Enemies of cloud services usage: inertia and switching costs

Abstract

This paper examines the direct and mediating role of inertia on the likelihood of adopting cloud services by individual users, and provides the reasons of the inertial behavior. The study is focused on Google Drive cloud services. The results emphasize the importance of inertia and switching costs in explaining the resistance to use cloud services. Furthermore, inertia partially mediates the relationship between switching costs and cloud computing services usage. Finally, it is found that inertia in the use of prior IT is mainly explained by convenience rather than by loyalty. From the point of view of the service provider, these results have implications on its marketing strategy.

Inertia, group conformity and customer loyalty in healthcare in the information age

“…Gray et al (2017) adds that the effect of inertia can last a significant length of time (the researchers conducted two surveys, 11 months apart from each other, and the inertia effects were still in place in the second survey). Lucia-Palacios et al (2016) further emphasise that the omission of inertia from loyalty models can lead to biased results and, Liu-Thompkins and Tam (2013) concur, ignoring inertia can lead to negative consequences on consumer purchase behaviour, particularly if marketing strategies ignore the specific nature of inertia. Inertia can be beneficial for service providers.…”

Interrogating and redefining the concept of consumer inertia

“…Second, similar to physical inertia, CI2 is the nature of human beings. It can be attributed to the state dependence (Seetharaman, Ainslie, & Chintagunta, 1999) that human beings tend to stay with the current state and repeat previous choices irrespective of good or bad consequences (Dube, Hitsch, & Rossi, 2009; Lucia‐Palacios et al, 2016). Consumers have inertia automatically after they purchase a product or service.…”

“…Arguments persist regarding what consumer inertia is (Carter, Gray, D'Alessandro, and Lester, 2016). The concept has been confounded with the terms “habit” (Leppäniemi, Jayawardhena, Karjaluoto, & Harness, 2017) and “loyalty” (Oliver, 1999, 2014), or phrases such as “status quo bias” (Polites & Karahanna, 2012), “state dependence” (Lucia‐Palacios, Pérez‐López, & Polo‐Redondo, 2016), “doing nothing” (Wu, 2011), “dissatisfaction but stay” (Lee & Neale, 2012), and “resistance to change” (Yadav & Varadarajan, 2005). These differences in usage may be attributed to the lack of a clear definition of “consumer inertia” and an understanding of its mechanism.…”

Reducing resistance to repeating a wiki activity: What can teachers do?

“…Perceived costs Perceived costs are inhibitors of participation in e-learning, and refer to students' perceptions of effort and time invested in understanding and adapting to the new activity (Jones, Mothersbaugh, & Beatty, 2000;Lucia-Palacios et al, 2016). These costs are derived from the complexities of the technology, difficulties in following the programming imposed by the teacher, and organizational and coordination problems that may result from the group e-learning environment (Biasutti, 2011;Bligh & Coyle, 2013;Manca & Grion, 2017;Stover & Holland, 2018).…”