Understanding the Determinants and Future Challenges of Cloud Computing Adoption for High Performance Computing
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- RQ1.
- What are the determinants of cloud computing adoption for HPC?
- RQ2.
- What are the critical issues that are currently impacting and are likely to impact HPC in the cloud in the near future (1–5 years) and in the long term (5+ years)?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Technology Adoption in Information Systems
2.2. Technology Adoption Research in Cloud Computing
3. Research Model and Hypotheses
3.1. Human Factors
3.2. Technological Factors
3.3. Organizational Factors
4. Factors Influencing Cloud Adoption for HPC
4.1. Methodology
4.2. Hypothesis Testing
5. Critical Issues Impacting HPC in the Cloud
5.1. Methodology
5.2. Findings
- Data protection concerns [Technological | Organizational]
- Compliance concerns [Technological | Organizational]
- Security concerns [Technological]
- Data control concerns [Technological | Organizational]
- Privacy concerns [Technological | Organizational]
- Privacy concerns [Technological | Organizational]
- Security concerns [Technological]
- Data protection concerns [Technological | Organizational]
- Data control concerns [Technological | Organizational]
- Compliance concerns [Technological | Organizational]
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AI | Artificial Intelligence |
BDA | Big Data Analytics |
CEO | Chief Executive Officer |
CTO | Chief Technology Officer |
DOI | Diffusion of Innovation |
HOT-fit | Human, Organizational, and Technological fit |
HPC | High Performance Computing |
IAAS | Infrastructure As A Service |
IC4 | Irish Center for Cloud Computing and Commerce |
ICT | Information and Communications Technology |
IDC | International Data Corporation |
IS | Information Systems |
IT | Information Technology |
PAAS | Platform As A Service |
SAAS | Software As A Service |
TAM | Technology Acceptance Model |
TOE | Technological, Organizational, and Environmental |
TRA | Theory of Reasoned Action |
UTAUT | Unified Theory of Technology Acceptance and Usage |
References
- Oliinyk, I.; Echikson, W. Europeś Payments Revolution. Stimulating Payments Innovation While Protecting Consumer Privacy. Available online: http://aei.pitt.edu/94533/ (accessed on 11 August 2020).
- Maqueira-Marín, J.M.; Bruque-Cámara, S.; Minguela-Rata, B. Environment determinants in business adoption of Cloud Computing. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 228–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phaphoom, N.; Wang, X.; Samuel, S.; Helmer, S.; Abrahamsson, P. A survey study on major technical barriers affecting the decision to adopt cloud services. J. Syst. Softw. 2015, 103, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cegielski, C.G.; Jones-Farmer, A.; Wu, Y.; Hazen, B.T. Adoption of cloud computing technologies in supply chains. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2012, 23, 184–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshamaila, Y.; Papagiannidis, S.; Li, F. Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the north east of England: A multi-perspective framework. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2013, 26, 250–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Low, C.; Chen, Y.; Wu, M. Understanding the determinants of cloud computing adoption. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2011, 111, 1006–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oliveira, T.; Thomas, M.; Espadanal, M. Assessing the determinants of cloud computing adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors. Inf. Manag. 2014, 51, 497–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, P.F.; Ray, S.; Li-Hsieh, Y.Y. Examining cloud computing adoption intention, pricing mechanism, deployment model. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014, 34, 474–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lian, J.W.; Yen, D.C.; Wang, Y.T. An exploratory study to understand the critical factors affecting the decision to adopt cloud computing in Taiwan hospital. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014, 34, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geist, A.; Reed, D.A. A survey of high-performance computing scaling challenges. Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl. 2017, 31, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zenios, S.A. High-performance computing in finance: The last 10 years and the next. Parallel Comput. 1999, 25, 2149–2175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IDC. Worldwide Broader HPC 2014–2018 Forecast: Servers, Storage, Software, Middleware, and Services; IDC: Framingham, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hyperion Research. HPC Market Update; Hyperion Research: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, A.; Milojicic, D. Evaluation of hpc applications on cloud. In Proceedings of the 2011 Sixth Open Cirrus Summit, Atlanta, GA, USA, 12–13 October 2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 22–26. [Google Scholar]
- Mauch, V.; Kunze, M.; Hillenbrand, M. High performance cloud computing. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2013, 29, 1408–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldinucci, M.; Rabellino, S.; Pironti, M.; Spiga, F.; Viviani, P.; Drocco, M.; Guerzoni, M.; Boella, G.; Mellia, M.; Margara, P.; et al. HPC4AI: An AI-on-demand federated platform endeavour. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers, Ischia, Italy, 8–10 May 2018; pp. 279–286. [Google Scholar]
- Lynn, T. Addressing the complexity of HPC in the cloud: Emergence, self-organisation, self-management, and the separation of concerns. In Heterogeneity, High Performance Computing, Self-Organization and the Cloud; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2018; pp. 1–30. [Google Scholar]
- Beck, R.; Tönker, M. Increasing Dynamic Capabilities through Virtualized Grid-in-Cloud Solutions. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2012), Orlando, FL, USA, 16–19 December 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Thackston, R.; Fortenberry, R. High performance computing: Considerations when deciding to rent or buy. In Proceedings of the SAIS 2015 Proceedings, Hilton Head Island, SC, USA, 20–21 March 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Evangelinos, C.; Hill, C. Cloud computing for parallel scientific hpc applications: Feasibility of running coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models on amazons ec2. Ratio 2008, 2, 2–34. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lynn, T.; Liang, X.; Gourinovitch, A.; Morrison, J.P.; Fox, G.; Rosati, P. Understanding the determinants of cloud computing a.option for high performance computing. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-51), University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Waikoloa Village, HI, USA, 2–6 January 2018; pp. 3894–3903. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison Wesley Publishing Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tornatzky, L.; Fleischer, M. The Process of Technology Innovation; Lexingt. Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1990; Volume 165. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.; The Free Press: Detroit, MI, USA, 1995; pp. 15–23. [Google Scholar]
- Gangwar, H.; Date, H.; Raoot, A. Review on IT adoption: Insights from recent technologies. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2014, 27, 488–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yusof, M.M.; Papazafeiropoulou, A.; Paul, R.J.; Stergioulas, L.K. Investigating evaluation frameworks for health information systems. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2008, 77, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asatiani, A. Why cloud? Aa review of cloud adoption determinants in organizations. In Proceedings of the European Conferences on Information Systems 2015 (ECIS 2015), Münster, Germany, 26–29 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, A.; Chen, N.C. Cloud computing as an innovation: Percepetion, attitude, and adoption. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2012, 32, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, P.; Seetharaman, A.; Raj, J.R. The usage and adoption of cloud computing by small and medium businesses. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 861–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Cegielski, C.G.; Hazen, B.T.; Hall, D.J. Cloud computing in support of supply chain information system infrastructure: Understanding when to go to the cloud. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2013, 49, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazen, B.T.; Wu, Y.; Sankar, C.S.; Jones-Farmer, L.A. A proposed framework for educational innovation dissemination. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2012, 40, 301–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, R.; Prasad, J. A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Inf. Syst. Res. 1998, 9, 204–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Premkumar, G.; Roberts, M. Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses. Omega 1999, 27, 467–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph, E.; Sorensen, B.; Norton, A.; Conway, S. Research Highlights In HPC, HPDA-AI, Cloud Computing, Quantum Computing, The Global Exascale Race, and Innovation Award Winners; Hyperion Research: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Amazon Web Services, Intel. Challenging the Barriers to High Performance Computing in the Cloud; Amazon Web Services: Seattle, WA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.; Kim, K.j. Factors affecting the implementation success of Internet-based information systems. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2007, 23, 1853–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, B. Cloud computing. Commun. ACM 2008, 51, 9–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, I.C.; Hwang, H.G.; Hung, M.C.; Lin, M.H.; Yen, D.C. Factors affecting the adoption of electronic signature: Executives’ perspective of hospital information department. Decis. Support Syst. 2007, 44, 350–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuan, K.K.; Chau, P.Y. A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology–organization–environment framework. Inf. Manag. 2001, 38, 507–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marston, S.; Li, Z.; Bandyopadhyay, S.; Zhang, J.; Ghalsasi, A. Cloud computing—The business perspective. Decis. Support Syst. 2011, 51, 176–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soliman, K.S.; Janz, B.D. An exploratory study to identify the critical factors affecting the decision to establish Internet-based interorganizational information systems. Inf. Manag. 2004, 41, 697–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynn, T.; Xiong, H.; Dong, D.; Momani, B.; Gravvanis, G.A.; Filelis-Papadopoulos, C.K.; Elster, A.C.; Khan, M.M.Z.M.; Tzovaras, D.; Giannoutakis, K.M.; et al. CLOUDLIGHTNING: A Framework for a Self-organising and Self-managing Heterogeneous Cloud. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science (CLOSER 2016), Rome, Italy, 23–25 April 2016; pp. 333–338. [Google Scholar]
- Baruch, Y. Response rate in academic studies-A comparative analysis. Hum. Relat. 1999, 52, 421–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilcox, J.B.; Bellenger, D.N.; Rigdon, E.E. Assessing sample representativeness in industrial surveys. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 1994, 9, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Babin, B.J.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Skulmoski, G.J.; Hartman, F.T.; Krahn, J. The Delphi method for graduate research. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2007, 6, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delbecq, A.L.; Van de Ven, A.H.; Gustafson, D.H. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes; Scott, Foresman: Northbrook, IL, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Steinert, M. A dissensus based online Delphi approach: An explorative research tool. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2009, 76, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Model | Author(s) | Dimensions/Factors Included |
---|---|---|
Theories based on the individual | ||
Theory of Reasoned action (TRA) | Fishbein and Azjen (1975) | Individuals’ beliefs |
Attitude toward behavior (ATT) | ||
Subjective norm (SN) | ||
Behavioral intention | ||
Technology acceptance model (TAM) | Davis et al. (1989) | Perceived usefulness (PU) |
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) | ||
Theory of Planned behavior (TPB) | Ajzen (1991) | Attitude toward behavior adapted from TRA |
Subjective norm adapted from TRA (SN) | ||
Perceived behavioral control (PBC) | ||
UTAUT | Venkatesh et al., (2003) | Performance Expectancy (PE) |
Effort Expectancy (EE) | ||
Social Influence (SI) | ||
Facilitating Conditions (FC) | ||
Moderators: gender, age, experience, Voluntariness | ||
Theories based on the innovation and wider environment | ||
Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) | Rogers (1995; 2003) | Relative advantage |
Ease of use | ||
Image | ||
Visibility | ||
Compatibility | ||
Results demonstrability | ||
Voluntariness of Use | ||
Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) | Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) | Technology: innovation characteristics, availability |
Organization: size, management support, organizational resources | ||
External Environment: firm size, external pressure, industry, regulation, financial | ||
Human-Organization-Technology Fit (HOT-fit) | Yusof et al. (2008) | Human: user satisfaction |
Organization: structure, environment | ||
Technology: quality driven factors |
Study | Context | Theories | Human Factors | Technology Factors | Organizational Factors | Environmental Factors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low et al. (2011) | Adoption of Cloud Computing by firms in Taiwan (111 survey responses) | TOE | N/A | Relative advantage (S) | Size (S) | Supplier Support (S) |
Complexity (N.S) | Top management support (S) | Competitive Pressure (S) | ||||
Compatibility (N.S) | IT readiness (N.S) | |||||
Alshamaila et al. (2013) | Adoption of Cloud Computing by SMEs in England (15 interviews with SMEs) | TOE | N/A | Relative advantage (S) | Size (S) | Scope (S) |
Uncertainty (S) | Top management support (S) | Supplier Support (S) | ||||
Complexity (S) | Innovativeness (S) | Competitive Pressure (N.S) | ||||
Trialability (S) | IT Support (S) | Industry (S) | ||||
Lin and Chen (2012) | Cloud Computing Adoption in Taiwan (19 interviews) | DOI | N/A | Relative advantage (S) | N/A | N/A |
Complexity (S) | ||||||
Compatibility (S) | ||||||
Gupta et al. (2013) | Cloud computing adoption among SMEs (211 survey responses) | N/A | Ease of Use (S) | Reliability (S) | Cost Saving (S) | N/A |
Perceived Security (S) | ||||||
Hsu et al. (2014) | Cloud computing adoption among firms in Taiwan (200 survey responses) | TOE | N/A | Perceived Benefits (S) | IT Capability (S) | External Pressure (N.S) |
Business Concerns (S-) | Size (N.S) | |||||
Lian et al. (2014) | Cloud computing adoption in Taiwanese hospitals (60 survey responses) | TOE | Innovativeness (9) | Complexity (5) | Relative advantage (11) | Government policy (7) |
HOT-FIT | IT Competence (2) | Perceived Security (1) | Top management support (4) | Competitive Pressure (10) | ||
Costs (3) | Adequate Resources (6) | |||||
Compatibility (8) | Benefits (12) | |||||
Oliveria et al. (2014) | Cloud computing adoption among Spanish firms (369 survey responses) | DOI | N/A | Relative advantage (S) | Size (S) | Government policy (N.S) |
TOE | Complexity (S) | Top management support (S) | Competitive Pressure (N.S) | |||
Compatibility (N.S) | ||||||
Costs (S) | ||||||
Security (N.S) | ||||||
Technology Readiness (S) | ||||||
Wu et al. (2013) | Adoption of Cloud in Manufacturing and Retail firms in the US (289 Survey responses) | DOI | N/A | Complexity (S) | N/A | N/A |
Compatibility (S) |
Dimension | Factor | Mean | Std. Dev. | Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|
Human | Perceived innovativeness | 3.81 | 0.68 | 1 |
HPC competence | 3.21 | 1.02 | 6 | |
IT/IS competence | 2.79 | 0.99 | 10 | |
Organization | Indirect Benefits | 3.38 | 0.77 | 4 |
Adequate resources | 2.88 | 0.9 | 9 | |
Cost reduction | 3.15 | 0.9 | 7 | |
Top management support | 2.89 | 0.87 | 8 | |
Technology | Compatibility | 3.47 | 0.79 | 2 |
Reliability and security | 3.25 | 0.81 | 5 | |
Complexity | 3.45 | 0.8 | 3 |
Adopters | Non-Adopters | T-Value | |
---|---|---|---|
Personal innovativeness | 3.89 (0.73) | 3.75 (0.63) | 1.08 |
HPC competence | 3.48 (1.01) | 2.98 (0.98) | 2.71 ** |
IT/IS competence | 2.94 (0.97) | 2.67 (1.02) | 1.43 |
Complexity | 3.40 (0.87) | 3.49 (0.73) | −0.60 |
Compatibility | 3.75 (0.71) | 3.23 (0.78) | 3.86 ** |
Reliability and security | 3.32 (0.94) | 3.19 (0.69) | 0.84 |
Top management support | 3.14 (0.85) | 2.67 (0.83) | 3.02 ** |
Adequate resources | 3.14 (0.99) | 2.67 (0.77) | 2.85 ** |
Indirect benefits | 3.71 (0.65) | 3.10 (0.66) | 6.13 ** |
Cost reduction | 3.40 (0.64) | 2.94 (0.75) | 3.66 ** |
Collinearity | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. | Tolerance | VIF | |
Personal innovativeness | 0.04 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 1.07 |
HPC competence | 0.65 * | 0.32 | 4.03 | 0.04 | 0.53 | 1.89 |
IT/IS competence | −0.56 | 0.34 | 2.75 | 0.09 | 0.56 | 1.78 |
Complexity | −0.24 | 0.32 | 0.56 | 0.45 | 0.86 | 1.16 |
Compatibility | −0.30 | 0.42 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.47 | 2.12 |
Reliability and security | −0.54 | 0.35 | 2.36 | 0.12 | 0.72 | 1.39 |
Top management support | 0.49 | 0.37 | 1.75 | 0.18 | 0.47 | 2.14 |
Adequate resources | 0.40 | 0.37 | 1.16 | 0.28 | 0.48 | 2.09 |
Indirect benefits | 2.02 ** | 0.55 | 13.51 | 0.00 | 0.47 | 2.14 |
Cost reduction | 0.04 | 0.43 | 0.01 | 0.92 | 0.49 | 2.04 |
Constant | −6.76 | 2.42 | 7.83 | 0.01 |
Not Adopt | Adopt | % Correct | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | Not adopt | 62 | 0 | 100 |
Adopt | 55 | 0 | 0 | |
Overall % | 53 | |||
Final | Not adopt | 49 | 13 | 79 |
Adopt | 14 | 41 | 75 | |
Overall % | 77 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lynn, T.; Fox, G.; Gourinovitch, A.; Rosati, P. Understanding the Determinants and Future Challenges of Cloud Computing Adoption for High Performance Computing. Future Internet 2020, 12, 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12080135
Lynn T, Fox G, Gourinovitch A, Rosati P. Understanding the Determinants and Future Challenges of Cloud Computing Adoption for High Performance Computing. Future Internet. 2020; 12(8):135. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12080135
Chicago/Turabian StyleLynn, Theo, Grace Fox, Anna Gourinovitch, and Pierangelo Rosati. 2020. "Understanding the Determinants and Future Challenges of Cloud Computing Adoption for High Performance Computing" Future Internet 12, no. 8: 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12080135
APA StyleLynn, T., Fox, G., Gourinovitch, A., & Rosati, P. (2020). Understanding the Determinants and Future Challenges of Cloud Computing Adoption for High Performance Computing. Future Internet, 12(8), 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12080135