Does Cloud Computing Influence Enterprise Performance?

Does Cloud Computing Influence Enterprise Performance?

I-Cheng Chang, Chuang-Chun Liu, Tsai-Ling Wu
Copyright: © 2021 |Pages: 15
DOI: 10.4018/JOEUC.295979
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

The emergence of the cloud computing service has resulted in the entry of many companies into the market, with numerous competitors for cloud computing leading the technological trend. Recent studies have mainly focused on the characteristics of cloud computing, whereas its influence on firm performance has been rarely discussed. Therefore, this study aimed to fill this empirical research gap. This current study examined whether investments in cloud computing can influence firm performance and whether cloud computing influences firm performance. Data were collected using a questionnaire. Structural equation modeling provided evidence supporting the theoretical model. The results of this study revealed that cloud computing investment influences firm learning and growth performance, internal processes, and finances. The theoretical and practical contributions and implications of these findings are described in this paper.
Article Preview
Top

1. Introduction

After Amazon launched the earliest cloud computing service in 2006, Google introduced the concept of “cloud computing” in that same year. Computing is defined as any computer-related activity involving processing or storage, and cloud refers to data stored through this activity online rather than on the hard disk of a computer (Ouanouki et al., 2014; Bordonaba-Juste et al., 2020). An overview of the scale of the global cloud computing market (including infrastructure as a service [IaaS], platform as a service [PaaS], and software as a service [SaaS]) revealed market value that surpassed US$371.4 billion in 2020, with the expectation that the amount will exceed $832.1 billion by 2025 (Cloud Computing Market, 2020).

One incentive for enterprises introducing cloud computing is that they want to attain the objective of saving other IT-related expenses and improve operational efficiency by relying on cloud computing (Xiao et al., 2020; Sathiyamoorthi et al., 2021). Enterprises should coordinate and communicate with their global counterparts, supply chain partners, and plants (Senyo et al., 2018). Delayed communication and unsuccessful coordination will influence the time of goods deployment in the market. Cloud services for business process management (BPM) and supply chain management (SCM) can reinforce communication and coordination of the global planning system (Giannakis et al., 2019).

Evaluating IT expenditures on future accounting performance is a critical issue in the previous studies (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). IT expenditures and surpluses are associated in many ways: Because IT expenditures are considerable, the profit decreases in the current investment period. However, research and development typically raises increases profit by developing high-margin products, which differs from the method of IT investments for reducing costs to improve corporate efficiency, and in turn increase profit (Melville et al. 2004). A company investing in IT may reduce overall costs through operations and market advantages, thus generating more profit (Henderson et al., 2010) and Tobin’s q (Kumar and Li, 2016). The following reasons show why financial performance is considered a metric for measuring whether information systems can substantially facilitate enterprise practices, namely quantization numbers can be measured objectively. Hence, financial performance can be mutually understood in terms of value and behavior for realizing cohesion to improve competitiveness. Cloud computing is an innovative technology, and further discussion is necessary to determine whether the use of indicators is suitable for measuring the efficiency of cloud computing to measure past IT output, especially the financial indicator.

A frequent criticism concerns accounting performance indicators reflecting only historical information, whereas IT is expected to contribute to future performance (Lim et al., 2011). Market performance indicators reflect a company’s expectations for future performance. Hence, they can be considered as tools for determining the tangible and intangible as well as current and future benefits of IT investments (Lim et al., 2011). In the efficiency market, a company’s market price may reflect the values of all the available information (Kothari, 2001). Said et al. (2003) aimed to determine the influence on corporate performance when including nonfinancial indicators in a work contract, finding that a company’s long-term ROA improves through the combination of financial and nonfinancial indicators. In addition, Weir et al. (2007) found an association between nonfinancial performance indicators and an innovation-oriented strategy, quality-oriented strategy, industrial regulation and company soundness, and other aspects. The measurement system proposed by Kaplan and Norton (1992) is in agreement with the standards; therefore, the balanced scorecard (BSC), when combined with financial and nonfinancial indicators as well as objective and subjective factors, is a suitable tool for measuring the output of information systems. The BSC includes four dimensions, namely finance, customers, the internal process, and learning and growth.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 36: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 35: 3 Issues (2023)
Volume 34: 10 Issues (2022)
Volume 33: 6 Issues (2021)
Volume 32: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 31: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 30: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 29: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 28: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 27: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 26: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 25: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 24: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 23: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 22: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 21: 4 Issues (2009)
Volume 20: 4 Issues (2008)
Volume 19: 4 Issues (2007)
Volume 18: 4 Issues (2006)
Volume 17: 4 Issues (2005)
Volume 16: 4 Issues (2004)
Volume 15: 4 Issues (2003)
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2002)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2001)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2000)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (1999)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (1998)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (1997)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (1996)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (1995)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (1994)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (1993)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (1992)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (1991)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (1990)
Volume 1: 3 Issues (1989)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing