Journal of Geographic Information System, 2016, 8, 396-411

Published Online June 2016 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/jgis

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2016.83034

Factors Affecting the Adoption of GIS

Systems in the Public Sector in Saudi
Arabia and Their Impact on
Organizational Performance
Ahmad Alzighaibi*, Masoud Mohammadian, Majharul Talukder
Information Systems & Accounting, Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra, Canberra,
Australia

Received 20 May 2016; accepted 18 June 2016; published 21 June 2016

Copyright © 2016 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Abstract
This study investigates the adoption of the new phenomenon of Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) in an organizational context in an emerging economy, namely Saudi Arabia. It explores the
determinants of employees’ perceptions of GIS, their actual usage and expected outcomes when
they use it. A model was developed for this study based on relevant theories and existing litera-
ture. In total 221 responses were collected from the Ministry of Water and Electricity (MOWE) in
Saudi Arabia using a structured survey questionnaire. Several statistical techniques were applied
to the data collected. Results show that factors having the most significant impact on employees’
perceptions of GIS are managerial support, IT expertise and exposure to GIS. However, some fac-
tors did not have any significant impact on employees’ perceptions, these being GIS training and
incentives. It also emerges that attitude to GIS has an impact on and relationship with the actual
usage of GIS. In the outcomes of GIS adoption, results indicate that its usage influences enhanced
risk management and better customer relationships. However, no significant relationship was
found that led to more efficient decision-making and saving of costs. This paper also highlights
implications and discusses the limitations and suggestions for future research.

Keywords
GIS Training, Managerial Support, Incentives, GIS Adoption, Saudi Arabia, GIS Usage

*
Corresponding author.

How to cite this paper: Alzighaibi, A., Mohammadian, M. and Talukder, M. (2016) Factors Affecting the Adoption of GIS
Systems in the Public Sector in Saudi Arabia and Their Impact on Organizational Performance. Journal of Geographic Infor-
mation System, 8, 396-411. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2016.83034
 A. Alzighaibi et al.

1. Introduction
Geographic Information System (GIS) works by integrating hardware, software, and data to capture geographic
data and manage them for analysis, and then displaying the finalized geographic information for users to access.
It helps users to easily and quickly understand the data and make a decision [1]. The term “Geographic Informa-
tion Systems Science” has been used for twenty years internationally. This science has many characteristics and
employs various intellectual and technical strategies [2]. Geographic Information System is an important science
and it is used in three different contexts or classifications as follows: 1) a Geographic Information System “tool”;
2) a Geographic Information System “application”; and 3) a Geographic Information System “science” [2].
There are six components of GIS, the first and most important being the overarching network. The network is
a critical aspect of GIS as data and digital information cannot be shared or communicated except through the
network. The second component of GIS is the user’s hardware, which consists of devices that execute GIS oper-
ations [3]. The third component part of GIS is the software. GIS vendors such as the Environmental Systems
Research Institute provide packages that can be purchased by organizations. These packages offered by different
GIS vendors have varied applications, level of complexity and data size. The fourth component is the database
where all information is saved for a future decision or to solve a problem. The fifth component comprises pro-
cedures that manage the GIS and keep it within budget constraints, and as accurate as possible so it can satisfy
users. The sixth component concerns people, i.e. the users of the GIS and those who provide and update all the
digital data on the GIS database so that it is more efficient and effective [3].
There are many benefits of using GIS. These benefits are for all types of organizations and industries whether
they are small, medium or large. There are five classifications that these benefits come under, namely saving
costs and increasing the organizational efficiency, better decision-making, communication enhancement, more
efficient recordkeeping and management of geographical variables [4]. GIS can be merged with any organiza-
tion’s information system framework [1]. Furthermore, GIS is used to store, control and retrieve datasets. It is
employed in many applications in many different areas. In GIS a dataset is called a layer, which can refer to
roads, seas, buildings, etc. Each layer is stored in a specific location with coordinates in the GIS [5]. Layers that
have the same geographical coordinates are linked to each other in the GIS. This relationship, which is referred
to as spatial joins between datasets, can help in analyzing the data and making decisions. An example of making
decisions can be allocating roads that are close to a certain river. These roads can be allocated by using some
queries in the GIS, and help determine roads that may be affected by floods [5].
Another study was conducted in France to reduce the risks of floods/streaming by presenting a framework to
manage constraints [6]. Another way that GIS queries can help in decision-making is when infectious diseases
can be spread, decisions are vital regarding knowing how long it takes these diseases to reach certain areas and
subsequently avoid them [7]. It can also allocate earthquake emergency shelters, which will reduce the amount
of damage and injury [8]. An analysis done in South Korea presented a model that can help estimate the amount
of forest fire caused by humans. This also can affect the decisions and actions that could be taken to reduce the
spread of fire and reduce damage and injuries [9]. GIS was also utilized in Northern Ireland for allocating areas
with certain population subgroups according to their religion. The government can employ GIS in helping with
development of policies and decisions and manage residential segregation [10]. GIS can also assist in planning
for any future climate conditions in rural areas and how to prepare a strategy or strategies in response [11].
There are some general GIS studies that have been conducted in Saudi Arabia. One of these studies is the
study by Al-Ramadan (1993) whose main focus was to examine the validity of their hypothesis, which included
the highly centralised government in Saudi Arabia may have a much more organized GIS adoption than those
governments that are less centralized [12]. Another study by Abdulaal (2009) has provided a general framework
for enterprise GIS for Saudi municipalities. This framework includes three main factors, which are business
functions, tasks and data requirements [13]. A study by Koshak suggests that during Hajj in Makkah, it is better
to use Web-based GIS to manage traffic plan to facilitate easier mobility [14]. In this study, Koshak has devel-
oped a Web-based GIS for Hajj traffic plan [14].
GIS is also used in water resources since engineers, for example, must understand where their pipes, valves,
pumps, meters, etc., are located. The Ministry of Water and Electricity (MOWE) in Saudi Arabia is currently
using GIS for these same reasons. The location and usage of water and where customers are residing are factors
that need to be known. Engineers, managers, etc., also need to know what projects are under construction and

397
A. Alzighaibi et al.

the facilities requiring repair [15]. MOWE in Saudi Arabia has adopted GIS and initially in the Riyadh core
area, this process starting in 2003 and then in Dammam core area in 2004 [16]. Following that GIS was inte-
grated in many of the major cities using the Integrated Water Resources Management System [17]. This paper
will examine the adoption of GIS in MOWE and evaluate some determinants and test their impact on MOWE’s
employees’ perceptions of GIS and how these affect the actual usage of GIS. Then the outcomes of this adoption
will be evaluated.

2. Methods
The method used to collect data from employees was the survey. Our survey was divided into four sections,
these consisting of questions about demography, GIS usage, perception of GIS and determinants and benefits of
utilizing GIS. The perceptions of GIS and the determinants and benefits questions have one type of question,
which is on a 7-point Likert-type scale, serving to measure the level of employees’ agreement (1—Strongly dis-
agree, 2—Disagree, 3—Somewhat disagree, 4—Neither agree or disagree, 5—Somewhat agree, 6—Agree, 7—
Strongly agree) [18]. The survey was an online survey sent to MOWE’s employees. The number of people who
participated in this survey was 297 who worked in different branches of MOWE throughout Saudi Arabia.

2.1. Items and Sources

The items used in this research have been utilized in previous studies, which mean they have already been vali-
dated. Table 1 contains all relevant information concerning the items, a brief explanation about each item and
the sources of each item.

2.2. Statistical Techniques

In this paper, many statistical analysis techniques were used, which are frequency distribution, reliability and
validity analysis, correlation analysis and regression analysis. The frequency distribution analysis explained the
participants’ demographic information. The frequency distribution for any data can be shown in many different
methods and one of these concerns the frequency tables used in this paper to display participants’ demographic
information [19]. The reliability and validity analysis were conducted to confirm that the survey’s constructs are
reliable and valid. Correlation analysis indicated the relationships between: firstly, the determinants and percep-
tions of GIS; secondly, perceptions of GIS and the usage of GIS; and thirdly, the usage of GIS and outcomes of
such use. A regression analysis was performed in this paper to examine the effects of independent variables on
dependent variables.

Table 1. Items’ explanations and sources.

Items Explanation Source

GIS training was measured by the degree of training provided to
GIS training [31] [33] [34]
MOWE’s employees
Incentives are the personal motivations and beliefs about the [34] [40]
Incentives
consequences of using GIS
Managerial support was measured according to the resources and
Managerial support [34] [52]
help provided by the organization’s management
IT expertise Employees’ prior IT experience and skills [6] [34]
Exposure to GIS technology Extent to which employees are comfortable in dealing with GIS and
[34] [46]
(Computer self-efficacy) their previous GIS experience.
Perception toward GIS Employees’ attitude regarding the use of GIS [40] [48]
Adoption of GIS GIS usage [31] [34] [66]
Efficient decision-making The efficiency of employees’ own decision-making [48] [50]
Cost savings GIS adoption’s effect on cost savings [40] [51] [52]
Risk management identifies the risks that may occur in the future and
Enhanced risk management [34] [50] [52]
try to find solutions to avoid o reduce them [29]
Improved customer relationships Connection and communication between employees and customers [50] [51] [55] [56]

398
 A. Alzighaibi et al.

3. Theoretical Framework
Several models have been used to study the adoption of GIS technology in MOWE. The theories used in this re-
search were Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), TAM2, Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Innovation
Diffusion Theory (IDT) has been used since the 1950s, but was succeeded by Rogers’ introduction of the most
well-known and commonly used innovation-decision process in 1962 [20]. This theory describes the process of
accepting or rejecting a new innovation. Making a decision about a particular innovation goes through five steps,
which are called the IDT stages [20]. The first stage is when the individual gets to know the innovation and how
a new technology functions, its purpose and the need for it. The second stage occurs when the individual likes or
dislikes this new technology. There are five attributes that encourage an individual to like a new technology and
affect their decision: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. After that a de-
cision is made to accept or reject the technology, which is the third stage. The fourth stage is the implementation
of this new technology while the fifth stage confirms the decision made by the individual [21].
The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) was developed by Ajzen and Fishbein in 1975 [22] [23]. This theory
can be used in studies referring to people’s attitude-behaviour relationships [24]. In this theory, it is believed that
personal beliefs influence attitude and social norms will in turn shape the individual’s behaviour toward the ac-
tion [22]. There are two main constructs of intention in the theory of reasoned action, these being attitude toward
the behaviour and the behaviour that a person or a decision-maker enacts when social pressure is put on them.
This is known as the subjective norm [22].
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) grew out of the TRA model and was devised by Davis [25]. TAM
is the most accepted of all the technology adoption models [23]. TAM consists of three main parts that influence
the behavioural intention and actual usage of a particular technology: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use and the users’ attitudes that affect the behavioural intention [26]. This intention is determined by both users’
perceptions and attitudes regarding the technology and its perceived usefulness. Attitude is determined by both
perceived usefulness of the technology and its perceived ease of use [25].
TAM2 was introduced by Venkatesh and Davis [27] in their research paper titled “A Theoretical Extension of
the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies”. This model represented an extension of
the original Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and its main purpose was to add more determinants to the
original TAM so that perceived usefulness and the intention to use the technology could be better measured.
These determinants include social influences that emerge in the context of subjective norm, voluntariness and
image. Other determinants comprise job relevance, output quality and result demonstrability which can all affect
perceived usefulness. Another important thing that this extended model wants to understand is how the effects of
social influence change with different experience levels that users have. It also looks at how the intention to use
the technology varies when the usage is voluntary [28].
The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) was developed by Venkatesh et al.
(2003) [28]. It is a theory consisting of four main determinants that directly affect the intention to use new tech-
nologies: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions. This theory
also comprises four moderators that can affect the direct four core determinants, i.e. gender, age, experience and
voluntariness of use [28].

4. Research Model
The research model was constructed based on the existing theories mentioned previously. The research model
looks at three parts and tests their impact on each other. The first part of this model consists of five determinants
that may affect the perception of GIS. These determinants are GIS training, incentives, managerial support and
exposure to GIS. These determinants’ impact on people’s perceptions of GIS that are going to be tested will be
the most significant. The model’s second part looks at the impact of perception of GIS on the actual usage of GIS,
which will also be tested. The third part tests the actual usage and adoption of GIS. Four outcomes will be tested:
efficient decision-making, cost saving, enhanced risk management and improved customer satisfaction. The con-
text being investigated will be the Ministry of Water and Electricity (MOWE) in Saudi Arabia (see Figure 1).

5. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are applied to any science that deals with a location-related phenomenon

399
A. Alzighaibi et al.

Determinants Adoption Outcomes

Efficient decision-
GIS training
making

Incentives
Cost saving
PERCEPTION OF ADOPTION OF
Managerial GIS GIS
support Enhanced risk
management

IT expertise Improved
customer
satisfaction
Exposure to GIS
technology Demographics Factors
Gender
Age
Tenure
Academic qualifications

Figure 1. Research model.

on Earth. Some examples of these are the climate in different parts of the planet and how climate change can af-
fect the distribution and spread of diseases. It can also help in detecting the distribution of crimes in various
areas, distribution of plants and animals, etc. There are many applications of GIS that can help humans such as
Global Positioning System (GPS) in finding locations and managing services and resources [29]. All activities
such as building, digging ditches, burying pipelines and cables, finding oil and many other activities, can be do-
cumented using GIS [3]. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) keep track of such activities and where they
occurred or left their mark. According to Longley et al. (2011, p.4), almost everything that happens, happens
somewhere. Knowing where something happens can be critically important [3].
We use GIS in our daily lives, for example asking for a direction to get somewhere. We also use GIS to solve
problems in many areas such as health care, such as deciding where to build a new hospital in a particular area
and why. Delivery companies send things using different routes every day so the decisions they have to make
concerning which routes their vehicles should take will solve geographical problems. Some people cannot de-
cide whether their specific problem is geographical or not. There are three variables that can help in deciding if
this is the case. The first is that the problem has a question of scale. The second is the purpose of the problem
and whether they use geographic data to analyze the issue. The third is the time scale of the problem and wheth-
er geographic problems have persisted for a specific period of time [3]. In this way, “GIS does a better job of
sharing data and information than knowledge, which is more difficult to detach from the knower” [3].
There are three relationships in the research model that need to be tested and looked at in detail. The first rela-
tionship is between determinants and perception of GIS. Determinants consist of five factors that can affect
MOWE’s employees’ opinions concerning GIS. These five determinants’ impacts will be tested in the form of
hypotheses as described in more detail below.

5.1. GIS Training

Training programs are important for employees because they can help staff increase their knowledge of newly
introduced technologies. These programs will result in employees having a positive perception about using new
technologies [30]. It is important that organizations have training programs in their culture because it is signifi-
cant when new technologies are adopted [30]. Training in this context refers to the training provided to staff at
MOWE, and it will provide employees with knowledge and practical skills in using a new technology [31]. Em-
ployees will develop their self-confidence and level of skills when applying new technologies [32]. GIS training
was measured by the amount of training given to MOWE employees. Participants in this survey were asked
about the level of training provided to them and how internal training courses would improve their GIS usage
abilities. Five questions were devised to obtain employees’ opinions on GIS training provided to them. These

400
 A. Alzighaibi et al.

five questions were constructed according to Al-Gahtani and King (1999), Talukder (2014) and Gosh and Glott
(2005) [31] [33] [34]. The hypothesis that will be tested is:
H1: GIS training impacts on employees’ perceptions of GIS.

5.2. Incentives
Incentive can be defined as what a person thinks and perceives the benefits to be of introducing a new technol-
ogy into the firm [35]-[37]. A person’s perception of an innovation is very important as it might change people’s
behaviour regarding whether they accept this innovation [38]. Adoption of new technologies is expected to ena-
ble institutions meet their goals and benefits more efficiently. In order to reinforce employees’ perception of the
advantage of adopting new technologies, management should give them individual behavioural motivators that
encourage them to adopt new technologies [39]. In this research incentives are employees’ motivations and be-
liefs about the consequences of using GIS in MOWE. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement or
disagreement concerning four items developed by Kurnia et al. (2006) and Talukder (2014) [34] [40]. The
second hypothesis that will be tested is:
H2: Incentives impact on employees’ perceptions of GIS.

5.3. Managerial Support

Managerial support is a very important variable that can affect employees’ perceptions of adopt new innovation
in the workplace [25]. Previous studies discovered that managerial support is associated with the adoption of
new technology. It was also found by other studies that managerial support has a positive impact on employees’
adoption of new technologies [41]. The more that an organization offers managerial support to employees the
more likely they are to accept and utilize new technologies. However, the lack of managerial support is consi-
dered to be a problem to such an adoption [42]. This determinant will be tested as follows:
H3: Managerial support impacts on employees’ perceptions of GIS.

5.4. IT Expertise
People’s prior experience refers to their skills and what they know about an innovation beforehand [43] [44]. In
this case employees’ IT expertise means their level of skills and experience about Information Technology (IT).
IT expertise was measured according to workers’ prior experience and skills and from where they were acquired.
Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement on four items that were constructed ac-
cording to Talukder (2014) and Al-Gahtani and King (1999) [31] [34]. The hypothesis to be tested is as follows:
H4: IT expertise impacts on employees’ perceptions of GIS.

5.5. Exposure to GIS Technology (Computer Self-Efficacy)

Employees’ exposure to a particular technology refers to their previous experience [43] [44]. Each employee has
their own beliefs about what they are capable of when using GIS and solving related problems [45]. This means
in effect how comfortable are employees when using GIS? This determinant tests employees’ abilities to deal
with GIS in MOWE according to their exposure to this technology. The determinant was constructed according
to Sanchez and Hueros (2010) and Talukder (2014) [34] [46]. Five questions were asked to obtain information
on this determinants’ impact on employees’ perceptions of GIS. The hypothesis that will be tested is:
H5: Exposure to GIS technology impacts on employees’ perceptions of GIS.

5.6. Perception of GIS

The second relationship in the research model is that between perception of GIS and the adoption (usage) of GIS.
Perception is the same as attitude when using this technology, and in particular employees’ positive or negative
feelings about it [47]. Consequently, MOWE employees’ attitude to the use of GIS is measured. Five questions
were constructed based on Cakar (2011) and Kurnia et al. (2006) to test MOWE’s employees’ perceptions of
and feelings about GIS [40] [48]. The impact of perception on GIS adoption and its usage will be tested as a
hypothesis in the following way:
H6: Perceptions of GIS affect the actual usage of GIS.
The third relationship is between the adoption of GIS (usage) and the benefits of adopting such technology in

401
A. Alzighaibi et al.

an organization, in this case the Ministry of Water and Electricity (MOWE) in Saudi Arabia. The hypotheses in
this relationship are explained in more detail below.

5.7. Efficient Decision-Making

Decision-making is the process of choosing an option out of many that are available [49]. Decision-making
plays a big role in organizations as it can sometimes lead to good or bad outcomes [49]. In this paper the impact
of actual usage on enhancing employees’ decision- making will be tested [48]. The items measuring the level of
decision-making were constructed based on the work by Abu-Al-Aish and Love (2013) and Cakar (2011) [48]
[50]. Items were edited to suit this variable. The hypothesis that will be tested is:
H7: Usage of GIS leads to efficient decision-making.

5.8. Cost Savings

This variable was constructed to measures if costs are reasonable and if the GIS are cost-effective. The items
below were developed with reference to Kurnia et al. (2006), Kim and Ammeter (2014) and Oliveira et al.
(2014) [40] [51] [52]. This will test if the actual usage of GIS will lead to costs being saved. A study by Kurnia
2006, found that perceived cost does not have an impact on either attitude to using an innovation or usage inten-
tions [40]. The hypothesis that will be tested is:
H8: Usage of GIS leads to cost savings.

5.9. Enhanced Risk Management

Risk management is defined as identifying the risks that may occur in the future and try to find solutions to them
so dangers will be averted [53]. The items that measure the level of risk management were constructed accord-
ing to Abu-Al-Aish and Love (2013), Talukder (2014) and Oliveira et al. (2014) [34] [50] [52]. The test will
measure the impact of actual GIS usage on enhancing risk management in MOWE. Subsequently the hypothesis
to be tested is:
H9: Usage of GIS leads to enhanced risk management.

5.10. Improved Customer Relationships

Improved customer relationships refer to better communication between employees and customers [54]. Items
that measure such improvements were constructed based on the work by Phichitchaisopa and Naenna (2013),
Kim and Ammeter (2014), Alharbi and Drew (2014) and Abu-Al-Aish and Love (2013) [50] [51] [55] [56].
They have been edited to suit this variable. The test will be on the impact of actual GIS usage on improved cus-
tomer relationships in MOWE.
H10: Usage of GIS leads to improved customer relationships.

6. Results
6.1. Participants’ Demographic Information
Demographic factors refer to factors that identify participants and their characteristics in terms of gender, age,
tenure, academic qualification and their usage and perception of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In the
survey, all participants were male employees because in the Ministry of Water and Electricity (MOWE), Water
Sector, only men worked there so the percentage was 100% male. The participants’ age categories were diverse
in that 42% were in the 18 - 30 age category, while most participants were in the 31 - 40 age group (51% of all
age groups). Furthermore 5% fell under the 41 - 45 age groups and the smallest age group (2%) consisted of
participants who were 46 to 65 years of age. No-one in the group was 65 or older. Most participants (91%) are
full-time employees and only a few (9%) work on a part-time basis. Most employees (86%) are permanent and
only 14% work at MOWE on a temporary or contract basis. Participants’ academic qualifications vary in that
8% have their secondary certificate, 19% have a diploma, while the majority (56%) have a Bachelor degree. In
terms of postgraduate qualifications, 17% hold a Master’s degree. Table 2 summarizes participants’ demo-
graphic information.

402
 A. Alzighaibi et al.

Table 2. Demographic information of participants.

Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male 221 100
Age
18 - 30 94 42.5
31 - 40 112 50.7
41 - 45 11 5.0
46 - 65 4 1.8
Employed as
Full time 201 91.0
Part time 20 9.0
Tenure
Permanent 191 86.4
Temporary 30 13.6
Education
Secondary 18 8.1
College 43 19.5
Bachelor 123 55.7
Master 37 16.7
Total 221 100

6.2. Reliability and Validity of Constructs

A reliability and validity test was done to confirm the survey’s constructs are reliable and valid. Table 3
represents the reliability in terms of Cronbach’s alpha for all dependent and independent variables. Reliability
values between 0.70 and 0.80 are considered to be “respectable” while those between 0.80 and 0.90 are deemed
“very good” [57]. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient shows that the results are highly reliable as the Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient ranges from 0.692 to 0.962; this means that the data has a high internal consistency [58]. A
lower limit for Cronbach’s alpha was agreed upon, whereby 0.70 and the lower limit can decrease if the research
was an exploratory research [59]. Table 3 also shows the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and the factor
loadings of the items that measure the validity of the constructs. It is considered to be proof of an acceptable va-
lidity level if the AVE is greater than 0.50 [60], which means that “at least 50% of the measurement variance is
to be captured by the constructs” [34] [60]. The results of the collected data reveal that the AVE ranges from
0.733 to 0.932, which is considered highly acceptable. Based on both Cronbach’s alpha and AVE results, it can
be concluded that the constructs are reliable and valid enough to measure the drivers of using GIS, perceptions
of using GIS and the actual usage of GIS.

6.3. Correlations
The Pearson correlations were calculated for all variables included in this paper. These calculations show the
relationships between the determinants in relation to perceptions of GIS and the relationship between them and
the usage of GIS (see Table 4). These calculations also indicate the relationship between the usage of GIS and
outcome variables (see Table 5). The results show there is no relationship between perception of GIS and train-
ing. Results reveal that the level of perception is significant and positively related to incentives (r = 0.164, p <
0.05) and negatively related to managerial support (r = −0.336, p < 0.01). These results reveal that perceptions of
GIS are significant and positively related to IT experience (r = 0.256, p < 0.01) and exposure to GIS (r = 0.391, p
< 0.01). There is also a positive relationship between perception of GIS and level of usage (r = 0.470, p < 0.01).

403
A. Alzighaibi et al.

Table 3. Reliability and convergent validity results.

Factor Factor Loading Cronbach’s Alpha AVE

Usage 0.937 0.905
USE1 0.910
USE2 0.953
USE3 0.918
USE4 0.873
USE5 0.867
Training 0.895 0.844
TRA1 0.868
TRA2 0.906
TRA3 0.871
TRA4 0.775
TRA5 0.795
Incentives 0.838 0.834
INC1 0.806
INC2 0.874
INC3 0.872
INC4 0.611
INC5 0.784

Managerial Support 0.866 0.808

MSP1 0.731
MSP2 0.848
MSP3 0.909
MSP4 0.814
MSP5 0.724
IT Expertise 0.906 0.885
ITE1 0.901
ITE2 0.921
ITE3 0.884
ITE4 0.830
Exposure to GIS 0.962 0.932
EXG1 0.925
EXG2 0.934
EXG3 0.921
EXG4 0.929
EXG5 0.952
Perceptions of GIS 0.836 0.786
POG1 0.896
POG2 0.900
POG3 0.900
POG4 0.717
POG5 0.396
Efficient Decision-Making 0.778 0.733
EDM1 0.732
EDM2 0.851
EDM3 0.776
EDM4 0.766
EDM5 0.486
Cost Savings 0.740 0.891
COS2 0.891
COS5 0.891
Enhanced Risk Management 0.820 0.807
ERM1 0.819
ERM2 0.754
ERM3 0.815
ERM4 0.838
Improved Customer Relationships
ICR3 0.875 0.692 0.875
ICR4 0.875

404
 A. Alzighaibi et al.

Table 4. Inter-correlations among variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a a a
1. TRA 1.000 0.041 0.361 0.350 0.386 0.112 0.080
c a a a
2. INC 0.041 1.000 0.132 0.439 0.276 0.452 0.164c

3. MSP 0.361a 0.132c 1.000 0.216a 0.105 −0.035 −0.336a

4. ITE 0.350a 0.439a 0.216a 1.000 0.280a 0.382a 0.256a

5. EXG 0.386a 0.276a 0.105 0.280a 1.000 0.426a 0.391a

6. USE 0.112 0.452a −0.035 0.382a 0.426a 1.000 0.470a

7. POG 0.080 0.164c −0.336a 0.256a 0.391a 0.470a 1.000

a c
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). TRA
= Training, INC = Incentives, MSP = Managerial support, ITE = IT experience, EXG = Exposure to GIS, POG =
Perception of GIS.

Table 5. Inter-correlations among variables.

1 2 3 4 5

1. USE 1.000 0.055 0.092 0.141c 0.477a

2. EDM 0.055 1.000 0.910a −0.031 0.165c

3. COS 0.092 0.910a 1.000 −0.076 0.115

c
4. ERM 0.141 −0.031 −0.076 1.000 0.225a

5. ICR 0.477a 0.165c 0.115 0.225a 1.000

a c
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). USE =
Usage, EDM = Efficient decision-making, COS = Cost savings, ERM = Enhanced risk management, ICR = Im-
proved customer relationships.

The results also show that at the other end of the research model there is no significance at all between usage
and efficient decision-making or cost savings. However, there is a significantly positive relationship between
usage and enhanced risk management (r = 0.141, p < 0.05) and improved customer relationships (r = 0.477, p <
0.01) in the outcomes.

6.4. Regression Analysis

The regression analysis collected data on how independent variables impact on dependent variables. In this pa-
per regression analysis was undertaken to assess how determinants influenced the perception of using GIS, the
impact of this perception on usage and impact of usage on outcomes. The results from the multiple regression
analysis regarding perception of GIS as a dependent variable support the model fit at the 1% level of signific-
ance with an r2 of 35.0%. Based on the independent variables, managerial support, IT expertise and exposure to
GIS were found to be significant at the level of Sig < 0.001. Training and incentives show no significance with
perception of GIS (see Table 6). Table 7 presents the results of multiple regression analysis with usage as a de-
pendent variable and perception of GIS as an independent variable. In Table 7, results indicate with usage as a
dependent variable that there is significance at Sig < 0.001, which supports the model, fit at the 1% level of sig-
nificance with an r2 of 22.1%. Table 8 summarizes the results of the multiple regression analysis with usage as
an independent variable and each of the outcomes as dependent variables. Results show that usage has no signi-
ficance for efficient decision-making and cost savings. However, it emerged that improved customer relation-
ships is significant with Sig < 0.000, and enhanced risk management is significant at Sig < 0.05.

7. Discussion of Results
In this discussion of results, the hypotheses will be discussed in detail regarding their significance and the test
results for each one. Table 9 highlights the results of hypotheses testing and briefly summarizes the findings.

405
A. Alzighaibi et al.

Table 6. Results of multiple regression analysis with perception of GIS as a dependent variable.

Dependent Variable Perception of GIS

Independent Variables Unstand. Coef. B Standard Coef.ᵝ T R Square F Sig.
0.350 23.193 0.000
Training 0.013 0.013 0.191 0.849
Incentives 0.017 0.017 0.265 0.791
Managerial support −0.432 −0.432 −7.235 0.000
IT expertise 0.237 0.237 3.590 0.000
Exposure to GIS 0.360 0.360 5.776 0.000

Table 7. Results of multiple regression analysis with usage as a dependent variable and perception of GIS as an independent
variable.

Dependent Variable Usage

Independent Variables Unstand. Coef. B Standard Coef.ᵝ T R Square F Sig.
0.221 62.103 0.000
Perception of GIS 0.470 0.470 7.881 0.000

Table 8. Results of multiple regression analysis with usage as an independent variable.

Independent Variable Usage

Dependent Variables Unstand. Coef. B Standard Coef.ᵝ T R Square F Sig.
0.000
Decision-making 0.055 0.055 0.814 0.003 0.663 0.416
Cost savings 0.092 0.092 1.371 0.009 1.879 0.172
Risk Management 0.141 0.141 2.105 0.020 4.429 0.036
Customer Relationships 0.477 0.477 8.033 0.228 64.523 0.000

Table 9. Results of hypotheses.

Hypotheses Results Summary of findings

H1: GIS training impacts on employees’ GIS training has no impact on employees’
No significant impact found
perceptions of GIS perceptions of GIS
Incentives have no impact on employees’ perceptions of
H2: Incentives impact on employees’
No significant impact found GIS. However, there is a relationship between the two
perceptions of GIS
variables
H3: Managerial support impacts on Managerial support has an impact on and
Significant
employees’ perceptions of GIS relationship with employees’ perceptions of GIS
H4: IT expertise impacts on employees’ IT expertise has an impact on and relationship with
Significant
perceptions of GIS employees’ perceptions of GIS
H5: Exposure to GIS technology impacts Exposure to GIS technology has an impact on and
Significant
on employees’ perceptions of GIS relationship with employees’ perceptions of GIS
H6: Perception of GIS affects the actual Perception of GIS has an impact on and
Significant
usage of GIS relationship with the actual usage of GIS
H7: Usage of GIS leads to efficient Usage of GIS has no impact on efficient
No significant impact found
decision-making decision-making
H8: Usage of GIS leads to cost savings No significant impact found Usage of GIS has no impact on cost savings
H9: Usage of GIS leads to enhanced risk Usage of GIS has an impact on and relationship with
Significant
management enhanced risk management
H10: Usage of GIS leads to improved Usage of GIS has an impact on and relationship with
Significant
customer relationships improved customer relationships

406
 A. Alzighaibi et al.

7.1. Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

Hypotheses 1 to 5 are the determinants that were tested to evaluate whether they impact on employees’ percep-
tions of GIS or not. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested and it was found that GIS training and incentives have no
impact on perception. The reason for this may be that the participants’ sample who filled the survey and used for
this paper may have previous GIS experience, which is why training results showed that it did not impact em-
ployees’ perception toward GIS. Incentives also did not have an impact on perception of GIS because employees
believe GIS helps in their actual work duties, not in self-organization. Hypotheses 3, 4 and 5 are significant and
also have a relationship with perception of GIS. This means that managerial support, IT expertise and exposure
to GIS impact on people’s perceptions of GIS.

7.2. Hypothesis 6
Hypothesis 6 was designed to test if perception of GIS has an impact on the usage of GIS. Regression analysis
shows that the results are consistent with previous studies regarding the relationship and impact between the two
variables perception of GIS and its usage [46] [47] [61]-[64]. Findings for the impact of perception of GIS on its
usage were significant and a link was detected between the two variables.

7.3. Hypotheses 7, 8, 9 and 10

Hypotheses 7 to 10 are concerned with the impact of usage on the outcomes. The regression analysis for these
hypotheses showed that there was no significant impact found between usage and decision-making, which was
unexpected as most GIS studies assert that GIS helps to make good decisions [5] [6] [8] [9]. This was the case in
MOWE. It may suggest that MOWE’s employees did not receive GIS training, and explains why they are not
using it properly and not noticing the big difference GIS made in making good decisions. Usage also did not
have any significant impact on cost savings, as many of MOWE’s projects have still not been completed. This
may be the reason or it could be that many participants only operated GIS to execute tasks and did not concen-
trate on its cost aspects. There are some finance experts who are responsible for projects’ costs and these partic-
ipants constitute a minority in this study as there are only a few of them in each branch. Hypotheses 9 to10
which stated the usage impact on enhanced risk management and improved customer satisfaction were signifi-
cant. This means that usage of GIS has an impact on and relationship with enhanced risk management and im-
proved customer relationships.

8. Conclusion and Implications

It can be concluded from the results of this research paper that some determinants impact on MOWE’s employees’
perceptions of GIS. It is also found that this perception influences actual usage. Some outcomes were tested and
some were found to be affected by the actual usage of GIS. Managerial support, IT expertise and exposure to GIS
technology have an impact on and relationship with employees’ perceptions of GIS. Training and incentives
emerged as insignificant determinants that do not impact on employees’ perceptions of using GIS; there is, how-
ever, a relationship between incentives and perception of GIS. Furthermore there is a strong impact on and rela-
tionship between employees’ perceptions of GIS and their actual usage of it. When using GIS, there are many
benefits that emerge such as efficiency of service, speed of service, quality of service, enhanced risk management
and improved customer satisfaction. These are the factors found to be significant and impacted on by GIS usage.
The outcome factors that were found to be insignificant were efficient decision-making and cost savings.
Some determinants require more attention from MOWE in order for employees to be more willing to adopt GIS.
It is also important to help employees to know the benefits and outcomes from adopting GIS. Staff needs to be
trained to obtain the maximum benefits of technology. The impact of actual usage on decision-making and cost
savings could become significant if MOWE worked hard on some determinants that can affect employees’ be-
havior when using GIS. This research will benefit the Saudi Arabian government since MOWE is a government
department. The government can use the results of this research to implement GIS in other ministries. This re-
search can also help organizationally because: firstly, the government can use results from this research to im-
prove GIS in MOWE; and secondly, make it easier for other departments to adopt GIS according to the results
of this research. This analysis can assist managers to understand their employees’ behaviors and provide them
with the means to change how they perceive GIS. This will enable MOWE to use GIS productively.

407
A. Alzighaibi et al.

Figure 2. A location map of the study area [65].

9. Limitations and Future Research

The main limitation of the research is that data were collected from only four major cities in Saudi Arabia-Mad-
inah, Makkah, Tabuk and Riyadh (see Figure 2). This limited sample may affect the generalizability of the
findings across the whole country, which needs to be taken into account when interpreting the results. Future
research should look into all departments or ministries having more participants and develop more representa-
tive and nation-wide samples that reflect Saudi Arabian workers’ adoption behavior of GIS. Finally, future re-
search should use the structural modelling approaches such as SEM or PLS to test the model with a more broad-
based sample so that the GIS system adoption is more rigorously researched.

References
[1] Esri (2011) What Is GIS? http://www.esri.com/what-is-gis
[2] Azeez, M.A. (2013) The Geographical Information Science (Science of Geo-Informatics): A Historical Background,
and the Foundations of the Scientific Methods. The 8th GIS Symposium in the Eastern Province, 1, 1-21.
[3] Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M.F., Maguire, D. J. and Rhind, D.W. (2011) Geographic Information Systems and Science.
3rd Edition, Wiley, Hoboken.
[4] Artz, M. (2009) Top Five Benefits of GIS. Viewed 8 June 2016.
https://gisandscience.com/2009/09/14/top-five-benefits-of-gis/
[5] Alkobaisi, S., Bae, W.D., Vojtěchovský, P. and Narayanappa, S. (2011) An Interactive Framework for Spatial Joins: A

408
 A. Alzighaibi et al.

Statistical Approach to Data Analysis in GIS. GeoInformatica, 16, 329-355.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10707-011-0134-7
[6] Jaziri, W. and Mainguenaud, M. (2012) A Framework to Model and Manipulate Constraints for Over-Constrained
Geographic Applications. GeoInformatica, 17, 257-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10707-012-0151-1
[7] Angulo, J.M., Yu, H., Langousis, A., Madrid, A.E. and Christakos, G. (2012) Modeling of Space-Time Infectious Dis-
ease Spread under Conditions of Uncertainty. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26, 1751-
1772. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2011.648642
[8] Hu, F., Xu, W. and Li, X. (2012) A Modified Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Optimal Allocation of
Earthquake Emergency Shelters. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26, 1643-1666.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2011.643802
[9] Kwak, H., Lee, W.K., Saborowski, J., Lee, S.Y., Won, M., Koo, K., Lee, M.B. and Kim, S. (2012) Estimating the Spa-
tial Pattern of Human-Caused Forest Fires Using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model with Spatial Autocorrelation in
South Korea. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26, 1589-1602.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2011.642799
[10] Lloyd, C.D. (2012) Analysing the Spatial Scale of Population Concentrations by Religion in Northern Ireland Using
Global and Local Variograms. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26, 57-73.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2011.563743
[11] Sposito, V., Bene, K., Pelizaro, C. and Wyatt, R. (2009) Application of GIS-Based Computer Modelling to Planning
for Adaption to Climate Change in Rural Areas. Applied GIS, 5, 1-25.
[12] Al-Ramadan, B. (1993) A Framework for a National Effort towards Geographic Information and Geographic Informa-
tion Systems in Saudi Arabia. Doctoral Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, USA.
[13] Abdulaal, W.A. (2009) Framework for Enterprise GIS for Saudi Municipalities. International Journal of Geographical
Information Science, 23, 687-702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658810701378838
[14] Koshak, N. (2006) Developing a Web-Based GIS for Hajj Traffic Plan (HajjGIS.Net). Journal of Urban Planning Re-
search, 6, 1-13.
[15] Ginther, P. (2015) Use of GIS Growing in the Municipal Water Wastewater Business. Waterworld.
http://www.waterworld.com/articles/print/volume-23/issue-4/editorial-feature/use-of-gis-growing-in-the-municipal-wat
er-wastewater-business.html
[16] Al-Ramadan, B. (2009) GIS Adoption in Saudi Arabia: Obstacles and Challenges. Petro GIS Conference, Bahrain.
[17] Hajjar, A. (2015) Abdullah T. Hajjar Talks about GIS in Utility Services in Saudi Arabia. Geospatial Survey & Map-
ping.
http://geospatialsurvey.net/index.php/2015/09/25/abdullah-t-hajjar-talks-about-gis-in-utility-services-in-sau
di-arabia/
[18] Vagias, W.M. (2006) Likert-Type Scale Response Anchors. Clemson International Institute for Tourism & Research
Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. Clemson University, Clemson.
http://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/tourism/documents/sample-scales.pdf
[19] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013) Statistical Language: Frequency Distribution. Viewed 13 April 2015.
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/a3121120.nsf/home/statistical+language+-+frequency+distribution
[20] Rogers, E.M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York.
[21] Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. 4th Edition, the Free Press, New York.
[22] Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs.
[23] Pelet, J. and Papadopoulou, P. (2014) User Behavior in Ubiquitous Online Environments. IGI Global, Hershey.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4566-0
[24] Kripanont, N. (2007) Examining a Technology Acceptance Model of Internet Usage by Academics within Thai Busi-
ness Schools. PhD Thesis, Victoria University, Melbourne.
[25] Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989) User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of
Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35, 982-1003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
[26] López-Nicolás, C., Molina-Castillo, F. and Bouwman, H. (2008) An Assessment of Advanced Mobile Services Accep-
tance: Contributions from TAM and Diffusion Theory Models. Information and Management, 45, 359-364.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.05.001
[27] Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000) A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitu-
dinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

409
A. Alzighaibi et al.

[28] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003) User Acceptance of Information Technology: To-
ward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.
[29] Goodchild, M. (2012) Geographic Information Systems. In: Bainbridge, W., ed., Leadership in Science and Technolo-
gy: A Reference Handbook, Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, 738-746.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412994231.n84
[30] Cooper, R.B. (1994) The Inertial Impact of Culture on IT Implementation. Information & Management, 27, 17-31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(94)90099-X
[31] Al-Gahtani, S. and King, M. (1999) Attitudes, Satisfaction and Usage: Factors Contributing to Each in the Acceptance
of Information Technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18, 277-297.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014492999119020
[32] Lee, S., Kim, I., Rhee, S. and Trimi, S. (2006) The Role of Exogenous Factors in Technology Acceptance: The Case of
Object-Oriented Technology. Information & Management, 45, 12-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.11.004
[33] Gosh, R.A. and Glott, R. (2005) Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Policy Support. FLOSSPOLS: Government
Survey Report, MERIT, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, 1-103.
[34] Talukder, M. (2014) Managing Innovation Adoption: From Innovation to Implementation. Gower Publication, Surrey.
[35] Chang, M. and Cheung, W. (2001) Determinants of the Intention to Use Internet/WWW at Work: A Confirmatory
Study. Information & Management, 39, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00075-1
[36] Cheung, W., Chang, M. and Lai, V. (2000) Prediction of Internet and World Wide Web Usage at Work: A Test of an
Extended Triandis Model. Decision Support Systems, 30, 83-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00125-1
[37] Sappington, D. (1991) Incentives in Principal-Agent Relationships. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 45-66.
[38] Nilakant, V. and Rao, H. (1994) Agency Theory and Uncertainty in Organisations: An Evaluation. Organisation Stu-
dies, 15, 649-672.
[39] Bhattacherjee, A. (1998) Managerial Influences on Intra-Organisational Information Technology Use: A Princip-
al-Agent Model. Decision Sciences, 29, 139-162.
[40] Kurnia, S., Smith, S. and Lee, H. (2006) Consumers’ Perception of Mobile Internet in Australia. E-Business Review, 5,
19-32.
[41] Trevino, L. and Webster, J. (1992) Flow in Computer-Mediated Communication: Electronic Mail and Voice Mail
Evaluation and Impacts. Communication Research, 19, 125-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365092019005001
[42] Lee, H., Lee, Y. and Kwon, D. (2005) The Intention to Use Computerized Reservation Systems: The Moderating Ef-
fects of Organizational Support and Supplier Incentive. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1552-1561.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.07.008
[43] Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T. and Davis, G. (1995) Testing the Determinants of Microcomputer Usage via a Structural
Equation Model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, 87-114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1995.11518061
[44] Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. and Baroudi, J. (1996) A Motivational Model of Microcomputer Usage. Journal of Man-
agement Information Systems, 13, 127-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518115
[45] Bandura, A. (1977) Self-Efficacy: Toward Unifying Theory of Behaviour Change. American Psychologist, 37, 122-
147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
[46] Sanchez, R.A. and Hueros, A.D. (2010) Motivational Factors that Influence the Acceptance of Moodle Using TAM.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1632-1640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011
[47] Lam, T., Cho, V. and Qu, H. (2007) A Study of Hotel Employee Behavioral Intentions towards Adoption of Informa-
tion Technology. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 49-65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.09.002
[48] Cakar, B. (2011) Factors Affecting Police Officers’ Acceptance of GIS Technologies: A Study of the Turkish National
Police. PhD Thesis, University of North Texas, Denton.
[49] Buchanan, D.A. and Huczynski, A.A. (2010) Organisational Behaviour. 7th Edition, Financial Times Prentice Hall,
Rotolito Lombarda.
[50] Abu-Al-Aish, A. and Love, S. (2013) Factors Influencing Students’ Acceptance of M-Learning: An Investigation in
Higher Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14, 82-107.
[51] Kim, D. and Ammeter, T. (2014) Predicting Personal Information System Adoption Using Integrated Diffusion Model.
Information and Management, 51, 451-464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.02.011
[52] Oliveira, T., Thomas, M. and Espadanal, M. (2014) Assessing the Determinants of Cloud Computing Adoption: An

410
 A. Alzighaibi et al.

Analysis of the Manufacturing and Services Sectors. Information and Management, 51, 497-510.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.006
[53] IRM (2014) About Risk Management. The Institute of Risk Management.
http://www.theirm.org/about/risk-management/
[54] Payne, A., and Frow, P. (2005) A Strategic Framework for Customer Relationship Management. Journal of Marketing,
69, 167-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.167
[55] Alharbi, S. and Drew, S. (2014) Using the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding Academics’ Behavioural
Intention to Use Learning Management Systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applica-
tions, 5, 143-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2014.050120
[56] Phichitchaisopa, N. and Naenna, T. (2013) Factors Affecting the Adoption of Healthcare Information Technology.
EXCLI Journal, 12, 413-436.
[57] DeVellis, R. (2003) Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
[58] Gliem J.A. and Gliem R.R. (2003) Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient
for Likert-Type Scales. 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Educa-
tion, Columbus, 82-88.
[59] Hair, J.R., Anderson, R., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th Edition, Prentice-Hall
International, Upper Saddle River.
[60] Kim, S. and Garrison, G. (2009) Investigating Mobile Wireless Technology Adoption: An Extension of the Technolo-
gy Acceptance Model. Information Systems Frontier, 11, 323-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-008-9073-8
[61] Quazi, A. and Talukder, M. (2011) Demographic Determinants of Adoption of Technological Innovation. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 52, 38-46.
[62] Talukder, M., Quazi, A. and Keating, B. (2014) Virtual Systems in Australia: A Study of Individual Users’ Commit-
ments and Usage. Journal of Internet Commerce, 13, 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2014.910730
[63] Talukder, M., Quazi, A. and Sathye, M. (2014) Mobile Phone Banking Usage Behavior: An Australian Perspective.
Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 8, 83-104.
[64] Kwok, S. and Gao, S. (2005) Attitude towards Knowledge Sharing Behaviour. Journal of Computer Information Sys-
tems, 46, 45-51.
[65] Owl & Mouse (1998-2015) Owl and Mouse Educational Software. USA, Viewed 6 June 2016.
http://www.yourchildlearns.com/about-us.html
[66] Talukder, M. and Quazi, A. (2011) The Impact of Social Influence on Individuals’ Adoption of Innovation. Journal of
Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 21, 111-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2011.564483

Submit your manuscript at: http://papersubmission.scirp.org/

411