# Continuance Use of Cloud Computing in Higher Education Institutions: A Conceptual Model
## 7 Discussion and Conclusions  
The goal of this research paper was to propose a conceptual model that extends and contextualizes the IS continuance model to improve our understanding of the organizational level continuance of CC in HEIs. Drawing on the prior literature in organizational-level continuance (i.e., IS success and IS discontinuance models), the proposed research model extends the IS continuance model by the following constructs: net benefits, system quality, information quality, technical integration, system investment, collaboration, regulatory policy, and competitive pressure through the lens of TOE framework. The results of a pilot study, conducted through a survey with ICT decision makers, and based on the proposed conceptual model, indicate that the instrument is both reliable and valid, and therefore pave the way for further research. The pilot study's results lend valuable support to the model constructs and instrument in assessing CC continuance use at HEIs. Additionally, analysis with [PERSON]'s Alpha indicates that the model constructs have satisfactory reliability [238], while convergent and discriminant validity for each of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Redundancy Analysis, Assessing Multicollinearity, Significance and Contribution**} \\ \hline Net Benefits (formative) & VIF & \(t\)-values & Weights & Loadings \\ \hline NB1 & 3.615 & 0.604 & 0.125 & 0.633 \\ NB2 & 3.276 & 1.32 & 0.313 & 0.802 \\ NB3 & 6.695 & 1.653 & \(-\)0.489 & 0.648 \\ NB4 & 3.098 & 1.561 & 0.346 & 0.71 \\ NB5 & 2.202 & 1.618 & 0.23 & 0.535 \\ NB6 & 1.942 & 0.801 & 0.134 & 0.691 \\ NB7 & 5.617 & 1.785 & 0.608 & 0.876 \\ NB8 & 3.896 & 0.632 & 0.146 & 0.609 \\ NB9 & 3.236 & 0.988 & 0.214 & 0.641 \\ NB10 & 1.51 & 0.932 & 0.158 & 0.45 \\ NB11 & 6.653 & 1.149 & \(-\)0.391 & 0.721 \\ NB12 & 2.053 & 0.231 & \(-\)0.039 & 0.594 \\ Net Benefits (Reflective) & \(F^{2}\) & & & \\ Redundancy Analysis & 0.763 & & & \\ NB13 & & & & \\ \hline System Quality (formative) & VIF & \(t\)-values & Weights & Loadings \\ \hline SQ1 & 4.197 & 0.115 & \(-\)0.019 & 0.75 \\ SQ2 & 3.715 & 0.854 & 0.141 & 0.626 \\ SQ3 & 2.57 & 1.397 & 0.165 & 0.794 \\ SQ4 & 2.182 & 1.222 & 0.134 & 0.72 \\ SQ5 & 5.351 & 1.203 & 0.204 & 0.867 \\ SQ6 & 5.582 & 0.199 & \(-\)0.035 & 0.726 \\ SQ7 & 2.615 & 2.399 & 0.262 & 0.771 \\ SQ8 & 1.3 & 0.711 & \(-\)0.065 & 0.184 \\ SQ9 & 4.435 & 1.392 & 0.239 & 0.768 \\ SQ10 & 1.92 & 0.046 & 0.005 & 0.707 \\ SQ11 & 3.749 & 1.26 & 0.156 & 0.659 \\ SQ12 & 2.434 & 0.692 & 0.075 & 0.82 \\ System Quality (reflective) & \(F^{2}\) & & & \\ Redundancy Analysis & 0.784 & & & \\ SQ13 & & & & \\ \hline Information Quality (formative) & VIF & \(t\)-values & Weights & Loadings \\ \hline IQ1 & 3.122 & 0.366 & \(-\)0.079 & 0.664 \\ IQ2 & 3.232 & 0.995 & 0.228 & 0.874 \\ IQ3 & 2.84 & 1.569 & 0.348 & 0.839 \\ IQ4 & 3.78 & 1.787 & 0.436 & 0.874 \\ IQ5 & 4.753 & 0.838 & 0.219 & 0.831 \\ IQ6 & 2.928 & 0.017 & \(-\)0.004 & 0.727 \\ Information Quality (reflective) & \(F^{2}\) & & & \\ Redundancy Analysis & 0.884 & & & \\ IQ7 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Quantitative Assessment of Measurement Model (Formative). the constructs has been established using AVE and CR tests. Based on the feedback received from the pilot study's participants, as well as from the statistical analysis, a revised survey instrument was devised for the full-scale research. An assessment of the reflective measurement model was undertaken by computing internal consistency, discriminant validity, and convergent validity. In each case, the instrument was associated with satisfactory results. Formative measures were evaluated based on convergent validity, collinearity issues, and significance and relevance, revealing satisfactory performance in terms of convergent validity. As for collinearity issues, these were examined by computing the variance inflation factors (VIFs) for every indicator, most of which did not exceed the maximum threshold of 5 [242].