SoLoMo technology: exploring the most critical determinants of SoLoMo technology in the contemporary mobile communication technology era

  • Ming-Yuan Hsieh
Original Research


In order to investigate the developing trend of SoLoMo technology in the current mobile communication technology (MCT) era, this research cross-employs the, factor analysis approach, technology acceptance model and analytical network process model to construct the most effective evaluation model. In order to strengthen the research representativeness, this research hierarchically cross-measures the results of the first 268 valid questionnaires given to random technological users to detect the demands of numerous users and the second 15 valid surveyed questionnaires given to 15 experts in relative technological management fields to refine the evaluated results and conclusion. Contributively, the most three valuable findings are (1) Web 3.0 technology (W3) of perceived usefulness, technological appropriate format of perceived ease of use, user’s empathy of attitude toward using and user’s reliability of behavioral intention to use are the most influenced determinant of SoLoMo technology; (2) these determinants are the positive influences of external variables during users utilizing newest technology in the current MCT era (PIEV), testified by fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis method of qualitative analysis and (3) specifically, the interviewed questionnaires have further pointed out that the numerous users have not only focused on the diversified formats of information, multiple connection and media of Web 3.0 technology but also paid more attentions on the reliability and accuracy.


SoLoMo technology Mobile communication technology (MCT) Technology acceptance model (TAM) 


  1. Akyildiz IF, Xie J, Mohanty S (2004) A survey of mobility management in next-generation all-IP-based wireless systems. IEEE Wirel Commun 11(4):16–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson P (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Joint Information Systems Committee. Accessed 2007
  3. Barbarosoglu G, Yazgac T (1997) An application of the analytic hierarchy process to the supplier selection problem. Prod Inventory Manag J 38(1):14–21Google Scholar
  4. Basurto X (2013) Linking multi-level governance to local common-pool resource theory using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis: insights from twenty years of biodiversity conservation in Costa Rica. Glob Environ Change 23(3):573–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackman T (2013) Exploring explanations for local reductions in teenage pregnancy rates in England: an approach using qualitative comparative analysis. Soc Policy Soc 12(1):61–72MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloch PH, Brunel FF, Arnold TJ (2003) Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: concept and measurement. J Consum Res 29(4):551–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booker E (1995) AT&T using internal Web to test digital payments. Web Week 1(1):1–35Google Scholar
  8. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD (2010) The h index research output measurement: two approaches to enhance its accuracy. J Informetr 4(3):407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breen JP, Burgess S (2011) E-Services and Australian accounting practices. In: Scupola A (ed) developing technologies in e-Services, self-Services and mobile communication: new concepts. Information science reference, Hershey, Pa, pp 51–65Google Scholar
  10. Campbell DG (2006) A phenomenological framework for the relationship between the semantic web and user-centered tagging systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th ASIS&T classification research workshop, advances in classification research, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  11. Chae M, Kim J (2004) Do size and structure matter to mobile users? An empirical study of the effects of screen size, information structure, and task complexity on user activities with standard web phones. Behav Inf Technol 23(3):165–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen SJ (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision marketing—method and application. A state-of-the-art survey, vol 66. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–55Google Scholar
  13. Chen YP, Yang YH (2007) A new 4G architecture providing multimode terminals always best connected services. IEEE Wirel Commun 14(2):36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen SH, Lin HT, Lee HT (2004) Enterprise partner selection for vocational education: analytical network process. Int J Manpow 25(7):643–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen HH, Guizani M, Mohr W (2007) Evolution toward 4G wireless networking. IEEE Netw 21(1):4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Church K, Neumann J, Cherubini M, Oliver N (2010) Social search browser: a novel mobile search and information discovery tool. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, pp 101–110Google Scholar
  17. Cockburn C, Wilson TD (1996) Business use of the world wide web. Int J Inf Manag 16(2):19–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi: method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 9(3):458–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deutskens E, de Ruyter K, Wetzels M (2006) An assessment of equivalence between online and mail surveys in service research. J Ser Res 8(4):346–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diaz de Rada V (2005) Measure and control of non-response in a mail survey. Eur J Mark 39(1–2):16–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Economou D, Gavalas D, Kenteris M, Tsekouras GE (2008) Cultural applications for mobile devices: issues and requirements for authoring tools and development platforms. ACM SIGMOBILE Mob Comput Commun Rev 12(3):18–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Egghe L (2010) The Hirsch index and related impact measures. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol 44(1):65–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eroglu SA, Machleit KA, Davis LM (2003) Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychol Mark 20(2):139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eurostat, ICT Statistics (2010) Internet usage in 2008—community survey on ICT use by individuals and households. Accessed 2010
  25. Flavian C, Guinaliu M, Gurrea R (2006) The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Inf Manag 43(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flavian C, Gurrea R, Orus C (2009) The effect of product presentation mode on the perceived content and continent and continent quality of websites. Online Inf Rev 33(6):1003–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frattasi S, Gimmler A (2008) Potentials and limits of cooperation in wireless communications: toward 4G wireless. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 27(1):8–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fred DD (1993) User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions, and behavioral impacts. Int J Man Mach Stud 38(3):475–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N (2006) User experience: a research agenda. Behav Inf Technol 25(2):91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heba K, AI-Anazi A, Campbell C, AI-Faries A (2015) A combinatorial optimization algorithm for multiple cloud service composition. Comput Electr Eng 42:107–113. doi: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2014.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hui SY, Yeung KH (2003) Challenges in the migration to 4G mobile systems. IEEE Commun Mag 41(12):54–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ibrahim HG, Hamid RP, Herman RL (2008) Machine cell formation based on a new similarity coefficient. J Ind Syst Eng 1(4):318–344Google Scholar
  33. Kenteris M, Gavalas D, Economou D (2010) Electronic mobile guides: a survey. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 15(1):97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim HN et al (2012) Leveraging personal photos to inferring friendships in social network services. Expert Syst Appl 39(8):6955–6966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kipp ME (2006) Complementary or discrete contexts in online indexing? A comparison of user, creator, and intermediary keywords. Can J Inf Lib Sci 29(4):419–436Google Scholar
  36. Lee YW, Strong DM, Kahn BK, Wang RY (2002) AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Inf Manag 40(2):133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lu H, Hsiao KL (2009) Gender differences in reasons for frequent blog posting. Online Inf Rev 33(1):135–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manuel JS, Félix AM (2011) The interaction effects of ego involvement on the relationships between aesthetics, usability and commitment: an application to electronic banking services and virtual travel communities. Online Inf Rev 35(2):194–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marsh HW, Wen Z, Hau KT (2004) Structural equation models of latent interactions: evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychol Methods 9(3):275–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mathes A (2010) Folksonomies-cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. Accessed 2010
  41. Medelyan O, Witten I (2006) Measuring inter-indexer consistency using a thesaurus. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries, pp 274–275Google Scholar
  42. Medelyan O, Frank E, Witten IH (2013) Human-competitive tagging using automatic keyphrase extraction. In: Conference of empirical methods in natural language processing, EMNLP-2009. Accessed 2013
  43. Mendel JM, Korjani MM (2012) Charles Ragin’s fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) used for linguistic summarizations. Inf Sci 202(20):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Novak TP, Hoffman DL, Duhachek A (2003) The influence of global-directed and experiential activities on online flow experiences. J Consum Psychol 13(1–2):3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pak R, Pautz S, Iden R (2007) Information organization and retrieval: an assessment of taxonomical and tagging systems. Cogn Technol 12(1):31–44Google Scholar
  46. Park K (2014) Location-based grid-index for spatial query processing. Expert Syst Appl 41(4):1294–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Press L (1995) Commercialization of the Internet. Commun ACM 37(11):21–56Google Scholar
  48. Qiang Y, Chen L, Li B (2015) Ant colony optimization applied to web service compositions in cloud computing. Comput Electr Eng 41:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Qureshi I, Compeau D (2009) Assessing between-group differences in information systems research: a comparison of covariance and component-based SEM. MIS Q 33(1):99–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Romdhane et al (2013) A robust ant colony optimization-based algorithm for community mining in large scale oriented social graphs. Expert Syst Appl 40(14):5709–5718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saaty TL (1996) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  52. Saaty TL (1998) Multi-criteria decision making: the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  53. Sauer J, Sonderegger A (2009) The influence of prototype fidelity and aesthetics of design in usability tests: effects on user behaviour, subjective evaluation and emotion. Appl Ergon 40(4):670–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sharit J, Czaja SJ, Nair S, Lee CC (2003) Effects of age, speech rate, and environmental support in using telephone voice menu systems. Hum Factor 45(2):234–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sheppard AG (1996) The sequence of factor analysis and cluster analysis: differences in segmentation and dimensionality through the use of raw and factor scores. Tour Anal 1:49–57Google Scholar
  56. Spearman C (1927) Material versus abstract factors in correlation. Br J Psychol Gen Sect 17:322–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Styles C (2006) How web 2.0 will change history-possible futures for websites of the National Archives of Australia. Accessed 2006
  58. Tipping JW, Zeffren E, Fusfeld AR (1995) Assessing the value of your technology. Res Technol Manag 38(5):22–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van der Heijden H (2003) Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in The Netherlands. Inf Manag 40(6):541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang YJ, Hernandez MD, Minor MS (2009) Web aesthetics effects on perceived online service quality and satisfaction in an e-tail environment: the moderating role of purchase task. J Bus Res 63(9–10):935–942Google Scholar
  61. Zeng L, Salvendy G (2008) How creative is your website? In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics (AEI 2008), pp 1–10Google Scholar
  62. Zeng L, Salvendy G, Zhang M (2009) Factor structure of website creativity. Comput Hum Behav 25(2):568–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zheng Y et al (2011) Recommending friends and locations based on individual location history. ACM Trans Web 5(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International Business, National Taichung University of EducationTaichung CityTaiwan (ROC)

Personalised recommendations