MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042658997 · doi:10.5539/jms.v3n4p78

Exploring the Common Technology Adoption Enablers among Malaysian SMEs: Qualitative Findings

2013· article· en· W2042658997 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nor Hazana Abdullah, Eta Wahab, Alina Shamsuddin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Sustainability · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessQualitative researchKnowledge managementSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology has been recognized as one of strategic resources for sustaining competitiveness among firms regardless of their sizes. Challenges in globalizations and strategic alliances are some of the issues underpinning technology adoption among SMEs. However, existing models on technology adoption have not provided sufficient insights on factors that could influence the successful adoption of technology among SMEs in Malaysia. Varying levels of technology adoption and high industrial diversity hinder comprehensive understanding on common factors affecting technology adoption. Therefore, this study aims to identify significant enablers that could have pervasive influence on technology adoption among SMEs in Malaysia by integrating internal and external factors together with the SME unique characteristics. A preliminary study via in-depth interviews was conducted to propose the SME technology adoption model to validate the influence of external factors, internal factors and SMEs’ owner-manager characteristics. This study employed multiple case studies strategy as its research design and in-depth interviews as primary data collection method. Collected data were analyzed using thematic analyses to identify recurring factors across cases. The findings showed that notwithstanding of the technologies adopted by the firms, internal factors and SME’s owner-managers characteristics have significant influence on technology adoption among SMEs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and SustainabilitySame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207