes
Environment External Pressure No
Perceived Benefits Yes
Technology
Business Concerns Yes
(Hsu et al., 2014) Private - Taiwan
Organization IT Capability Yes
Environment External Pressure No
Relative Advantage Yes
Complexity No
Technology
Compatibility Yes
Uncertainty No
Size (TTO large) Yes
Collaboration Yes
Technology Readiness Yes
(Rohani & Hussin, Information Intensity Yes
Public - Malaysia Organization
2015)A Satisfaction No
Top Management Support Yes
Innovativeness Yes
Cloud Knowledge Yes
Competitive Pressure Yes
Partners (TTO) Yes
Environment
Cloud Computing Provider Yes
Government Support Yes
Technology Complexity Yes
Compatibility Yes
(Wilson et al., Private - Tamil Nadu Size Yes

Organization
2015) (India) Top Management's Support Yes
Government Policy Yes
Environment Location No
Competitor Pressure Yes
Data Security Positive
(Al-Mascati & Al- Complexity Negative

Private - Oman Technology
Badi, 2016)B Compatibility Positive
Cost Positive
141
Relative Advantage Positive

Trialability Positive
Technological Readiness Positive
Top Management Support Positive
Organization
IT Managers Support Negative
Firm Size Positive
Regulatory Environment Negative
Perceived Industry Pressures Positive
Environment
Poor Internet Connectivity Negative
Service Providers Support Positive
Ease of Use No
Compatibility No
Technology
Trialability No
Observability Yes
(Hsu & Chuan- Security Yes

Private - Taiwan
Chuan Lin, 2016) Firm Size No
Global Scope No
Organization
Financial Cost Yes
Satisfaction w/ Existing IS Yes
Competition Intensity Yes
Environment
Regulatory Environment No
Relative Advantage Positive
Technology Complexity Negative
Compatibility Positive
(Mokhtar et al., Top Management Support Positive

Public - Malaysia
2016)C Organization Institutional Size Positive
Adoption Plan Positive
Service Providers Support Positive
Environment
Government Support Positive
Improvement in Organizational Performance Yes
Computational Efficiency Yes
Better Scalability Yes
Technology
Competitive Advantage Yes
Better Trading Partner Yes
(Rahi et al., 2017) Private - India On Demand Product and Service Availability Yes
Time to Market Yes
Customer Satisfaction Yes
Organization Integration of Design and Manufacturing Services Yes
Sized of Organization Yes
142
Legal Issues Yes

Environment Competitive Pressure Yes
Partner Dependency Yes
Relative Advantage No
Technology Complexity No
Compatibility Yes
Top Management Support No
(Wang et al., 2016) Private - Taiwan Organization Firm Size Yes
Technological Competence Yes
Competitive Pressure No
Environment Critical Mass Yes
Information Intensity No
Complexity Yes
Technology
Trialability No
Risk Yes
Compatibility Yes
Size (volume data migrating) No
(Alkhalil et al., Private - Saudi
Readiness Yes
2017) Arabia/UK Organization
Internal Impact Yes
External Impact No
Increasing Provider Yes
Environment Regulation Yes
Market Uncertainty Yes
Perceived Value Yes
Technology
Trialability Yes
Complexity Yes
Top Management Participation Yes
Top Management Beliefs Yes
(Wright et al.,
Nonprofit - USA Organization Top Management Satisfaction Yes
2017)
Compatibility Yes
IT Innovativeness Yes
Observability Yes
Average Revenue No
Environment
Years in Operation Yes
Industry No
Technology Perceived Benefits No
(Hassan et al.,
Private - Malaysia Top Management Support No
2017) Organization
IT Resources Yes
143
Environment External Pressure Yes

Financial Cost No
Technology
Lack of IS Knowledge No
Security Concerns Yes
Private - Western
(Ilin et al., 2017) Firm Size No
Bulkan Organization
Industry Pressure Yes
Environment Government Resource Support Yes
Government Regulatory Support Yes
Quality of Service Yes
Security Yes
Privacy Yes
Technology Trust Yes
Relative Advantage No
Compatibility No
(Alkhater et al.,
Private - Saudi Arabia Trialability No
2018)
Top Management Support No
Organization
Technology Readiness No
Compliance with Regulations No
Physical Location No
Environment
External Support No
Industry No
Technology
Technological Competence Yes
(Chandra & Kumar, Private - India,
Decision-Maker Knowledge No
2018) Singapore, USA Organization
Environment Consumer Readiness Yes
Perceived Ease of Use No
Technology Perceived Usefulness Yes
Private & Public -
(Kim et al., 2018) Applicability to Data Management Yes
Global
Innovativeness Yes
Organization
Data Capability Yes
Technology Technology Complexity No
Technology Compatibility Yes
(Njenga et al., Private & Public -
Technology Readiness Yes
2018) Kenya Organization
Perceived Barriers No
Government Policy No
Environment
Vendor Support No
Private - Australia Technology Relative Advantage Yes
144
Cloud Flexibility No
Quality of Service Yes
(Senarathna et al.,
Security No
2018)
Privacy No
Organization Awareness of Cloud Yes
AEarlytheoretical stage research results based on literary review only, No empirical analysis
BBased on VWDWLVWLFDOZHLJKWSRVLWLYHLQIOXHQFHRUQHJDWLYHLQIOXHQFH1RVLJQLILFDQFHȕȡ
CAnalysis based on hypothesis only, No empirical analysis
145
Appendix C: Informed Consent
I invited you to participate in a research study for a dissertation at Northcentral
University, Prescott Valley, Arizona. You were able to access this form and survey using a
custom URL that was given to you to authentication your organization uniquely.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to examine factors that contribute the adoption of cloud computing
among Alaskan nonprofit 501(c)3 organizations. The study depends on the accurate input of a
technologist or executive decision maker from your organization. You will provide your opinion
on cloud services, answer two questions about your company's IT status, and five questions to
help me understand cloud adoption within your organization. It is estimated that this survey
should take 5 minutes or less of your time.
Research Personnel:
You may contact me at any time regarding this study.
Jeremiah L. Williams, Sr
Doctoral Candidate - Northcentral University
8050 Pioneer Drive Unit 1205, Anchorage AK 99504
Cell: 907-406-3573
Work: 800-917-9306 x11
Business E-mail: j.williams0495@o365.ncu.edu
Home E-mail: me@jeremiahwilliams.org

146
Potential Risk/Discomfort:
There are no known risks in this study, however, you may refuse to answer any question for any
reason. You may also withdraw from the study at any time by exiting this survey. There may be
inherent risks associated with using our device to complete this survey. Such risk are outside the
liability of this study.
Potential Benefit:
There are no foreseeable risk involved with participating in this study. The findings of this study
will have scientific impact on understanding Alaskan nonprofits 501(c)3 organizations. First, it
will help nonprofit executives, technology practitioners, and service providers understand
adoption potential. Additionally, it will provide insight for nonprofit organizations seeking to
adopt cloud computing. Finally, it will provide federal, state, local, and tribal leaders with
statistics explaining the phenomena of cloud computing adoption among the second largest
employer within the State of Alaska, nonprofit organizations.
Anonymity/Confidentiality:
I do not collect private or confidential data, but the information collected in this study will
protected according to academic research standards. Your submission is anonymous. Neither I
nor anyone else will be able to identify you individually nor your answers in any way.
I am happy to answer any question that you may have about the study. Please direct your
questions and comments to committee Chair Dr. Marty Crossland at mcrossland@ncu.edu or me
at j.williams0495@o365.ncu.edu.
147
Informed Consent:
I have read the above description of the current study. I consent and agree to participate in the
study.
148
Appendix D: Survey Introduction
Thank You,
I am a doctoral student at Northcentral University, Prescott Valley, Arizona. As an
Alaskan, I have decided to investigating factors that contribute the adoption of cloud computing
among Alaskan nonprofit 501(c)3 organizations. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this
study. Departments and agencies at federal, state, local, and tribal levels of government will find
value from the finding of this research.
The next page will contain a consent form that must be digitally accepted before
continuing. You will not be able to begin this survey until you have accepted the consent. Once
accepted, you may return to your survey at any time until it is completed.
For question or concerns, call or email me. Thank you for your contribution in this
Alaskan research study.
Respectfully,
Jeremiah L. Williams, Sr
Doctoral Candidate - Northcentral University
8050 Pioneer Drive Unit 1205, Anchorage AK 99504
Cell: 907-406-3573
Work: 800-917-9306 x11
Business E-mail: j.williams0495@o365.ncu.edu
Home E-mail: me@jeremiahwilliams.org

149
Appendix E: Survey Questionnaire
First, we want to learn your opinion about Cloud Service.

On a scale of 1–5, where “1” means “not important at all”, and “5” means “very important”,
how does the following factors affect your decision on Cloud Services adoption.
Perceived Benefits of Cloud Computing Services
The customizability and design of cloud computing
PB1 Customization
services to meet organizational needs.
Data can be analyzed simultaneously on the
PB2 Easily analyze data on Internet internet
with cloud computing services.
IS deployment time can be shortened with cloud
PB3 Reduce deployment time
computing services.
Expenses like IT hardware and IT maintenance can
PB4 Reduce IT costs be
reduced using cloud computing services.
IT personnel can be reduces using cloud computing
PB5 Reduce IT employee costs
services.
Users can access cloud computing services from
PB6 Ubiquitous access mobile
locations utilizing internet access.
Business Concerns of Using Cloud Computing Services
The leak of confidential or customer information
BC1 Confidentiality using
cloud computing services.
The difficulty to integrate existing IT systems with
BC2 Incompatibility cloud
computing services.
The inability of cloud computing services to
BC3 provide a
guarantee
guaranteed assurance of quality.
Poor network transfer speeds when using cloud
BC4 Internet Bottleneck
computing services.
Cloud computing services interruptions by
BC5 Service Outages unexpected
service outages.
Cloud computing hardware and software services
BC6 Underperformance
underperforming.
Difficulty in switching cloud providers due to data
BC7 Vendor lock-in lock-
in.
External Pressure
150
The pressure of similar organizations in your

EP1 Competitors Pressure
industry to adopt cloud computing services
Federal or State policy favoring the use of cloud
EP2 Government Policy Support
computing services.
The pressure of partners in your organization to
EP3 Partners Pressure
implement cloud computing services.
Federal, State, or industry regulation encouraging
EP4 Regulations
or enforcing cloud computing services.
Next, we would like to know your company's IT status

IT Capability
How many IT employees are there in your company?
(1 = 0–2 employees, 2 = 3–5 employees, 3 = 6–10 employees,
IC1 Number of IT employees 4 = 11–50 employees, 5 = over 50 employees)
How much was the budget for the IT division of your

company in 2019?(1 = Below 1 million, 2 = Between 1 and 5
IC2 Annual Budget for IT Department million, 3 = Between5 and 10 million, 4 = Between 10 and 20
million,5 = Over 20 million)
Finally, we would like to understand your cloud adoption within your organization
What is the possibility of changing your current Information System into cloud services
within 12 months?
Already used Will migrate No
cloud based to cloud in intention
systems one year to use
Customer Relationship Management

ප ප ප
(CRM)
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) ප ප ප
Supply Chain Management (SCM) ප ප ප
Electronic Business (e-Business) ප ප ප
Information Security System ප ප ප
Email ප ප ප
Video conferencing system ප ප ප
Project Management system ප ප ප
Human Resource system ප ප ප
What is the possibility of adopting PaaS service for your company (ex: Google, Microsoft
Azure, or Amazon
Web Services App Engines)?
(1 = No intention to use, 2 = Will migrate to cloud in one year, 3 = Already in use).
151
What is the possibility of adopting IaaS service for your company (ex: Microsoft Azure,
Amazon EC2
services)?
(1 = No intention to use, 2 = Will migrate to cloud in one year, 3 = Already in use).
Deployment Model
What kind of cloud model would you choose if your company decided to adopt cloud
computing?
1. Public Cloud
2. Private Cloud
3. Hybrid Cloud
Pricing Mechanism
What kind of payment option would you choose if your company decided to adopt cloud
computing?
1. Pay-as-you-go
2. License
3. Unlimited access with monthly fee
References: (Hsu et al., 2014; Armbrust et al., 2010; Zhu, Kraemer, & Xin Xu, 2006)
152
Appendix F: Normality Test: Skew and Kurtosis
Skewed Skewed Kurtotic Kurtotic

Item Skewness Std Error z-value Kurtosis Std Error z-value Normality Test
Perceived
PB1 -1.676 0.491 -3.413 2.563 0.953 2.689 Reject: Significantly Different from Normality
Benefits
PB2 -0.553 0.491 -1.126 -0.525 0.953 -0.551 Accept: Not Significantly Different from Normality
PB3 -0.736 0.491 -1.499 0.250 0.953 0.262 Accept: Not Significantly Different from Normality
Business
BC1 -1.953 0.491 -3.978 2.894 0.953 3.037 Reject: Significantly Different from Normality
Concerns
BC2 0.145 0.491 0.295 -1.255 0.953 -1.317 Accept: Not Significantly Different from Normality
BC3 -0.142 0.491 -0.289 -0.964 0.953 -1.012 Accept: Not Significantly Different from Normality
Adoption
AI -0.378 0.491 -0.770 -0.640 0.953 -0.672 Accept: Not Significantly Different from Normality
Intention
153
Appendix G: Measurement Model Standardized Residual Covariances
BC7 BC6 BC5 BC4 BC3 BC2 BC1 PB1 PB2 PB3 PB4 PB5 PB6
BC7 0
BC6 0.124 0
BC5 -0.175 0.092 0
BC4 0.018 -0.171 0.173 0
BC3 0 -0.018 0.054 -0.096 0
BC2 0.686 0.148 -0.458 -0.091 1.004 0
BC1 0.233 -0.113 0 -0.236 -0.051 0.6 0
PB1 -0.35 0.709 -0.529 -1.354 0.97 0.15 1.105 0
PB2 -0.44 0.174 -1.206 -1.108 0.296 -0.044 0.636 0.003 0
PB3 -0.244 0.833 -0.6 -0.820 0.607 0.098 1.21 0.053 0.097 0
PB4 -1.123 0.582 -0.203 -1.15 -0.349 -1.04 0.166 -0.046 -0.202 0.011 0
PB5 -1.485 -0.24 -1.146 -2.031 -0.971 -1.314 0.039 -0.11 -0.38 0.001 0.4 0
PB6 -0.858 0.938 0.74 -0.854 0.374 -0.82 -0.519 -0.077 -0.429 0.102 -0.033 0.617 -0.096
154
Appendix H: Structured Equation Models Standardized Residual Covariances
Adoption_
BC7 BC6 BC5 BC4 BC3 BC2 BC1 PB1 PB2 PB3 PB4 PB5 PB6
Intention
Adoption Intention 0
BC7 -1.161 0
BC6 0.032 0.155 0
BC5 -0.124 -0.172 0.09 0
BC4 -0.209 0.04 -0.153 0.164 0
BC3 -0.933 0 0.009 0.054 -0.076 0
BC2 -2.266 0.722 0.182 -0.448 -0.065 1.039 0
BC1 -0.035 0.244 -0.108 0 -0.236 -0.044 0.617 0
PB1 -0.457 -0.35 0.706 -0.54 -1.358 0.969 0.152 1.097 0
PB2 -1.254 -0.439 0.172 -1.216 -1.111 0.296 -0.041 0.629 0.034 0
PB3 0.086 -0.246 0.829 -0.613 -0.826 0.604 0.099 1.2 0.077 0.124 0
PB4 0.624 -1.135 0.566 -0.227 -1.167 -0.362 -1.047 0.147 -0.056 -0.21 -0.005 0
PB5 1.007 -1.494 -0.252 -1.165 -2.044 -0.981 -1.319 0.023 -0.115 -0.382 -0.01 0.356 0
PB6 0.725 -0.863 0.924 0.721 -0.862 0.364 -0.822 -0.529 -0.098 -0.435 0.087 -0.04 0.581 -0.12
ProQuest Number: 28319481
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 28319481
Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2021 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All Rights Reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Determinants For The Adoption of Cloud Computing Among Alaskan Nonprofit Organizations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Determinants For The Adoption of Cloud Computing Among Alaskan Nonprofit Organizations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Determinants for the Adoption of Cloud Computing among Alaskan Nonprofit

Submitted to Northcentral University

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

JEREMIAH LUCAS WILLIAMS SR

JEREMIAH LUCAS WILLIAMS SR

Approved by the Doctoral Committee:

Doctor of Philosophy 04/14/2021 | 12:30:08 MST

Ed.D 04/14/2021 | 15:51:27 MST

Committee Member: Dr. Patricia

04/14/2021 | 12:26:07 MST

Technology Organizational Environmental (TOE) framework in exploring firm level factors

business concerns on the intention of nonprofit organizations in Alaska to adopt cloud

cloud adoption intention of nonprofit organization in Anchorage Alaska. Business concerns

influence on adoption intention. Alaskan nonprofits desire to adoption cloud computing

encouragement throughout this process. Special thanks also go to my brother-in-law, Bernardo

the worst global pandemic in 50 years.

events and services for sake of studies.

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8

Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 24

Innovation Adoption ................................................................................................................. 25

Chapter 3: Research Method......................................................................................................... 47

Research Methodology and Design .......................................................................................... 47

Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 66

Validity and Reliability of the Data .......................................................................................... 66

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions .................................................. 113

Implications ............................................................................................................................ 115

References ................................................................................................................................... 125

Appendix A: Research Databases ............................................................................................... 138

Appendix B: Previous Cloud Computing Adoption Research ................................................... 140

Appendix C: Informed Consent .................................................................................................. 145

Appendix D: Survey Introduction ............................................................................................... 148

Appendix E: Survey Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 149

Appendix F: Normality Test: Skew and Kurtosis ....................................................................... 152

Appendix G: Measurement Model Standardized Residual Covariances .................................... 153

Appendix H: Structured Equation Models Standardized Residual Covariances ........................ 154

Table 1 Variables for Perceived Benefits ..................................................................................... 18

Figure 1 Research Model .............................................................................................................. 16

potential of reducing total cost of ownership (TCO) for organizations.

Cloud computing is growing indiscriminate to industry. The scalability and elasticity of

computing is becoming as common as a public utility (Alkhater et al., 2018; Priyadarshinee et

of Standards and Technology (NIST), Software as a Services (SaaS) allows organizations to

of cloud service is Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), which allows businesses to purchase

governed by organizational requirements. Organizations also determine an appropriate

deployment model to capitalize on the benefits of both.

technology (IT) infrastructure or advanced IT management staffing hierarchies (Sontag-Padilla et

Statement of the Problem

factors shown to influence organizational support for adopting cloud computing.

organization. Nevertheless, there is an overwhelming amount of global for-profit research on this

adoption are consistent with current factors among for-profit organizations.

Purpose of the Study

Findings showed an influence of for-profit cloud computing adoption factors on nonprofit

organizations. Previous researchers have suggested that nonprofit organizations be added in

independent variables categorized as either a perceived benefit or a business concern. The

independent variables are shown in Table 1 and Table 2.

In accordance with established technology acceptance research practices, a survey was

technology organization environment.

Many researchers favor technology organization environment (TOE) as a predominant

theoretical framework to understanding factors influencing innovation adoption in organizations,

theory (ANT) (Lee, 2014; Saedi & Iahad, 2013).

Nature of the Study

determinants experimentally supporting causation with cloud computing adoption.