Software-As-A-Service the Purpose of the Research Done

Software-as-A-Service

The purpose of the research done by Benlian and Hess (2011) was to examine software-as-a-service (SaaS) and see if it provides value to companies. There have been arguments that SaaS is already on the decline despite its newness. Most of these arguments come from those who feel that SaaS is not providing the value that it was designed to provide - mostly because of the difficulties with its deployment. With SaaS being so difficult, most companies end up spending too much on it. That can stop them from really getting value out of it. While they will get plenty of use from SaaS, the amount they spent based on the effort, time, and cost to set up and deploy SaaS can keep their value down. Benlian and Hess (2011) wanted to see the value that was being offered by SaaS in order to make determinations about SaaS' potential future in the IT industry.

The study was designed through the development of a research model (Benlian & Hess, 2011). The model was grounded in the framework of opportunity-risk, which is a part of the theory of reasoned action (Benlian & Hess, 2011). Then, 349 German IT executives were surveyed and the data from the surveys was analyzed (Benlian & Hess, 2011). The sample size was relatively small, but the design of the study was a strong one that was grounded in theory. The reasoned action theory addresses the idea that anything done has to be done after taking a look at the cost and benefit of that action (Benlian & Hess, 2011). The opportunities that are provided by SaaS would need to be greater than the risks involved with buying, implementing, and using it in order for SaaS to have value for the people (companies) that would purchase it for their IT needs (Benlian & Hess, 2011). If there was no value in SaaS, it would quickly die out in the marketplace.

The study was very valid. The main threats were not to the study, but to the adaptation and usage of SaaS itself. As for the study, there was no real threat to validity because the framework that was used by Benlian and Hess (2011) was sound and solid. It was the framework that would be used in any study of this type, and was what would be expected to be used by people such as the researchers based on what they were trying to discover. Benlian and Hess (2011) used the framework because it was the proper one for the study. The only threat to validity that could be discussed, and the only case that could be made against the study where validity is concerned, is that the sample size was not large. What was discovered to be true for a certain number of people out of a group of 349 could be very different if there was a much larger group. This is something that has to be pointed out in order to cover all of the concerns that could be raised with this particular study.