economies

Article
The Critical Factors Impacting Artificial Intelligence Applications
Adoption in Vietnam: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis
Nguyen Van Phuoc

Faculty of Business Administration, Posts and Telecommunications Institute of Technology, Ha Dong,

Hanoi 12100, Vietnam; phuocnv@ptit.edu.vn

Abstract: The concept of artificial intelligence (AI) is the transformation of inanimate objects into
intelligent beings that can reason similarly to humans. Computer systems are capable of imitating
a number of human intelligence functions, such as learning, reasoning, problem solving, speech
recognition, and planning. In this regard, artificial intelligence applications have been developed to
assist corporations and entrepreneurs in making business decisions. Hence, the aim of the study is to
investigate the adoption of AI applications at the Vietnamese organizational level. Using the core
structures of the technology–organization–environment (TOE), the theoretical model was constructed
based on how technical and environmental elements influence companies’ technological innovation
adoption decisions. Ten critical factors related to AI adoption are identified. To test the model,
data were obtained from 193 senior managers who are directly in charge of information systems
in both private and public companies in Vietnam. Subsequently, the Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) approach was used to analyze the data. The findings indicate that technical compatibility,
relative advantage, technical complexity, technical capability, managerial capability, organizational
readiness, government involvement, market uncertainty, and vendor partnership are significantly
related to AI application adoption. Interestingly, the study results indicated that the relationship
between organization size and AI adoption was not statistically significant. Therefore, the suggested
Citation: Phuoc, Nguyen Van. 2022. adoption of the AI application could contribute to the existing research on the adoption of AI through
The Critical Factors Impacting the TOE. Finally, the significant government law implications and future research directions are
Artificial Intelligence Applications further addressed.
Adoption in Vietnam: A Structural
Equation Modeling Analysis. Keywords: artificial intelligence adoption; technology organization environment model; structural
Economies 10: 129. https://doi.org/ equation model; Vietnam
10.3390/economies10060129

Academic Editor: Nick Drydakis

Received: 25 March 2022 1. Introduction

Accepted: 20 May 2022
The development of artificial intelligence has prompted software and system engi-
Published: 1 June 2022
neers to devise novel methods for raising revenue, reducing expenses, and enhancing
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral organizational effectiveness. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) is a significant competi-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in tive trend in industry Davenport and Ronanki (2018). AI is defined as “a collection of
published maps and institutional affil- tools and technology capable of augmenting and enhancing organizational performance”
iations.
Alsheibani et al. (2018). This is accomplished by creating “artificial” systems capable of
resolving complex environmental difficulties, with “intelligence” referring to the emulation
of human intelligence. This intelligence is essential for strategic planning and has been
effectively employed by businesses to gain a competitive advantage over their competitors
Copyright: © 2022 by the author.
Varian (2018). It is widely expected that artificial intelligence (AI) will deliver benefits
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
such as human augmentation, which should be considered while discussing economic
distributed under the terms and
growth Ransbotham et al. (2017). AI has been used and applied at the federal, industrial,
conditions of the Creative Commons and personal levels. Furthermore, the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// set a clear policy for adopting artificial intelligence in the public sector by 2030, which is
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ gradually gaining traction in the ASEAN region, notably the Vietnam government. Exam-
4.0/). ining the significance of government bodies taking the initiative and beginning artificial

Economies 2022, 10, 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10060129 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/economies

Economies 2022, 10, 129 2 of 16

intelligence projects in their surroundings that fulfill their business needs. AI is the simu-
lation of various human intelligence processes by computers, notably computer-related
systems Agrawal et al. (2019). According to Alsheibani et al. (2018), “AI refers to both the
intelligence of machines and the branch of computer science devoted to its development”.
While discussing the history of artificial intelligence, Alsheibani et al. (2018) describes it
as the concept of transforming inanimate items into sentient beings capable of reasoning
like humans. Human intelligence functions such as learning, thinking, problem solving,
speech recognition, and planning are all simulated by computer systems. AI has progressed
beyond robotic-like game play and knowledge representation to cognitive automation
Dwivedi et al. (2021). AI is having an ever-increasing impact on corporate enterprises. AI
is the top strategic technology for enterprises, according to Gartner Elliot and Andrews
(2017). Google, Amazon, IBM, and Apple have all employed AI to improve consumer
experiences Brynjolfsson and Mcafee (2017) and productivity Varian (2018) through eas-
ier collaboration Hunter (2018). The global adoption of AI presents a big opportunity
for Vietnamese businesses Nguyen and Tran (2019). Furthermore, the survey predicts
that AI and automation will help the Vietnamese economy to the tune of 1.2 trillion USD
by 2030 Chua and Dobberstein (2021). Despite this excellent demonstration of AI, Soon
Ghee Chua and Dobberstein (2021) study of business leaders indicated that only 6% of
Vietnamese enterprises are consistently investing in AI and automation, compared to more
than 25% in the US. Vietnamese businesses are increasingly lagging behind their worldwide
competitors in the use of AI applications (Towards Purposeful Artificial Intelligence, 2016).
According to a recent Gartner poll Elliot and Andrews (2017), the majority of businesses
are still gathering data on what and how to implement AI. Many companies appear to be
figuring out how to create a business case for AI deployment, as well as the organizational
competencies needed to assess, build, and implement AI solutions, and are confused about
the business applications of AI Ransbotham et al. (2017). As a result, in the Vietnamese
context, a full understanding of AI adoption and associated drivers has yet to be produced.
As a result, the purpose of this research is to acquire a complete understanding of how AI
is being implemented by organizations in Vietnam.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of technological context,
organizational context, and environmental context on the adoption of AI applications.
Data obtained from middle-level AI specialists, Information technology (IT) managers, IT
executives (CIO, CEO), and IT professionals in Vietnam are used to test the study model
and hypothesized linkages. Furthermore, the findings of this study contribute to empirical
research on contextual factors that influence AI application adoption decisions using a
large data set as opposed to a few isolated cases. Given the importance of AI application
adoption in modern organizations and in the future, the findings of this study are also
intended to assist AI application project managers and practitioners in formulating policies
and targeting appropriate contextual factors to support effective AI application adoption.

2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Technology Adoption Perspective
Adopting new technologies is a proven strategy for corporate success Alsheibani et al.
(2018). Previous research has primarily focused on innovative information technology
(IT) or new system adoption at the person and organizational levels Oliveira et al. (2019).
For individuals’ technological acceptance practices, Alsheibani et al. (2018) theory of
reasoned action (TRA) provides profound insight into how a person’s conduct is influenced
and led by their attitudes and norms. Ajzen advances TRA by proposing the theory of
planned behavior (TPB) Ajzen (2012), which asserts that an individual’s behavioral intents
and behaviors are shaped by his or her attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control. Davis (1985) offers the technology acceptance model (TAM)
based on TRA to discover the factors that influence people’s adoption or rejection of
information technology. It implies that, when users encounter new technology, a variety of
factors impact their decision regarding how and when to use it Davis (1989). Numerous
Economies 2022, 10, 129 3 of 16

research studies have established the validity of TAM and established a link between
behavioral intentions and actual system use Lu et al. (2003). TAM, on the other hand, does
not account for part of an IS’s qualitative elements or societal influences. Thus, Venkatesh
et al. (2016) provide the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)
to explain users’ intents to use an information system and subsequent usage behavior.
Numerous studies on individual-level IT adoption examine the factors that influence an
individual’s decision to use a certain technology or system, such as Web 2.0 technologies.
Mobile healthcare systems Lumsden and Gutierrez (2013); Mccarthy and Hayes (1981), as
well as electronic banking Picoto et al. (2014). Tornatzky et al. (1990) offer the technology-
organization-environment (TOE) paradigm to describe how technical and environmental
elements influence companies’ technological innovation adoption decisions.
As a result of the TOE, some scholars have begun to investigate the elements that
influence an organization’s IT adoption. For instance, Cristiano et al. (2001) conducted a
survey to ascertain the prevalence of quality function deployment (QFD) in over 400 busi-
nesses in the United States and Japan. They discover that organizational variables such
as motivation, managerial support, and data sources all contribute to the effectiveness
of QFD implementation. Quaddus and Xu (2005) perform a qualitative field study and
find four elements that influence the adoption and spread of knowledge management
systems (KMS) in organizations: organizational culture, managerial support, individual
advantages, and the KMS dream. Co et al. (1998) conduct an analysis of 27 management
variables related to human factors affecting enterprises’ adoption of modern manufactur-
ing technologies (AMT). According to Kosaroglu and Hunt (2009), technical, leadership,
managerial, and administrative capabilities all contribute to the success of new product
development (NPD) projects in the telecommunications’ industry. Oliveira and Martins
(2008) review the research on IT adoption at the organizational level, including the TOE
framework Rogers (1995); Tornatzky et al. (1990) diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory,
Schalkoff (1990) institutional theory, and electronic data interchange (EDI) framework
reviewed by Iacovou et al. (1995).

2.2. The Contexts of AI Adoption

TAM, TPB, and UTAUT have all been extensively used in research on AI adoption.
They are, nonetheless, applicable to particular research. By comparison, the DOI and
the TOE framework are two frequently used theories in organizational-level IT adoption
research Oliveira and Martins (2011); Venkatesh et al. (2003). Rogers (1995) DOI Theory
is one of the earliest social science theories. It originates in communication and is used to
describe how an idea or product gains traction and spreads over time within a particular
demographic or social system. Rogers defines diffusion as the process of disseminating
innovation through time among social system actors Rogers (2010). According to the
thesis, widespread adoption of innovation is necessary for progress and sustainability.
Rogers observes that those who accept an innovation early exhibit distinct characteristics
from those who acquire it later. He divides adopters into five groups: innovators, early
adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Additionally, when it comes to
fostering innovation, methods for different groups of adopters should be distinct.
Several studies are now being conducted to evaluate the uses of artificial intelligence
in specific fields Alsamhi et al. (2018); Macleish (1988); Oliveira and Martins (2011); Wang
et al. (2016). Other works examine the theoretical underpinnings of AI Mitka (2012) as
well as its applications Kouziokas (2017); Xu and Jia (2021). However, a few studies have
been conducted on the adoption of artificial intelligence, particularly at the organizational
level. For instance, Alsheibani et al. (2018) present a study framework for AI adoption,
but this framework is not validated across a sample of enterprises in order to discover
the elements affecting AI adoption. Additionally, their study lacks hypothesis tests and
empirical validation. Due to the pervasive nature of AI and a lack of research on AI
adoption at the organizational level, it is unable to directly build on current theories.
Economies 2022, 10, 129 4 of 16

Adopting AI is a lengthy process that includes not only the procurement of software
and technology but also the establishment of necessary infrastructure and resources over
time. However, there is yet no empirical estimate of AI acceptance. As a result, study
is required to examine the aspects that influence the proclivity of AI to adopt, as well as
an organization’s specific organizational competence and environmental circumstances.
According to the evaluation of studies on AI adoption, the TOE framework is an excellent
starting point for investigating AI adoption not only because it emphasizes the unique
context in which the adoption process occurs, but also because it can be used to evaluate
the elements affecting AI adoption. As a result, this study uses the TOE framework
as its theoretical framework. Additionally, because scholars have combined the TOE
framework and the DOI theory to evaluate IT adoption Oliveira and Martins (2011), this
study takes the same method with AI adoption. As previously stated, the TOE framework
is comprised of three components: the technology context, the organizational context, and
the environmental context.

3. Research Model and Hypotheses

The analysis of the literature suggests that there is a gap in knowledge regarding
the enabling variables that contribute to companies’ adoption of AI, as well as how these
elements interact and influence the choice to deploy AI. Hence, this study presents a
research methodology based on the TOE framework and DOI theory in order to gain an
insight deeper into the success variables influencing AI adoption at the organizational level.
This study categorizes success variables into three categories of artificial intelligence, which
is included technological context, organizational context, and external environment. As
shown in Figure 1, compatibility, relative advantage, and complexity are all factors in the
category of technological features of AI. The organizational context category includes the
following variables: managerial support, organizational size, managerial capability, and
organizational readiness. External environment factors include government involvement,
market uncertainly, competitive pressure, and vendor partnerships. This section proposes
a framework for the modified technology acceptance model to aid in characterizing the
study’s existing research problem and implementing a research model.

Figure 1. Research model.

Economies 2022, 10, 129 5 of 16

3.1. Technological Context

From a technological perspective, technology demonstrates the important components
in AI decision-making. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effect of innovative
traits on the innovation process Chau and Tam (1997); Kwon and Zmud (1987). Although
Rogers (1995) lists five qualities of innovation in DOI theory, namely compatibility, relative
advantage, complexity, trialability, and observability, only the first three are reliably associ-
ated with innovation adoption at the organizational level Tornatzky et al. (1990); Wu et al.
(2007).
Technical Compatibility: technical compatibility is a critical factor in determining
whether an innovation gets adopted Azadegan and Teich (2010); Chong and Bauer (2000);
Dedrick and West (2004); Oliveira et al. (2014). It refers to the extent to which an innovation
and its capacity to deliver value and experience while satisfying the requirements of
potential users are compatible Rogers (1995). Compatibility on a high level can result in
better adoption. Artificial intelligence applications, particularly machine learning, require
vast amounts of data Ding et al. (2015). If AI technology is compatible with existing IT
environments, its installation is likely to be less expensive and time-consuming. As a result,
AI may be more readily adopted. As a result, the following hypothesis is formed.

H1a Technical compatibility is significantly and positively related to AI applications adoption.

Relative Advantage: the relative advantage of an innovation is the degree to which

it is seen as being superior to the strategy it substitutes Yang et al. (2013). Plessis and
Smuts (2021) emphasizes that an organization’s propensity to adopt new technology is
influenced by the perceived advantage of innovation. As a result, new technologies
that provide unambiguous benefits in terms of strategic and operational effectiveness
are more likely to be accepted Greenhalgh et al. (2004). Recently, AI has been used in
customer service chatbots, customer-facing speech and voice services, and automated
network operation El Khatib et al. (2019). These applications help businesses cut operational
expenses, improve service quality, enhance client experiences, and increase efficiency. This
leads to the following hypothesis:

H1b Relative advantage is significantly and positively related to AI applications adoption.

Technical Complexity: the technical complexity of an innovation represents the ex-

tent to which it is considered as being comparatively difficult to comprehend and use
Yang et al. (2013). The complexity of AI stems from its lack of maturity, a lack of techno-
logical competence and IT specialists, as well as its lengthy development period and high
cost. Attewell (1992) observes that enterprises postpone in-house adoption of a complex
technology until they have accumulated sufficient technical knowledge to successfully
deploy and operate it. Currently, AI is relatively new to many businesses, which lack a
good comprehension of AI applications. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H1c Technical complexity is significantly and negatively related to AI applications adoption.

3.2. Organizational Context

Organizational capabilities encompass the leadership, management, and managerial
support resources available to facilitate an innovation’s adoption. These qualities are
typically organization-specific, non-transferable, and ingrained inside an organization.
The resource-based view (RBV) theory can be used to determine which organizational
competencies contribute to AI adoption. According to RBV, corporations gain a competitive
edge by combining economically valued, difficult to copy, and nontransferable resources
Garrison et al. (2015); Hannan and Mcdowell (1984).
Managerial Support: managerial support is crucial for any significant organizational
transformation because it directs resource allocation and service integration Co et al. (1998).
Economies 2022, 10, 129 6 of 16

Scholars have discovered that managerial support is critical for both the implementation of
information systems Müller and Jugdev (2012); Nah et al. (2001); Sanders and Courtney
(1985) and the acceptance of information technology Chong et al. (2009); Kim et al. (2015);
Teo et al. (2006). Elbanna (2013) contends that managerial support must be consistent and
continuous throughout the duration of a project’s implementation, or even the project
would fail. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2a Managerial support is significantly and positively related to AI applications adoption.

Managerial Capability: the term “managerial capability” refers to a manager’s ability

to influence, motivate, and empower employees to contribute to the organization’s perfor-
mance and success House et al. (2002). It entails decision-making, establishing a strong
workplace and culture, efficiently accomplishing goals and objectives, and cultivating
creativity and innovation. In the area of information technology, managerial competency
encompasses both project coordination and education & training. Firms with good manage-
ment capabilities can overcome these impediments and quickly adopt new technologies.
As a result, the business may quickly implement AI technologies and boost its performance,
gaining a competitive edge. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2b Managerial capabilities are significantly and positively related to AI applications adoption.

Organization Size: Lin and Lin (2008) the size of an organization has a significant
impact on its ability to accept new innovations. Numerous studies have discovered that
large organizations invest in AI more quickly and at a greater scale than other forms of
investments. We propose that organization size is related to the organizational context,
which has a direct impact on AI adoption. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2c Organizations size is significantly and positively related to AI applications adoption.

Organizational Readiness: organizational readiness is also important when it comes

to adopting AI. According to a Narrative Science survey, 59 percent of firms that are
proficient in big data also use AI technologies Assael (1995). As previously mentioned, AI
adoption implementations are related not only to the organization’s technical readiness but
also to the skill of its people resources. As a result, we believe that the availability of AI
expertise, data required to train personnel in the use of AI, and technical understanding
promotes the spread of AI. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2d Organizational readiness are significantly and positively related to AI applications adoption.

3.3. Environmental Context

The role of institutional contexts in defining organizational structure and behaviors
is emphasized by institutional theory Scott (2008). Firms are influenced by their external
environment, according to Hutajulu et al. (2021). As a result, organizational decisions
are influenced not just by rational efficiency goals, but also by social and cultural issues,
as well as concerns about legitimacy. The external environment can both induce and
dissuade enterprises from adopting new technologies. External isomorphic pressures from
the government, competitors, and customers are likely to drive firms to adopt and use AI
Gibbs and Kraemer (2004).
Government Involvement: government involvement is critical in promoting IT in-
novation Wang et al. (2022). The government could implement supportive strategies and
policies to encourage the commercialization of new technology, as well as new rules for
their development. According to Al-Hawamdeh and Alshaer (2022), the adoption of new
technology is a complex process, and the framework established by the government is
extremely important. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Economies 2022, 10, 129 7 of 16

H3a Government involvement is significantly and positively related to AI applications adoption.

Market Uncertainty: market uncertainty factors, such as product demand, market

competition, and consumer loyalty, are beyond the control of enterprises but can have
an impact on their performance Hao et al. (2018). Many AI applications and applications
are still in their infancy at the moment, and there is a scarcity of suitable professional
and technical experts, but AI has already demonstrated significant vitality and provides
enterprises with additional competitive prospects. In addition, some complicated activities,
such as fingerprint identification and fact detection, are only suitable of being performed
by AI programs. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H3b Market uncertainty is significantly and positively related to AI applications adoption.

Competitive Pressure: competitive pressure is a motivator for technological innova-

tion. Adopting new technology is frequently a strategic necessity in order to compete in the
market Dutton (2018); Lippert (2006). Firms’ competitive advantages are not permanent
and long-lasting, but rather transient. According to Porter and Millar (1985), IT innovation
can change industry structure, change competition rules, exploit new approaches to out-
perform rivals, and transform the competitive environment. Firms who successfully use
emerging AI applications to improve their products and services will gain a competitive
advantage over their rivals. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H3c Competitive pressure is significantly and positively related to AI applications adoption.

Vendor Partnership: According to Assael (1995), vendor participation can consider-

ably influence the rate of adoption and diffusion of innovative products. Vendors require a
massive quantity of data to train their AI technologies, which frequently include sensitive
consumer information. As a result, vendors are frequently unable to market AI solutions
that are ready to use; instead, they must collaborate closely with businesses (their clients) to
do AI training both during and after deployment. Partnerships between vendors can have
a significant impact on the AI adoption process. As a result, AI providers can effectively
sell AI applications. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H3d Vendor partnership is significantly and positively related to AI applications adoption.

4. Research Methodology
4.1. Sample and Data Collection
For empirically testing the suggested framework, we first conducted a thorough review
of the literature, followed by a quantitative approach that collected data via a survey. A
detailed analysis of scholarly works on technology readiness and AI was performed. Items
accepted and tested in earlier studies were utilized to assist cumulative research Ahmadi
et al. (2015); Cruz-Jesus et al. (2017); Lai (2017). Items assessing management hurdles and
organizational preparedness factors were created specifically for this study by taking earlier
research into account Picoto et al. (2014); Wright et al. (2017). To the best of our knowledge,
despite the fact that the TOE has been employed in multiple IT adoptions at the company
level, none of the constructs used in these studies were focused on AI adoption. As a result,
a pre-test survey was conducted to check that the items were appropriate for evaluating
framework dimensions in the context of this study.
In order to reach a wide number of possible participants, this study conducted a mail
survey of significant Vietnamese enterprises. To verify content validity, the questionnaire
items were changed based on the results of the expert interviews and polished by thorough
pre-testing. Eleven constructs (Compatibility, Relative advantage, Complexity, Managerial
support, Organization size, Managerial capability, Organizational readiness, Government
involvement, Market uncertainty, Competitive pressure, and Vendor partnership) were
operationalized as indicators of a total of 37 items. To measure these items and collect most
Economies 2022, 10, 129 8 of 16

responses, a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “I strongly agree“ (7 points) to “I strongly
disagree” (1 point) is utilized. Senior managers, particularly those directly in charge of
information systems in both private and public companies in Vietnam, are the intended
participants. The goal was to recruit a representative sample of Vietnamese industry from
a wide range of levels, backgrounds, gender and age groups, and geographical areas.
The usage of the LinkedIn.com database gives advantages such as the ability to reach a
big number of respondents with extremely diversified characteristics such as position,
educational level, and geographical location within Vietnam, allowing the results to be
more generalizable. In total, 500 invitations were sent to all industries in Vietnam. The total
number of LinkedIn responses was 203, with 10 missing data points. By excluding these
responses, the number of valid responses was reduced to 193, which is still suitable as a
valid sample for informing the quantitative analysis Chen (2018).

4.2. Data Analysis

To investigate sample data and assess model fit, this study employs structural equation
modeling (SEM). SEM is a technique for performing high-quality statistical analysis on mul-
tivariate data that was developed in the second generation Chin and Marcolin (1995). SEM is
carried out using Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS), a covariance-based technique for
analyzing models incorporating variables with measurement error Gefen and Straub (2000). To
analyze factor analysis and idea linkages, the study employs a combination of multivariate and
regression analysis. SmartPLS 3.3 is used in this work to examine the measurement model and
structural model. The measurement model depicts the relationships between constructs (latent
variables) and their indicators (observed variables), whereas the structural model depicts the
latent variables’ potential causal relationships Chin et al. (2003).

5. Results
5.1. The Measurement Model
The measurement model’s adequacy is determined by examining the reliability of
individual items, construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the
measuring instrument. In the proposed model, eleven latent constructs (factors) and associ-
ated observable variables (indicators) are measured. Then, a factor analysis is performed to
discover and corroborate the indicators under each construct about AI adoption success
factors. Some signs are eliminated because their factor loadings are too low (0.4) or they
are part of crossing loadings. The KMO coefficient is 0.829 (more than 0.5). The outcome of
Bartlett’s testing (Sig. = 0.000) suggests that the factors analysis is appropriate. From the
37 observation variables, eleven factors are extracted. The extracted variance is 72.168 per-
cent (more than 50%). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results show that all routes
connecting the remaining observable variables and the constructs are significant at p <
0.001. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the percentage of extracted variance explains a
model’s construct validity. The overall variance explained by each indicator ranges between
50% and 80%. Table 1 displays the Cronbach’s alpha (CA) value for each construct. They are
all greater than 0.7, the usually accepted cutoff Kline (2013). The internal consistency of the
scales is measured by composite reliability (CR). It is a more precise measure of dependability
Chin and Gopal (1995). For developing appropriate model reliability, the recommended value
of CR is 0.7 Gefen and Straub (2000). All of the CR values for each construct are more than the
threshold. As a result, the model’s build reliability is established. Convergent validity measures
the consistency of many items. The Average Variance Extracted is used to calculate it (AVE).
Table 2 represents the AVE values for each construct. They are all greater than the acceptable
cutoff of 0.50 Fornell and Larcker (1981). This suggests that the latent constructs capture at
least 50% of the measurement variation of the indicators on average Chin and Gopal (1995).
Furthermore, all computed standard loadings are statistically significant at p < 0.001, which is
greater than the allowed magnitude of 0.50 Chin and Marcolin (1995). As a result, the model’s
measurements show significant convergent validity.
Economies 2022, 10, 129 9 of 16

Table 1. Items and descriptive statistics.

Critical Sub-Critical Code CA R-Square Loading

Technical compatibility CPA 0.926
CPA1 0.753 0.868 ***
CPA2 0.791 0.890 ***
CPA3 0.837 0.915 ***
CPA4 0.755 0.869 ***
Relative advantage RAD 0.935
RAD1 0.549 0.741 ***
Technological context RAD2 0.548 0.740 ***
RAD3 0.695 0.834 ***
RAD4 0.725 0.851 ***
Technical complexity CPL 0.831
CPL1 0.744 0.863 ***
CPL2 0.839 0.916 ***
CPL3 0.733 0.856 ***
CPL4 0.749 0.865 ***
Managerial support MSU 0.808
MSU1 0.708 0.841 ***
MSU2 0.681 0.825 ***
MSU3 0.716 0.846 ***
Managerial capability MCP 0.911
MCP1 0.751 0.866 ***
MCP2 0.812 0.901 ***
MCP3 0.696 0.834 ***
Organizational context
Organization size ORS 0.831
ORS1 0.596 0.702 ***
ORS2 0.689 0.816 ***
ORS3 0.682 0.866 ***
Organizational readiness ORE 0.869
ORE1 0.695 0.834 ***
ORE2 0.725 0.851 ***
ORE3 0.708 0.841 ***
ORE4 0.681 0.825 ***
Government involvement GIV 0.875
GIV1 0.716 0.689 ***
GIV2 0.602 0.825 ***
GIV3 0.735 0.789 ***
Market uncertainty MUC 0.892
MUC1 0.689 0.737 ***
MUC2 0.682 0.896 ***
External environment MUC3 0.593 0.744 ***
Competitive pressure CPR 0.901
CPR1 0.786 0.769 ***
CPR2 0.753 0.920 ***
Vendor partnership VPA 0.809
VPA1 0.493 0.702 ***
VPA2 0.786 0.887 ***
VPA3 0.753 0.868 ***
VPA4 0.787 0.887 ***
Note: *** indicates significant at 1% level of significance based on t-statistics.
Economies 2022, 10, 129 10 of 16

Table 2. Result of measurement model.

Construct Composite Reliability (CR) Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Technical compatibility (CPA) 0.926 1.155 0.757
Relative advantage (RAD) 0.936 2.659 0.784
Technical complexity (CPL) 0.841 1.741 0.641
Managerial support (MSU) 0.929 1.275 0.766
Managerial capability (MCP) 0.813 1.546 0.593
Organization size (ORS) 0.901 2.293 0.752
Organizational readiness (ORE) 0.837 1.522 0.633
Government involvement (GIV) 0.871 2.205 0.629
Market uncertainty (MUC) 0.876 2.326 0.701
Competitive pressure (CPR) 0.852 2.490 0.677
Vendor partnership (VPA) 0.904 1.755 0.705

The Fornell–Larcker criterion is used to determine the discriminant validity of con-

structs, which states that the square root of AVE should be greater than the correlations
between the components Fornell and Larcker (1981). As illustrated in Table 2, the square
root of the AVE of each latent construct, which is bolded on the diagonal, is greater than
the correlations between the latent constructs in the corresponding columns and rows. As
a result, the constructs’ discriminant validity is established. Additionally, the inter-item
correlations are all less than 0.90 Bagozzi et al. (1991), demonstrating that each concept is
different. While certain constructs have a marginally low level of construct validity, the
majority of constructions have adequate levels of validity and reliability. Thus, the model’s
constructs’ validity and reliability are established.
Multicollinearity occurs when there is a significant degree of correlation between predictor
variables, resulting in unreliable and unstable regression coefficient estimations. The variance
inflation factor (VIF), which is defined as the amount by which the standard error increases
due to collinearity, is used to diagnose multicollinearity. Examining the correlation table for
indications of multicollinearity amongst the eleven latent variables (Table 2) reveals that all VIF
with latent variable scores are less than the threshold value of 5.0 Tabri and Elliott (2012). VIF
values vary from 1.155 to 2.659, as shown in (Table 3) This indicates that the predictor variables
are not multicollinear.

Table 3. Latent variable correlations.

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
CPA 0.883
RAD 0.720 ** 0.895
CPL 0.311 ** 0.323 ** 0.823
MSU −0.441 ** −0.329 ** −0.108 0.866
MCP 0.192 ** 0.289 ** 0.442 ** 0.018 0.791
ORS 0.512 ** 0.571 ** 0.535 ** −0.211 ** 0.379 ** 0.876
ORE 0.259 ** 0.258 ** 0.545 ** −0.07 0.463 ** 0.411 ** 0.785
GIV 0.541 ** 0.590 ** 0.504 ** −0.144 * 0.404 ** 0.591 ** 0.443 ** 0.802
MUC 0.576 ** 0.669 ** 0.390 ** −0.281 ** 0.270 ** 0.585 ** 0.296 ** 0.544 ** 0.835
CPR 0.644 ** 0.688 ** 0.312 ** −0.264 ** 0.283 ** 0.547 ** 0.286 ** 0.519 ** 0.654 ** 0.819
VPA 0.554 ** 0.568 ** 0.240 ** −0.285 ** 0.208 ** 0.476 ** 0.213 ** 0.379 ** 0.501 ** 0.601 ** 0.839
Note: Bold numbers on the diagonal are the square root of the AVE. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
(2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

5.2. Assessing the Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing

As validate the hypothesized relationships, an examination of the structural model was
conducted. The structural model was then evaluated using the structural equation model
SEM-PLS. The path coefficients, coefficient of determination, and predictive significance of
the measurement model were evaluated in order to examine and validate it. The method
Economies 2022, 10, 129 11 of 16

of path coefficients encapsulates the relationships between the constructions. As shown

in Table 4, 11 hypotheses (H1a, H1b, H1c, H2a, H2b, H2c, H2d, H3a, H3b, H3c, and H3d)
have significant paths leading to the endogenous variable, whereas two hypotheses (H2c,
and H3c) are rejected (path coefficients < 0.20). R2 is the coefficient of determination and
f2 denotes the size of variation explained by all external constructs in the endogenous
construct. In Leguina (2015), if the results of a value greater than 0.670 are considered
“substantial”, 0.330 are considered “moderate”, and 0.190 are considered “weak”. Our
findings indicate that the R2 value is 0.872, which indicates a high level of prediction
accuracy. Leguina (2015) finally defines f2 values greater than 0.35 as “high”, values
between 0.15 and 0.35 as “medium”, values between 0.02 and 0.15 as “low”, and values less
than 0.02 as “weak”. Our research found that the f2 of (CPA, ORE, MCP, and MSU) is high
and the f2 of OS is weak (less than 0.02); however, the f2 of CPR and GIV is less than 0.02.

Table 4. Hypothesis test results.

Hypothesis Paths Standard Path Coefficient (β) p-Value Results

H1a Technical compatibility —> AI adoption 0.803 *** Support
H1b Relative advantages —> AI adoption 0.157 0.019 ** Support
H1c Complexity —> AI adoption −0.223 *** Support
H2a Managerial support —> AI adoption 0.206 0.011 ** Support
H2b Managerial capability —> AI adoption 0.416 *** Support
H2c Organizational size —> AI adoption −0.028 0.703 Not support
H2d Organizational readiness —> AI adoption 0.758 *** Support
H3a Government involvement —> AI adoption −0.304 *** Support
H3b Market uncertainty —> AI adoption 0.149 0.047 ** Support
H3c Competitive pressures —> AI adoption 0.036 0.519 Not support
H3d Vendor partnerships —> AI adoption 0.113 0.048 ** Support
Note: *** and ** indicates significant at 1% and 5% level of significance based on t-statistics.

6. Discussion
The main aim of the study was to identify the critical factors affecting artificial in-
telligence application to adopt in Vietnam. To achieve the research objective, the study
focused on the TOE framework and DOI theory in order to gain an insight deeper into the
success variables influencing AI adoption at the organizational level. The study employed
Structural Equation Modeling is applied to analyze the data. The results indicate that man-
agerial capability is significantly related to innovation attributes of AI. Stronger managerial
capability creates a better IT environment for AI adoption and reduces the difficulty of
applying AI technologies. These results suggest that organizational size and competitive
pressure do not play a role in the process of AI adoption, but government involvement and
vendor partnership are critical factors for AI adoption. This means that good vendors and
supplier partnerships can help firms adopt AI and government involvement can influence
AI adoption. However, there is no positive relationship between AI adoption and market
uncertainty and competitive pressure, respectively.
Given that conceptual framework for AI acceptance is still in the early stages, one
goal of this study was to investigate AI adoption from an organizational standpoint. In
terms of organizational environment, the data show that managerial support is one of the
most powerful predictors of AI adoption. The findings of this study are consistent with
those of Leach (2021); Zhu and Kraemer (2005), who found that managerial assistance had
a considerable beneficial impact on new technology adoption. Furthermore, our findings
provide additional evidence of the importance that individuals play in AI adoption. The
importance of organizational preparedness implies that technological capabilities such as
technology infrastructure, data structure, and human capital are crucial in determining
whether or not a business adopts AI. According to the findings, organizations with a higher
level of preparation tend to achieve a higher level of AI adoption. Hence, one of the
characteristics of AI adopters is the attempt to develop hybrid capable abilities to support
Artificial Intelligence technologies. In the instance of Vietnamese organizations, this may
Economies 2022, 10, 129 12 of 16

be explained by implying that they may have held sufficient related expertise to overcome
AI obstacles.
Surprisingly, this study discovered that the relationship between organization size
and AI adoption was not statistically significant. These findings contradict those of
Walczak (2018), who discovered that organization size had a favorable effect on AI and
the adoption of innovative innovations. This could be explained by the rise of smaller
technology-inspired start-ups. Furthermore, large organizations may be hampered by
structural inertia as a result of having several levels of bureaucracy. According to the
findings of this study, AI adoption is not a phenomenon dominated by large organiza-
tions. Our findings show that using organization size as a significant factor to better
understand AI adoption is insufficient. This could be explained by the rise of smaller
technology-inspired start-ups.

7. Conclusions
This study is an early investigation of AI applications adoption at the organizational
level, incorporating well-established theories into a novel innovation. Our research pro-
vides a foundation for future research on why and how organizations use AI. It can be used
as a starting point for further study on AI adoption in various industries. This contribution
demonstrated the importance of offering guidance and tools for investigating the topic of
AI adoption. The levels of abstract idea provide an overview of potential study topics. Our
research makes significant contributions from both theoretical and practical perspectives,
as well as offering up exciting future research options. The current study provides different
insights into the underlying components that explain the AI-specific aspects that influence
an organization’s intention to adopt AI. This contribution begins with a definition of AI
from an IS and organizational standpoint. Furthermore, this study adds to the current
body of knowledge about technology adoption. To give an extended framework, this
study blends known theories and in-depth research literature in AI. As the literature study
demonstrated, little research has been conducted to identify what factors lead enterprises
to adopt AI. As a result, this study supports the organizational context and innovative
features that influence AI adoption. The findings confirm that IS theories (TOE and DOI)
as a theoretical underpinning, as embedded in the AI adoption framework, can provide a
more comprehensive understanding of successful AI adoption at the organizational level,
but it has some limitations. First, the study was conducted using data from Vietnamese
managers, which is a tiny sample size compared to the overall firm’s AI application adop-
tion. Therefore, the other elements such as the impact of government laws on AI adoption
may be the subject of future research. Subsequent research should examine these issues
and expand on the findings of this exploratory research to better understand the acceptance
of AI and their real application in Vietnam and other scenarios.

Funding: This research was funded by the Posts and Telecommunications Institute of Technology.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The author wishes to express their gratitude to the Posts and Telecommunica-
tions Institute of Technology, Vietnam, for financial support for this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Economies 2022, 10, 129 13 of 16

References
Agrawal, Ajay K., Joshua S. Gans and Avi Goldfarb. 2019. Economic policy for artificial intelligence. Innovation Policy and the
Economy 19: 139–59. [CrossRef]
Ahmadi, Hossein, Mehrbakhsh Nilashi, Othman Ibrahim, T. Ramayah, Mun Wai Wong, Mojtaba Alizadeh, Hosein Jafarkarimi, and
Alireza Almaee. 2015. Exploring Potential Factors in Total Hospital Information System Adoption. Journal of Soft Computing and
Decision Support Systems 2: 52–59.
Ajzen, Icek. 2012. The theory of planned behavior. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Los Angeles: SAGE, vol. 1, pp. 438–59.
Al-Hawamdeh, Majd Mohammed, and Sawan A. Alshaer. 2022. Artificial Intelligence Applications as a Modern Trend to Achieve
Organizational Innovation in Jordanian Commercial Banks. The Journal of Asian Finance 9: 257–63.
Alsamhi, Saeed Hamood, Ou Ma, and Mohd Samar Ansari. 2018. Artificial Intelligence-Based Techniques for Emerging Robotics
Communication: A Survey and Future Perspectives. Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management
72: 483–503. [CrossRef]
Alsheibani, Sulaiman, Yen Cheung, and Chris Messom. 2018. Artificial Intelligence Adoption: AI-readiness at Firm-Level. In
Proceedings of PACIS2018: Pacific Asia Conference in Information Systems (PACIS). Chicago: Association for Information Systems,
p. 37.
Assael, Henry. 1995. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Boston: Kent Pub. Co.
Attewell, Paul. 1992. Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning: The Case of Business Computing. Organization Science 3:
1–19. [CrossRef]
Azadegan, Arash, and Jeffrey Teich. 2010. Effective benchmarking of innovation adoptions: A theoretical framework for e-procurement
technologies. Benchmarking: An International Journal 17: 472–90. [CrossRef]
Bagozzi, Richard P., Youjae Yi, and Lynn W. Phillips. 1991. Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Administrative
Science Quarterly 36: 421–58. [CrossRef]
Brynjolfsson, Erik, and Andrew Mcafee. 2017. The business of artificial intelligence. In Harvard Business Review. Harvard, pp. 1–20.
Available online: https://hbr.org/2017/07/the-business-of-artificial-intelligence (accessed on 24 March 2022).
Chau, Patrick, and Kar Yan Tam. 1997. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Open Systems: An Exploratory Study. MIS Quarterly 21: 1–20.
[CrossRef]
Chen, Dong. 2018. Application of artificial intelligence technology in the visual communication design of shopping platform. Advances
in Intelligent Systems and Computing 613: 119–26.
Chin, Wynne W., and Abhijit Gopal. 1995. Adoption intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs. ACM SIGMIS Database 26: 42–64.
[CrossRef]
Chin, Wynne W., and Barbara L. Marcolin. 1995. The holistic approach to construct validation in IS research: Examples of the interplay
between theory and measurement. Paper presented at Administrative Sciences Association of Canada—23rd Annual Conference,
Montreal, Canada, QC, June 12–16. IS Proceedings. vol. 16, pp. 33–43.
Chin, Wynne W., Barbara L. Marcolin, and Peter R. Newsted. 2003. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for
measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study.
Information Systems Research 14: 189–217. [CrossRef]
Chong, Yee-Loong Alain, Binshan Lin, Keng-Boon Ooi, and Murali Raman. 2009. Factors affecting the adoption level of c-commerce:
An empirical study. Journal of Computer Information Systems 50: 13–22.
Chong, Sandy, and Christian Bauer. 2000. A model of factor influences on Electronic Commerce adoption and diffusion in small-and
medium-sized enterprises. Paper presented at Fourth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Hong Kong,
China, June 1–3. pp. 1–3.
Chua, Soon Ghee, and Nikolai Dobberstein. 2021. Racing toward the future artificial intelligence in Southeast. Available online: https:
//www.kearney.com/digital/article/-/insights/racing-toward-the-future-artificial-intelligence-in-southeast-asia (accessed
on 24 March 2022).
Co, Henry C., Eddy Patuwo, and Michael Y. Hu. 1998. The human factor in advanced manufacturing technology adoption: An
empirical analysis. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 18: 87–106. [CrossRef]
Cristiano, John J., Jeffrey K. Liker, and Chelsea C. White. 2001. Key factors in the successful application of quality function deployment
(QFD). IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48: 81–95. [CrossRef]
Cruz-Jesus, Frederico, Tiago Oliveira, Fernando Bacao, and Zahir Irani. 2017. Assessing the pattern between economic and digital
development of countries. Information Systems Frontiers 19: 835–54. [CrossRef]
Davenport, Thomas H., and Rajeev Ronanki. 2018. Artificial intelligence for the real world. Harvard Business Review 96: 108–16.
Davis, Fred D. 1985. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results.
Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, p. 291.
Davis, Fred D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly:
Management Information Systems 13: 319–39. [CrossRef]
Dedrick, Jason, and Joel West. 2004. An exploratory study into open source platform adoption. Paper presented at the 37th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, USA, January 5–8. pp. 4221–30.
Ding, Shifei, Han Zhao, Yanan Zhang, Xinzheng Xu, and Ru Nie. 2015. Extreme learning machine: Algorithm, theory and applications.
Artificial Intelligence Review 44: 103–15. [CrossRef]
Economies 2022, 10, 129 14 of 16

Dutton, Tim. 2018. An Overview of National AI Strategies. Available online: https://medium.com/politics-ai/an-overview-of-

national-ai-strategies-2a70ec6edfd (accessed on 24 March 2022).
Dwivedi, Yogesh K., Elvira Ismagilova, D. Laurie Hughes, Jamie Carlson, Raffaele Filieri, Jenna Jacobson, Varsha Jain, Heikki Karjaluoto,
Hajer Kefi, Anjala S. Krishen, and et al. 2021. Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and
research propositions. International Journal of Information Management 59: 102168. [CrossRef]
Elbanna, Amany. 2013. Top management support in multiple-project environments: An in-practice view. European Journal of Information
Systems 22: 278–94. [CrossRef]
Elliot, Bern, and Whit Andrews. 2017. A Framework for Applying AI in the Enterprise. Connecticut: Gartner, pp. 1–38.
El Khatib, Mounir M., Ahmed Al-Nakeeb, and Gouher Ahmed. 2019. Integration of Cloud Computing with Artificial Intelligence and
Its Impact on Telecom Sector—A Case Study. iBusiness 11: 1–10. [CrossRef]
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39. [CrossRef]
Garrison, Gary, Robin L. Wakefield, and Sanghyun Kim. 2015. The effects of IT capabilities and delivery model on cloud computing
success and firm performance for cloud supported processes and operations. International Journal of Information Management 35:
377–93. [CrossRef]
Gefen, David, and Detmar W. Straub. 2000. The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease of Use in IS Adoption: A Study of E-Commerce
Adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 1: 1–30. [CrossRef]
Gibbs, Jennifer L., and Kenneth L. Kraemer. 2004. A Cross-Country Investigation of the Determinants of Scope of E-commerce Use: An
Institutional Approach. Electronic Markets 14: 124–37. [CrossRef]
Greenhalgh, Trisha, Glenn Robert, Fraser Macfarlane, Paul Bate, and Olivia Kyriakidou. 2004. Diffusion of innovations in service
organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly 82: 581–629. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hannan, Timothy H., and John M. McDowell. 1984. The Determinants of Technology Adoption: The Case of the Banking Firm. The
RAND Journal of Economics 15: 328–35. [CrossRef]
Hao, Haijing, Rema Padman, Baohong Sun, and Rahul Telang. 2018. Quantifying the impact of social influence on the information
technology implementation process by physicians: A hierarchical Bayesian learning approach. Information Systems Research 29:
25–41. [CrossRef]
House, Robert, Mansour Javidan, Paul Hanges, and Peter Dorfman. 2002. Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories
across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business 37: 3–10. [CrossRef]
Hunter, Jane. 2018. Cover story: Artificial intelligence in school education: Are you ready for it? Education Technology Solutions 85:
28–30. 32.
Hutajulu, Richard S., Dewi Susita, and Anis Eliyana. 2021. The Effect of Digitalization and Virtual Leadership on Organizational
Innovation During the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis: A Case Study in Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and
Business 8: 57–64.
Iacovou, Charalambos L., Izak Benbasat, and Albert S. Dexter. 1995. Electronic data interchange and small organizations: Adoption
and impact of technology. MIS Quarterly 19: 465–85. [CrossRef]
Kim, Dong-Hwan, Jinsuhk Suh, and Kyung-Hye Park. 2015. An Empirical investigation on the determinants of smart water grid
adoption. Indian Journal of Science and Technology 8: 32–37. [CrossRef]
Kline, Paul. 2013. Handbook of Psychological Testing, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Kosaroglu, Mustafa, and Robert Alan Hunt. 2009. New product development projects and project manager skill sets in the
telecommunications industry. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 2: 308–17. [CrossRef]
Kouziokas, Georgios N. 2017. The application of artificial intelligence in public administration for forecasting high crime risk
transportation areas in urban environment. Transportation Research Procedia 24: 467–73. [CrossRef]
Kwon, Tae H., and Robert W. Zmud. 1987. Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. Critical Issues in
Information Systems Research 227–51. [CrossRef]
Lai, Poey Chin. 2017. The Literature Review of Technology Adoption Models and Theories for the Novelty Technology. Journal of
Information Systems and Technology Management 14: 38. [CrossRef]
Leach, Neil. 2021. Architecture in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Architecture in the Age of Artificial Intelligence 24: 1–10.
Leguina, Adrian. 2015. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). International Journal of Research &
Method in Education 38: 220–21.
Lin, Hsiu-Fen, and Szu-Mei Lin. 2008. Determinants of e-business diffusion: A test of the technology diffusion perspective.
Technovation 28: 135–45. [CrossRef]
Lippert, Susan K. 2006. Technological , Organizational , and Environmental Antecedents to Web Services Adoption. Communications of
the IIMA 6: 14.
Lu, June, Chun-Sheng Yu, Chang Liu, and James E. Yao. 2003. Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Research 13:
206–22. [CrossRef]
Lumsden, J. Ranald, and Anabel Gutierrez. 2013. Understanding the determinants of cloud computing adoption within the UK. Paper
presented at European, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems, Canterbury, UK, December 8–9.
pp. 1006–23.
Economies 2022, 10, 129 15 of 16

Macleish, Kenneth J. 1988. Mapping the Integration of Artificial Intelligence into Telecommunications. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications 6: 892–98. [CrossRef]
Mccarthy, John, and Patrick J. Hayes. 1981. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Readings in
Artificial Intelligence. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 431–50.
Mitka, Mike. 2012. Sustainable Growth Rate. JAMA 308: 558. [CrossRef]
Müller, Ralf, and Kam Jugdev. 2012. Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott—The elucidation of project success.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 5: 757–75. [CrossRef]
Nah, Fiona Fui-Hoon, Janet Lee-Shang Lau, and Jinghua Kuang. 2001. Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise
systems. Business Process Management Journal 7: 285–96.
Nguyen, Phuoc V., and Hiep X. Tran. 2019. Behavioural intention to accept mobile wallet: An empirical study of a developing country
perspective. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 12: 93–107.
Oliveira, Tiago, and Maria F. O. Martins. 2008. A Comparison of web site adoption in small and large portuguese firms. Paper
presented at ICE-B 2008—Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Business, Porto, Portugal, July 26–28. pp. 370–77.
Oliveira, Tiago, and Maria Fraga Martins. 2011. Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. The
Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation 14: 110–21.
Oliveira, Tiago, Manoj Thomas, and Mariana Espadanal. 2014. Assessing the determinants of cloud computing adoption: An analysis
of the manufacturing and services sectors. Information and Management 51: 497–510. [CrossRef]
Oliveira, Tiago, Ricardo Martins, Saonee Sarker, Manoj Thomas, and Ales Popovic. 2019. Understanding SaaS adoption: The
moderating impact of the environment context. International Journal of Information Management 49: 1–12. [CrossRef]
Picoto, Winnie Ng, France Bélanger, and António Palma-dos-Reis. 2014. An organizational perspective on m-business: Usage factors
and value determination. European Journal of Information Systems 23: 571–92. [CrossRef]
Plessis, Gustav du, and Hanlie Smuts. 2021. Leveraging the Human Factor to Improve Technological Adoption within an Organisation.
Paper presented at Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society, Galway, Ireland, September 1–3. pp. 318–29.
Porte, rMichael E., and Victor E. Millar. 1985. How information gives you competitive advantage. Harvard Buiness Review 63: 149.
Quaddus, Mohammed, and Jun Xu. 2005. Adoption and diffusion of knowledge management systems: Field studies of factors and
variables. Knowledge-Based Systems 18: 107–15. [CrossRef]
Ransbotham, Sam, David Kiron, Philipp Gerbert, and Martin Reeves.. 2017. Reshaping Business with Artificial Intelligence. MIT Sloan
Management Review 59: 1–18.
Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, vol. 12.
Rogers, Everett M. 2010. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Sanders, G. Lawrence, and James F. Courtney. 1985. A Field Study of Organizational Factors Influencing DSS Success. MIS Quarterly 9:
77–93. [CrossRef]
Schalkoff, Robert J. 1990. Artificial Intelligence Engine: An Engineering Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Scott, Richard W. 2008. Institutions and Organizations Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tabri, Nassim, and Corinna Marie Elliott. 2012. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Canadian Graduate Journal of
Sociology and Criminology 1: 59–60. [CrossRef]
Teo, Thompson S. H., Chandraskaren Ranganathan, and Jay Dhaliwal. 2006. Key Dimensions of Inhibitors for the Deployment
Commerce. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53: 395–411. [CrossRef]
Tornatzky, Louis G., Fleischer Mitchell, and Tansik A. David. 1990. The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Varian, Hal. 2018. Artificial intelligence, economics, and industrial organization. National Bureau of Economic Research. [CrossRef]
Venkatesh, Viswanath, Hillol Bala, and Vallabh Sambamurthy. 2016. Implementation of an information and communication technology
in a developing country: A multimethod longitudinal study in a bank in India. Information Systems Research 27: 558–79. [CrossRef]
Venkatesh, Viswanath, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology:
Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems 27: 425–78. [CrossRef]
Walczak, Steven. 2018. Artificial neural networks and other AI applications for business management decision support. In Intelligent
Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey: Information Resources Management Association, pp. 2047–71.
Wang, Haita, Xuhua Hu, and Najabat Ali. 2022. Spatial Characteristics and Driving Factors Toward the Digital Economy: Evidence
from Prefecture-Level Cities in China. The Journal of Asian Finance 9: 419–26.
Wang, Pan, Ricardo Valerdi, Shangming Zhou, and Ling Li. 2016. Introduction: Advances in IoT research and applications. Internet
Research 26. [CrossRef]
Wright, Ryan T., Nicholas Roberts, and David Wilson. 2017. The role of context in IT assimilation: A multi-method study of a SaaS
platform in the US nonprofit sector. European Journal of Information Systems 26: 509–39. [CrossRef]
Wu, Jen-Her, Shu-Ching Wang, and Li-Min Lin. 2007. Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: A structural
equation model. International Journal of Medical Informatics 76: 66–77. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Xu, Min, and Chuanhai Jia. 2021. Application of artificial intelligence technology in medical imaging. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series 2037: 012090. [CrossRef]
Economies 2022, 10, 129 16 of 16

Yang, Zhenbin, Atreyi Kankanhalli, Boon-Yuen Ng, and Justin Tuang Yong Lim. 2013. Analyzing the enabling factors for the
organizational decision to adopt healthcare information systems. Decision Support Systems 55: 764–76. [CrossRef]
Zhu, Kevin, and Kenneth L. Kraemer. 2005. Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: Crosscountry
evidence from the retail industry. Information Systems Research 16: 61–84. [CrossRef]