An Examination of The Factors Influencin

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATICS
AN EXAMINATION OF THE FACTORS INFLUENCING SOCIAL MEDIA

ADOPTION BY CORPORATE ORGANISATIONS IN KENYA.
BY
SAMMY SOITA GIMOI
P56/73481/2012
SUPERVISOR
Dr. Lawrence Muchemi
RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (MSC.IS) OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI.
DECLARATION
This research project is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any
other University.
Signature----------------------------- Date--------------------------
Sammy Soita Gimoi
P56/73481/2012
This research project report has been submitted for examination towards fulfilment for
the award of degree of Master of Science in Information Systems with my approval as the
University of Nairobi supervisor
Signature----------------------------- Date--------------------------
Dr.Lawrence Muchemi
ii
ABSTRACT
Social Media is transforming the way the world does business. Today the implications are
huge and the prizes are enormous for those businesses & individuals who handle it right.
However a few organizations in Kenya today can actually show tangible results on their
efforts on social media. Why? Most organizations jumped into the social media
bandwagon without a strategy, a budget to sustain it and a dedicated social media team.
This study sought to determine the factors which influence the adoption of social media
by corporate organisations in Kenya, to determine the extent to which these factors
influence adoption of social media in corporate organisations in Kenya and develop and
validate a model for social media adoption in corporate organisations in Kenya.
Various theories were reviewed in order to come up with the proposed model. These
models include Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
developed by Venkatesh et al (2003) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) derived
from the theory of reasoned action by Azjen and Fishbein (1980)
A survey was used to collect quantitative data for this research. The population of this
study comprised all the 60 companies listed in the Nairobi Securities Exchange as at 30th
June 2013. A sample size of 50% of the population (or 30 firms) was selected for this
study using simple random sampling technique. This study used primary data that was
collected through semi-structured questionnaires that were administered to the IT
managers of the corporate organisations in Kenya. The questionnaire contained questions
on social media adoption by the firms in order to ascertain the adoption extent, types of
social media adopted and the factors that influenced social media adoption in
organisations. Pilot tests were done to help examine the validity of the instrument after
which the instruments were amended accordingly.
During data collection, 27 out of the 30 questionnaires were collected. Various statistical
tools and protocols were used to analyse the collected data. SPSS 15 for windows was the
main tool used in this research. Various statistical approaches were used in the analysis
and these included: Factor analysis, Analysis of variance (ANOVA), descriptive statistics
and Regression.
The study found out that the most significant factor which influenced adoption of social
media is relative advantage. The results from the analysis above were used to develop a
framework that guides in determining the factors influencing social media adoption in
corporate organizations. This framework will be important to IT managers, corporate
organisations, policy makers, as well as researchers in technology and especially those
interested in studying social media. Corporate organisations will understand the value of
social media adoption to aid in communication purposes within the institutions as well as
with the outsiders. It will aid in coming up with appropriate models to adopt technology
and more specifically social media.
Keywords: Social Media, adoption, corporate organizations
iii
DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to my dear parents Mr and Mrs Wycliffe Gimoi.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My sincere gratitude goes to my project supervisor Dr. Lawrence Muchemi for his
invaluable guidance and support throughout the project. He not only guided me well, but
also showed very keen interest in the project work, and ensured I was on the right track
throughout.
The Employees of various corporate organizations that gave me their time for this
project, the time you gave through the filling in of questionnaires was truly invaluable
and I would like to say thank you very much.
My classmates were a great inspiration; the guidance through the testing of

questionnaires as well as the moral support is greatly appreciated.
My family will forever be in my heart for their support in every way. Above all, to God
be the Glory for thus far He has brought me. I am forever grateful.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION............................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... ix
1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ...................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Adoption of Social Media by Organisations ................................................. 1
1.1.2 Usage of Social Media by Organisations in Kenya ...................................... 4
1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................... 5
1.2 Research Objectives ............................................................................................. 6
1.4 Research Hypotheses............................................................................................ 7
1.5 Value of the Study ................................................................................................ 7
2. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 9
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................ 9
2.2.1 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) .............. 9
2.2.2 The Technology Acceptance Model ........................................................... 12
2.3 Empirical Review ............................................................................................... 14
2.4 Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................... 19
2.4.1 HYPOTHESIS ................................................................................................. 19
2.5 Summary ............................................................................................................ 20
3. CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY......................................................................... 21
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 21
3.2 Research Design ................................................................................................. 21
3.2.1 Population and Sample of Study .................................................................... 24
3.3 Pre-Test Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Missing Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 25
3.3.2 Outlier Analysis ................................................................................................... 26
3.3.3 Multivariate Normality Analysis ......................................................................... 28
vi
3.3.4 Profile of Organisations .................................................................................. 29
3.3.5 Number of Employees ..................................................................................... 30
3.4 Framework Design .................................................................................................. 32
3.4.1 Factor Analysis Process ....................................................................................... 33
3.4.2 Factor Extraction .............................................................................................. 35
3.4.3 Factor Rotation................................................................................................. 37
3.3.5 Resulting model ................................................................................................... 40
4. CHAPTER FOUR: MODEL VALIDATION ...................................................... 41
4.0 Evaluation Overview .............................................................................................. 41
4.1 Regression Analysis ................................................................................................ 41
4.9.1 Prerequisites for Regression Analysis.............................................................. 41
4.2 HYPOTHESIS TESTING ...................................................................................... 45
4.2.1Testing for direct effects ................................................................................... 45
4.2.2 Testing Moderating Variables .......................................................................... 50
4.2.3 Validated Model ............................................................................................... 51
4.2.4 Validated Model Discussion ............................................................................ 52
5. CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 53
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 53
5.3 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 56
5.4 Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................. 57
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 58
APPENDICEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................... 62
APPENDIX 2: SCATTER PLOTS................................................................................ 67
APPENDIX 3: HISTOGRAMS ..................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX 4: P-P PLOTS ............................................................................................ 67
APPENDIX 5: NSE COMPANIES SAMPLED ........................................................... 72
APPENDIX 6: COMPANIES LISTED IN THE NSE ................................................. 73
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) ................ 10
Figure 2.2 : Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ........................................................ 13
Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................... 19
Figure 3.1Normal Q-Q Plot for Mahalanobis Distance .................................................... 27
Figure 3.2: Ownership of Sampled Firms ......................................................................... 29
Figure 3.3: Ownership of Sampled Firms ......................................................................... 30
Figure 3.4: Number of employees .................................................................................... 30
Figure 3.5: Adoption of Social Media .............................................................................. 31
Figure 3.6: Social Media Platforms Used by Listed Companies in Kenya ...................... 32
Figure 3.7: Scree plot ........................................................................................................ 36
Figure 4.1: Validated Model ............................................................................................. 51
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Cronbach’s alpha .............................................................................................. 24
Table 3.2: Missing data analysis summary ....................................................................... 25
Table 3.3: Missing data analysis-detail ............................................................................. 26
Table 3.4: Case Processing Summary............................................................................... 27
Table 3.5: Extreme Values ................................................................................................ 27
Table 3.6: Normality Analysis .......................................................................................... 28
Table 3.7: KMO and Bartlett's Test .................................................................................. 34
Table 3.8: Reliability Statistics ......................................................................................... 34
Table 3.9: Factor Extraction ............................................................................................. 35
Table 3.10: Varimax rotation ............................................................................................ 37
Table 3.11: Factor rotation scale ....................................................................................... 38
Table 3.12: Component Matrix (a) SPLIT 1 ..................................................................... 39
Table 3.13: Rotated Component Matrix (a) - SPLIT 2 ..................................................... 39
Table 4.1: Durbin-Watson Values .................................................................................... 42
Table 4.2: Condition index values .................................................................................... 43
Table 4.3: Tolerance values. ............................................................................................. 44
Table 4.4a: Tolerance values. ........................................................................................... 45
Table 4.5: Relative advantage Model Summary ............................................................... 46
Table 4.6: Relative advantage Analysis of variance (ANOVA) ....................................... 46
Table 4.7: Relative advantage Coefficients ...................................................................... 46
ix
Table 4.8: Compatibility Model Summary ....................................................................... 47
Table 4.9: Compatibility Analysis of variance (ANOVA) ............................................... 47
Table 4.10: Compatibility Coefficients............................................................................. 47
Table 4.11: Perceived Risk Model Summary ................................................................... 47
Table 4.12: Perceived Risk Analysis of variance (ANOVA) ........................................... 48
Table 4.13: Perceived Risk Coefficients ........................................................................... 48
Table 4.14: Observability Model Summary...................................................................... 48
Table 4.15: Observability Analysis of variance (ANOVA).............................................. 48
Table 4.16: Observability Coefficients ............................................................................. 49
Table 4.17: Summary of Coefficients ............................................................................... 49
x
1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Social media is “the internet and mobile technology based channels of communication in
which people share content with each other. Examples are social networking sites such as
Facebook and Twitter.” (Financial Times Lexicon, 2011). Social media can offer business
advantages for both private companies and government agencies. Organizations can use
this media to reach out to mass audiences efficiently and at very low cost. They can
promote brand awareness in many different markets. They can also network with current
and potential customers. A dichotomy exists between companies that have embraced the
promise of this new technology and those that mostly avoid it. In a 2009 survey of
companies that participate in online social media communities, 70 percent of respondents
reported using social media of some kind in their businesses. Over 40 percent of such
companies had employees whose job function included spending time on social media sites
in order to maintain an organizational presence. More than a quarter of these companies
maintained social media sites for employees’ personal announcements and social events.
Fewer than ten percent blocked access to social media for any employees.
Social media can have tremendous benefits but also can have serious security risks for
organizations. Two of the greatest risks to organizations are malware and inadvertent
disclosure of sensitive information (Waxer, 2011). The security risks are often cited by
companies as a reason they do not allow social media use. Seventy-two percent of
companies believe employees’ use of social media poses a threat to their organizations
(Schroeder, 2010). Their concerns are justified. According to a report by Sophos, the
incidence of malware is increasing on the most popular social media sites including
Twitter, MySpace, Facebook and LinkedIn (Sophos, 2010). In 2010, 57% of users reported
they received spam via social media sites, an increase of 70.6% compared to the previous
year. Additionally, 36% of users report they were sent malware via social media sites, a
rise of 69.8% over 2009 (Schroeder, 2010).
1.1.1 Adoption of Social Media by Organisations
Recently, numerous publications have suggested that social media technologies: blogs,
wikis, social networking sites (SNS), micro blogs, or social tagging tools, may facilitate
1
communication practices in organizations that differ from those associated with traditional
computer mediated communication (CMC) technologies like e-mail, teleconferencing,
intranets, decision-support systems, and instant messaging (Grudin, 2006; McAfee, 2006;
Steinhuser, Smolnik, & Hoppe, 2011). In addition to the scholarly literature on the role of
social media use in organizations, the business press has issued a number of bold
proclamations such as: “Social media will change your business” (Baker & Green, 2008)
and asked such daring questions as: “Can social apps kill enterprise software?”. Whether or
not one believes or discounts such statements, social media adoption within organizations
is occurring at a rapid pace. According to a survey by global consulting firm McKinsey,
65% of companies reported the use of Web 2.0 technologies in their organizations.
Social networking sites encourage businesses to change their traditional marketing

strategies and focus on talking prospects and clients, with the goal of developing and
“deepening the relationship” between the company and customer. But what’s the business
benefit of that deepened relationship? When prospects grow to “know, like, and trust” a
company, through interacting with their representatives on social networking sites, they are
much more likely to do business with that company.
It is well-established that people feel more connected with a company when they have
direct communication on an ongoing basis and opportunities to express their opinions,”
commented Lisa Brown, in an article about the use of social media risks in business.
Indeed, social networking conversations create a level of immediacy and a kind of public
intimacy that is impossible with traditional marketing. And since most large or medium-
size companies are perceived by the public as relatively “faceless,” social networking gives
companies the opportunity to present a human face in the form of a social media
spokesperson -- an individual who can nurture person-to-person conversations which builds
trust in the company’s authenticity as well as its professionalism.
The importance of social media tools in the today’s business environment has gained
importance due to the increasing complexity of the global business setting which involves
global co-workers, customers and suppliers. Business processes have become so complex
that they must be automated because employees can no longer perform all the tasks
required in the time available. ‘None of us can work in a vacuum in today’s world; we must
2
work with one another to get things done. Organizations today are constantly facing the
challenge of contextualizing this phenomenon and its effects on the employees’ ability to
perform duties assigned to them and the ability to draw boundaries between personal and
professional use of organizational information technology resource. Wasting time through
internet activities is simple and it is a huge hidden cost to business. If the company has an
eight-person department and each of them spends an hour a day on the above activities, that
is a whole employee wasted
A recent McKinsey study surveyed organizations on how they use "social tools and
technologies", which include social networking and social media technologies. The survey
showed that business use of these platforms has increased steadily since 2008 (when
McKinsey first started quizzing companies on these issues). Likewise, business use of
"microblogging" tools (such as Twitter, the popular social media platform) has increased
(Bughin, et al., 2011). Beyond figures on adoption, the McKinsey survey also explored
how companies are using these technologies. The survey found that, while the uses of
social networking technologies vary fairly widely, they are mostly applied in externally
focused processes such as gathering market intelligence and supporting marketing efforts.
Internal use of these technologies appears to be less common among those companies
surveyed.
The emergence of Internet-based social media has started a new kind of conversation
among consumers and companies, challenging traditional ideas about marketing and brand
management while creating new opportunities for organizations to understand customers
and connect with them instantly. The proliferation of social media channels is mind-
boggling. Publishing tools like TypePad and WordPress offer any company or customer the
chance to write a blog, while micro-blogging on Twitter allows a rapid-fire stream of real-
time commentary, complaints, and recommendations. Social networking sites like
Facebook and LinkedIn bring together friends, fans, and detractors, while wikis and social
news sites like Delicious and Digg quickly move links and ideas around the Web.
Customers planning a vacation, a meal, or a haircut can turn to customer review sites like
Trip Advisor and Yelp. Meanwhile, on multimedia sites like YouTube, companies can post
promotional clips, while disgruntled consumers can capture scenes of poor service or
damaged products on their iPhones and quickly upload the video.
3
The growth in use of these channels is equally astounding. Twitter reached a benchmark of
50 million tweets this year. Facebook has over 500 million worldwide users, and based on
current growth rates, projects one billion total users by 2011. The average amount of time
spent on social networking sites increased 82% last year. And it is not just a phenomenon
among the young: according to Forrester research, a third of adults post at least once a
week to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and about 70% read blogs
and tweets, and watch YouTube. Never before have had companies had the opportunity to
talk to millions of customers, send out messages, get fast feedback, and experiment with
offers at relatively low costs. And never before have millions of consumers had the ability
to talk to each other, criticizing or recommending products without the knowledge or input
from a company. Conventional marketing wisdom long held that a dissatisfied customer
tells ten people. But in the new age of social media, he or she has the tools to tell ten
million.
1.1.2 Usage of Social Media by Organisations in Kenya
Social Media is transforming the way the world does business. Today the implications are
huge and the prizes are enormous for those businesses & individuals who handle it right.
However a few organizations in Kenya today can actually show tangible results on their
efforts on social media. Why? Most organizations jumped into the social media bandwagon
without a strategy, a budget to sustain it and a dedicated social media team! Social media
marketing eliminates the middlemen, providing brands the unique opportunity to have a
direct relationship with their customers (Mwambui, 2010).
Social networking has become integral to the lives of many. Users of social media in
Kenya represent the most influential and economically able section of the population
(customers, clients, prospects, suppliers etc.). The proliferation of mobile phone, affordable
smart phones and notebooks in the country completely changes the when, where and how
brands connect and interact with their communities online. Today people no longer search
for news, content and information. Instead friends and followers continually push them to
each other on social media. This growth of social media in business and communication in
Kenya presents an opportunity as well as a serious risk to any business. However whether
4
or not an organisation is active doing the right thing on social media the conversation goes
on with or without it (Munene and Nyaribo, 2013).
Kenyans are amongst the most active online audiences in sub-Saharan Africa: Estimates
indicate that there are more than a million Kenyans on Facebook and just under 70,000
(active accounts) on Twitter. Social media usage has benefitted from rapidly growing
internet access, especially as increasing numbers of people use mobile phones for this
purpose. Kenya already has a mobile penetration rate of around 50%, and the prices for
smartphones keep falling, as do the data tariffs offered by mobile telecommunication
companies: Safaricom currently offers virtually unlimited mobile internet access for
KES10 a day, Yu’s Peperusha service allows people to access the internet via SMS, i.e.
users do not even need a smartphone anymore to use Twitter, and Orange offer 50MB for
KES50 a week (Munene and Nyaribo, 2013).
Social networks are quickly becoming a key source of information for urban Kenyans. As a
consequence, in addition to straightforward online advertising, corporate also need to be
aware of how they can use the digital chatter space: to provide information about their
goods and services, to build their brand, and also to counteract mentions on online media
that are detrimental to their image (Munene and Nyaribo, 2013).
1.2 Problem Statement
The use of social media technologies such as blogs, wikis, social networking sites, social
tagging, and microblogging is proliferating at an incredible pace. Social media adoption
within organizations is occurring at a rapid pace. According to a survey by global
consulting firm McKinsey, 65% of companies reported the use of Web 2.0 technologies in
their organizations (Bughin & Chui, 2010). Forrester Research predicted that corporate
spending on enterprise social media would reach more than $4.6 billion annually by 2013
(Young et al., 2008).
Yet despite the increased adoption of social media by firms, the implications of these new
technologies for organizational processes are not yet well understood by communication
researchers. Scholars have suggested that social media adoption in organizations is
outpacing empirical understanding of the use of these technologies and our theories about
5
why they may alter various organizational processes (Raeth, Smolnik, Urbach, & Zimmer,
2009)
However, scholarship has largely failed to explain the adoption and usage of social media
in developing countries especially Kenya, where technology adoption is generally low but
rising. Because the implications of social media use in organizations are not well
understood.
A few studies on the use of social media by corporate organisations have been carried out
in the Kenyan context. Okolloh (2009) carried out a study on Ushahidi, or 'testimony' on
Web 2.0 tools for crowd-sourcing crisis information. Mwambui (2010) carried out a study
on Leveraging social media for fundraising in Kenya. Munene and Nyaribo (2013) studied
the Effect of Social Media Pertication in the Workplace on Employee Productivity. Not
much study has focused on the adoption and usage of social media in a corporate setting.
There is therefore a gap as far as a study on adoption and usage of social media in a
corporate organisations in Kenya. This study seeks to examine the adoption of social media
in corporate organisations in Kenya. Thus the contribution of this study is the examination
of social media adoption models by public institutions and with this the study intends to
come up with a framework for adoption of social media that can be used in corporate
organizations given their unique features that make them different from private
organisations. Companies that lack a social media policy run the risk of becoming frozen in
the marketplace. Lack of guidelines tends to create chaos in organizations of all sizes.
Some companies simply turn off all forms of social media, block employees from using
Twitter, Facebook or other channels at work and the overarching policy is NOT to use
social media.
1.2 Research Objectives
The main purpose of this research is to determine the determinants of social media
adoption in Kenyan corporate organisations. In particular, the study seeks to explore the
following specific objectives.
1 To determine the factors which influence the adoption of social media by corporate
organisations in Kenya
6
2 To determine the extent to which these factors influence adoption of social media in
corporate organisations in Kenya.
3 To develop and validate a framework for social media adoption in corporate
organisations in Kenya.
1.4 Research Hypotheses
The research seeks to answer the following research questions:
H1a: Does Relative advantage have a direct relationship with social media adoption?
H1b: What is the effect of the number of employees on relative advantage in the adoption
of social media?
H2a: Does Compatibility have a direct relationship with social media adoption?
H2b: Does the number of employees have a moderating effect on compatibility in the
adoption of social media?
H3: What is the relationship between observability and social media adoption?
H4a: Does Perceived risks have a direct relationship with social media adoption?
H4b: Is there any moderating effect of company ownership on perceived risk in the
H4c: Does the number of employees in an organisation have a moderating effect on

perceived risk in the adoption of social media?
1.5 Value of the Study
This study will be important to corporate organisation, policy makers, as well as

researchers in technology and especially those interested in studying social media.
Corporate organisations will understand the value of social media adoption to aid in
communication purposes within the institutions as well as with the outsiders.
With the governments need to integrate technology in its operations, this study will aid
policy makers in coming up with appropriate models to adopt technology and more
specifically social media in government owned institutions. The factors that affect social
media adoption in organisations will be important pointers for policy makers in Kenya too.
7
Other researchers can also use this study as a point of references for future studies on social
media adoption and use in Kenya for both public and private institutions.
8
2. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the theoretical framework, conceptual framework and the empirical
review of this study. In the theoretical framework, theories on the adoption use of
technology in organisations are presented. The conceptual framework presents the
relationship between the variables in the study. Finally, the empirical review presents
literature on what other researchers have studied in the same topic.
2.2 Theoretical Framework
This study will be based on various models of technology acceptance. These include the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT),
2.2.1 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) was proposed and
validated in order to provide a unified theoretical basis from which to facilitate research on
information system (IS)/ information technology (IT) adoption and diffusion. The theory
postulates that four core constructs performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social
influence, and facilitating conditions –are direct determinants of IS/IT behavioural
intention and ultimately behaviour (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The theory also assumes that
the effect of core constructs is moderated by gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of
use (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The theory was developed through the review, mapping and
integration of eight dominant theories and models, viz: the Theory of Reasoned Action
(TRA), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Motivational Model (MM), the
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), a combined Theory of Planned
Behaviour/Technology Acceptance Model (C-TPB-TAM), the Model of PC Utilization
(MPCU), the Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT), and the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT).
These theories and models have been successfully utilised by a large number of previous
studies of technology or innovation adoption and diffusion within both the information
systems field and other disciplines including marketing, social psychology, and
management. The motivation to define and validate the UTAUT was based on the
argument that many of the constructs of existing theories are similar in nature; therefore, it
9
was logical to map and integrate them to create a unified theoretical basis (Venkatesh et al.,
2003). By doing so, creators of the UTAUT hoped that future studies would need not to
search, collate and integrate constructs from numerous different models but instead could
just apply the UTAUT to gain an understanding of a variety of problems related to IS/IT
adoption and diffusion.
Figure 2.1 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
Source: Venkatesh et al. (2003)
Since its original publication, UTAUT has served as a baseline model and has been applied
to the study of a variety of technologies in both organizational and non-organizational
settings. There have been many applications and replications of the entire model or part of
the model in organizational settings that have contributed to fortifying its generalizability
(e.g., Neufeld et al. 2007). There are three broad types of UTAUT extensions/integrations.
The first type of extension/ integration examined UTAUT in new contexts, such as new
technologies (e.g., collaborative technology, health information systems; Chang et al.
2007), new user populations (e.g., healthcare professionals, consumers; Yi et al. 2006) and
new cultural settings (e.g., China, India; Gupta et al. 2008). The second type is the addition
of new constructs in order to expand the scope of the endogenous theoretical mechanisms
outlined in UTAUT (e.g., Chan et al. 2008; Sun et al. 2009). Finally, the third type is the
inclusion of exogenous predictors of the UTAUT variables (e.g., Neufeld et al. 2007; Yi et
10
al. 2006). These extensive replications, applications, and extensions/integrations of
UTAUT have been valuable in expanding our understanding of technology adoption and
extending the theoretical boundaries of the theory. However, our review of this body of
work revealed that most studies using UTAUT employed only a subset of the constructs,
particularly by dropping the moderators (see Al-Gahtani et al. 2007; Armida 2008). Thus,
while the various studies contribute to understanding the utility of UTAUT in different
contexts, there is still the need for a systematic investigation and theorizing of the salient
factors that would apply to a consumer technology use context.
Based on a review of the extant literature, Venkatesh et al. (2003) developed UTAUT as a
comprehensive synthesis of prior technology acceptance research. UTAUT has four key
constructs (i.e., performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and
facilitating conditions) that influence behavioral intention to use a technology and/or
technology use. We adapt these constructs and definitions from UTAUT to the consumer
technology acceptance and use context. Here, performance expectancy is defined as the
degree to which using a technology will provide benefits to consumers in performing
certain activities; effort expectancy is the degree of ease associated with consumers’ use of
technology; social influence is the extent to which consumers perceive that important
others (e.g., family and friends) believe they should use a particular technology; and
facilitating conditions refer to consumers’ perceptions of the resources and support
available to perform a behavior (Brown and Venkatesh 2005). According to UTAUT,
performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence are theorized to influence
behavioural intention to use a technology, while behavioural intention and facilitating
conditions determine technology use. Also, individual difference variables, namely age,
gender, and experience (note that we drop voluntariness, which is part of the original
UTAUT), are theorized to moderate various UTAUT relationships. The lighter lines in
Figure 1 show the original UTAUT along with the one modification noted above that was
necessary to make the theory applicable to this context.
UTAUT takes an approach that emphasizes the importance of utilitarian value (extrinsic
motivation). The construct tied to utility, namely performance expectancy, has consistently
been shown to be the strongest predictor of behavioural intention (see Venkatesh et al.
2003). Complementing this perspective from motivation theory is intrinsic or hedonic
11
motivation (Vallerand 1997). Hedonic motivation has been included as a key predictor in
much consumer behaviour research (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982) and prior IS research
in the consumer technology use context (Brown and Venkatesh 2005). Second, from the
perspective of effort expectancy, in organizational settings, employees assess time and
effort in forming views about the overall effort associated with the acceptance and use of
technologies.
In a consumer technology use context, price is also an important factor as, unlike
workplace technologies, consumers have to bear the costs associated with the purchase of
devices and services. Consistent with this argument, much consumer behaviour research
has included constructs related to cost to explain consumers’ actions (Dodds et al. 1991).
Finally, UTAUT and related models hinge on intentionality as a key underlying theoretical
mechanism that drives behavior. Many, including detractors of this class of models, have
argued that the inclusion of additional theoretical mechanisms is important. In a use, rather
than initial acceptance, context habit has been shown to be a critical factor predicting
technology use.
2.2.2 The Technology Acceptance Model
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is derived from the theory of reasoned action
from Azjen and Fishbein (1980) and addresses the issue of how users come to acceptance
and use a technology (Davis, 1989). TAM suggests that when users are presented with a
new technology, different variables influence the decision whether and how they will use it.
Two causal linkages influence this decision: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease
of use (PEOU) of the relevant technology. Perceived usefulness explains the user's
perception to the extent that the technology will improve his/her work performance and
perceived ease of use relates to the user's perception of the amount of effort required to
utilize the system or the extent to which a user believes that using a particular technology
will be effortless (Davis, 1989). The model provides explanations of determinants of
computer technology acceptance by tracing the impact of external factors on internal
beliefs, intentions and attitudes.
12
Figure 2.2 : Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Source: Davis et al 1989
The concepts of usefulness and ease of use of technology have evolved from the original
research on the technology acceptance model by Davis (1989). The technology acceptance
model (TAM) demonstrates that the perceptions of technology and its perceived ease of use
and usefulness have a significant impact on its use and ultimately on performance. There
has been an extensive amount of research on these variables that has evolved out of the
theory of reasoned acceptance whereby users accept or reject the use of information
technology based on its perceived ease of use and usefulness (Malhotra, Heine & Grover,
2001; Saade, 2007; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
The practicality of this experience can be related to the TAM in that this model has been
widely used to predict user acceptance and use based on perceived usefulness and ease of
use (Davis, 1989). Ndubisi, Gupta, and Ndubisi (2005), add to the research by implying
that “innovativeness, risk taking propensity, perservance, and the flexibility between users’
ease of use are important constructs”. However, while the TAM has been acclaimed for
predicting acceptance, Venkatesh (2000), suggests that the TAM does not help to
understand and explain acceptance in ways that promote development from meaningful
13
predictive analysis. Nevertheless, Venkatesh (2000), posits that the TAM’s “perceived
usefulness will be influenced by perceived ease of use, because the easier a technology is to
use, the more useful it can be” (p. 343). Devaraj, Easley, and Crant (2008), cobborate this
with their research model and imply that with personality as an external variable, it can
lead to beliefs and then to behavior. The authors complete their study by proposing that
“future research move beyond the technology acceptance model” (p. 103). Venkatesh
(2000) adds a slight twist to Devaraj, Easley, and Crant’s model by imposing emotion as a
major determinant in the TAM.
Different researchers have extended or changed the original TAM by Davis (e.g. Segars
and Grover, 1993; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). These studies confirmed the model's
validity and gave support for using it with different populations of users and different
software choices (e.g. Szajna, 1994). Venkatesh and Davis (2000) proposed TAM2, which
includes all the original TAM elements but extended it by (among other constructs) social
influences, since they increased the insights on perceived usefulness and usage intention
constructs. Social influences were reflected in the subjective norm concept, which is
defined as “the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or
she should use the new system” (Venkatesh et. al., 2003, p. 451). Although attention has
been given to social influences, it is still acknowledged that “social norms need to be
conceptualized in a more distinguishing manner to capture the nuances of the social
environment” (Srite and Karahanna, 2006, p. 697). For instance, Davis et. al. (1989, p. 998)
explicated the need for “more sophisticated methods for assessing the specific types of
social influence processes at work in a computer acceptance context” while Venkatesh and
Davis (2000, p. 200) suggest a repositioning where “the nature and role of social influence
processes (both within teams and across teams) will need to be elaborated”.
2.3 Empirical Review
Research has seen an increase in studies focused on the adoption of social media
applications by public relations practitioners (Jin & Liu, 2010; Sallot, Porter & Alzuru-
Acosta, 2004; Taylor & Kent, 2010; Toledano, 2010; Venter, 2010). Additionally, research
has focused on the role social media have within an organization’s public relations strategy
(Briones et al., 2010; Liu, Austin & Jin, 2011). Even though research in public relations is
14
beginning to examine the social media phenomenon, researchers have yet to explore the
functions social media may serve the organization-public relationship system. Since social
media are dependent upon two-way communication, it is important to explore both sides of
the interaction within the system of an organization and its publics who engage in social
media. It is simply not enough to study social media and the individual functions received
for an individual or an organization. Research needs to strive for additional understanding
of the functions received at the systems level, that is, organization-public relationships
engaging in social media.
Various studies have highlighted the perceived benefits that social media offers in the work
place such as, improved communication channels, sharing of skills and knowledge,
channels for informal learning and improvement of morale and job satisfaction (Pettenati
and Cigognini, 2007). Indications from Zyl (2009) tends to capture the bulk of these
applications by indicating that, individual success in society depends on size of their social
networks and ability to network and form connections with social groups.
Social media applications have created new ways for organizations to communicate with
the public. Twitter and Facebook in particular have garnered attention from non-profit
organizations as innovative communicative tools that both supplement and supplant the
traditional Website (Non-profit Technology Network, 2011). Nonetheless, our
understanding of why non-profits adopt such technologies is sparse not only due to the
unique qualities of non-profit organizations (Lewis, 2005) but also the lack of
organizational-level research on social media adoption. There is a substantial intra-
organizational communication literature related to individuals’ adoption, acceptance, and
use of new technologies, including the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (Curtis et al., 2010; Venkatesh et al. 2003), the Technology Acceptance Model
(e.g., Davis, 1989; Zhou, 2008), Innovation Diffusion Theory (e.g., Rogers, 1995;
Vishwanath and Goldhaber, 2003); and process framework (Tang and Ang, 2002).
However, such individual level approaches are better suited to explaining individual
preferences for one technology over another—such as why certain employees would prefer
Twitter over email rather than the organizational selection of a given communication
technology.
15
Holtz (2008) says that organisations’ intranets were built with enthusiasm as and was seen
as the enterprise version of the Internet, but as the Internet evolved, intranets remained
stagnant with static content that gets updated and refreshed when it is too late. Employees
no longer feel engaged with static, one-way communication from the organisation. Holtz
(2008) goes further by saying that employees are becoming increasingly frustrated and feel
less engaged as they are finding it difficult to find the correct resources and information to
perform their jobs. This in turn has an effect on the organisation’s ability to react fast to
competitive pressure.
Curtis (2009) carried out a study on the adoption of social media for public relations by
non-profit organizations. This survey of non-profit public relations practitioners (N= 409)
applied the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Findings
indicate that women consider social media to be beneficial, whereas men exhibit more
confidence in actively utilizing social media. Organizations with specified public relations
departments were more likely to adopt social media. Positive correlations between UTAUT
factors and credibility indicated a greater likelihood to adopt social media.
Fiske, Gilbert and Lindzey (2010) describe a concept known as socio metering that
suggests that humans have a social monitoring system that responds specifically to
instances in which people become particularly concerned with their acceptance and
belonging. These authors propose that an increase in belonging needs, increase the persons
sensitivity to social information which helps them climb the social ladder. This means that
for humans to be happy, they need to be accepted by society and feel the need to be needed
and to belong.
Vaast (2011) examined how work practices change with the use of social media in a
network of practice (NoP), that is, among people who share work practices without
working with one another or even working for the same organization. Based on the in depth
qualitative case study of the use of social media among non-profit professionals, the paper
develops a grounded theorization of changes in practice that underscores the at first
exogenous then endogenous sources of changes in practices and the trend toward changes
in gradually more central practices in the NoP with social media. The grounded
theorization acknowledges the importance of the changes in the social media applications
16
and their popularity and recognizes the organizational-level implications of these changes
in practices. This grounded theorization holds implications for IS research on IT
implementation and use as well as for the understanding of dynamics taking place in NoPs
in organizations. This paper contributes the understanding and conceptualization of
exciting new dynamics of practices as social media and other web-based applications will
continue to become more prevalent in work environments.
Social media offers important business advantages to companies and organizations, but
also has well-known security risks. In order to mitigate these security risks and still enjoy
the benefits of social media organizations must establish and enforce good social media
usage policies. But many organizations are unsure of how to develop effective social media
policies. Instead, many organizations either simply prohibit social media use altogether, or
have no policy at all regarding social media use. Both of these approaches are
unsatisfactory. Organizations that do not adopt social media fail to reap its significant
benefits and are at a disadvantage to their competitors that do. Organizations that simply
allow social media use without any policies or guidelines open themselves to security
threats. Wanner (2011) intended to demonstrate that the existing information security
policies already in place at many organizations can easily be extended to cover social
media. Therefore, organizations do not need to issue security policies and guidelines
specifically for social media. He attempts to demonstrate that the main security threats
posed by social media would be addressed by a good overall security awareness program,
along with and technical and administrative safeguards.
Nah and Saxton (2012) examines what drives organizational adoption and use of social
media through a model built around four key factors – strategy, capacity, governance, and
environment. Using Twitter, Facebook, and other data on 100 large US non-profit
organizations, the model is employed to examine the determinants of three key facets of
social media utilization: adoption, frequency of use and dialogue. They found that
organizational strategies, capacities, governance features, and external pressures all play a
part in these social media adoption and utilization outcomes. Through its integrated,
multidisciplinary theoretical perspective, this study thus helps foster understanding of
which types of organizations are able and willing to adopt and juggle multiple social media
accounts, to use those accounts to communicate more frequently with their external
17
publics, and to build relationships with those publics through the sending of dialogic
messages.
System theorists believe that organizations that function as an open system have a greater
chance of survival than organizations that function as a closed system due to the exchange
of inputs and outputs between the organization and its publics. Public relations researchers
have proposed adopting a dialogic approach to public relations where interaction between
the organization and its publics are mutual, which is the underpinning to an open systems
approach. Reitz (2012) posits that organizations can function within an open systems
approach to public relations by employing social media. Adoption of a functional approach
is a fruitful way to look at the social functions various social media serve in the system of
organizations and their publics. Research has considered the gratifications publics receive
from social media; however, limited research has considered what social media do for the
organization-public relationship system. It has been argued that organizations also have
psychological and social motivations; therefore, applying a functional analysis approach
might be a good of way determining what functions social media serve in the organization-
public relationship system. Four functions are proposed in which social media may serve
the system: maintenance of organizational identity, opportunity to build relationships with
publics, ability to control issues management, and the chance to promote social corporate
responsibility. Understanding social media’s role in the system can help practitioners
identify the functions that may contribute to an open systems approach to public relations
and ultimately an organization’s survival.
Munene and Nyaribo (2013) examine the extent of social media participation by employees
and its effect on their productivity. A sample was randomly selected from a population that
has internet connectivity in the workplace. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and
Pearson’s correlation was undertaken to ascertain the degree of relationship between the
variables. Primary data was collected by use of a questionnaire. The research found both
negative and positive relationship between social media participation and employee
productivity. The negative relationship was however found to be stronger as employees
spend most of their time on social media enhancing personal networks. Positive
relationship exists in employee use of social media for seeking and viewing general
information. The study concluded that employees participate in social media in the
18
workplace for both work and non-work related activity. Social media has the potential to
allow employees to form collaborations and communities for knowledge creation and
sharing, better channels of communication, which enhance employee productivity.
However, it can draw employees in to an addiction that distracts performance as well as
straining the organizational resource.
2.4 Conceptual Framework
This study is anchored on the technology acceptance model as shown below that shows the
relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variables in the study.
H1a
Relative Advantage
(Benefits)
H2a
Compatibility
H3
Social Media
Observability Adoption
H2b
H4a
Perceived Risk (Costs)
H1b
H4b H4c
Company ownership
No of employees
Independent variables Dependent variable
Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework

2.4.1 HYPOTHESIS
The researcher developed the hypothesis below whose test determined if they hold true in
the adoption of social media in the Kenyan corporate organisations. The research therefore
tested the following hypothesis:
19
of social media?
H4a: Does Perceived risk have a direct relationship with social media adoption?

2.5 Summary
The literature review carried out above has focused on two main theories in an attempt to
explain technology adoption by organisations specifically focusing on social media. These
theories are the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and the
Technology Adoption Model. Also, the review has focused on various studies related to the
adoption of social media in organisations. Most of these studies have focused on the effect
of use of social media on individual employees and the effect on their productivity. This
study will however focus on the entire organisation and will specifically focus on corporate
organisations in Kenya. A conceptual framework has been developed from the reviewed
models and a hypothesis formulated for the adoption of social media. The survey therefore
seeks to determine if the hypothesis holds true. The test of the hypothesis was be vital in
the validation of the conceptual framework.
In the next chapter, this study focus on the methodology used to achieve the research
objectives.
20
3. CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the research methodology and methods that was employed in order to
meet the objectives of the study. The chapter will begin with a section on the research
design then the population and sample of the study. This is then followed by another
section on data collection. Finally, a section on data analysis is presented.
3.2 Research Design
This study was a descriptive study of firms listed in the Nairobi Securities Exchange. The
aim of the study was to explore the adoption and usage of social media in corporate
organisations in Kenya. The study also sought to evaluate the factors influencing the
adoption and use of social media in corporate organisations in Kenya. Descriptive research
design is used when the researcher wants to describe things as they are in the population
and has no intention of manipulating them (Kothari, 2006).
The tests used to analyse the collected data include:
Descriptive statistics
This includes analysis of mean, standard deviation, range, maximum and minimum data
values.
Factor analysis
Factor analysis involved the reduction of components which were then taken through the
process of reduction and varimax rotation. From here we obtained the independent
variables which then proceeded to regression
The factor analysis pre-tests included:
1. Multivariate normality
2. Missing data analysis
3. Test of for outliers
21
4. Factorability of correlation matrix
5. Test for multicollinearity
6. Reliability analysis
Regression analysis
Regression analysis is a statistical process for estimating the relationships among variables.
It includes many techniques for modelling and analyzing several variables, when the focus
is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables.
It consists of the following pretests that have been used in this research project.
Multivariate normality
The multivariate normal distribution is a generalization of the one-dimensional (univariate)

normal distribution to higher dimensions. It is often used to describe, at least
approximately, any set of (possibly) correlated real-valued random variables each of which
clusters around a mean value. The dependent variables should be normally distributed for
each combination of independent variables.
Missing data analysis
Missing data, or missing values, occur when no data value is stored for the variable in an
observation. Missing data are a common occurrence and can have a significant effect on the
conclusions that can be drawn from the data. Missing data can occur because of no
response: no information is provided for several items or no information is provided for a
whole unit. Some items are more sensitive for no response than others, for example items
about private subjects such as income.
Test for outliers
An outlier is an observation point that is distant from other observations. An outlier may be
due to variability in the measurement or it may indicate experimental error; the latter are
sometimes excluded from the set. Outliers can occur by chance in any distribution, but they
are often indicative either of measurement error or that the population has a heavy-tailed
22
distribution. This research used Mahalanobis distance to identify cases which were
multivariate outliers.
Factorability of correlation matrix
Factorability is the assumption that there are at least some correlations amongst the
variables so that coherent factors can be identified. Basically, there should be some degree
of collinearity among the variables but not an extreme degree or singularity among the
variables. Both Bartlett’s test of sphericity and Kaiser Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of
sampling adequacy can be used to determine the factorability of the matrix as a whole
Auto correlation matrix
This is the cross-correlation of a signal with itself. Informally, it is the similarity between
observations as a function of the time lag between them. |It is a mathematical tool for
finding repeating patterns.
Linearity
In common usage, linearity refers to a mathematical relationship or function that can be

graphically represented as a straight line, as in two quantities that are directly proportional
to each other, such as efficiency of getting information quickly as used in scatter plots in
this project. Voltage and current in a simple DC circuit, or the mass and weight of an
object.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
The Analysis Of Variance, popularly known as the ANOVA, can be used in cases where
there are more than two groups. When we have only two samples we can use the t-test to
compare the means of the samples but it might become unreliable in case of more than two
samples. If we only compare two means, then the t-test (independent samples) will give the
same results as the ANOVA. Assumptions
There are four basic assumptions used in ANOVA.
 The expected values of the errors are zero
23
 The variances of all errors are equal to each other
 The errors are independent
 They are normally distributed
3.2.1 Population and Sample of Study
The population of this study comprised all the 60 companies listed in the Nairobi Securities
Exchange as at 30th June 2013(see appendix 6). A sample size of 50% of the population (or
30 firms) was selected for this study using simple random sampling technique. During data
collection, 27 out of the 30 questionnaires were collected (see appendix 5). The response
rate was therefore 90%.
This study used primary data that was collected through semi-structured questionnaires (see
appendix 1) that were administered to the IT managers of the corporate organisations in
Kenya. The questionnaire contained questions on social media adoption by the firms in
order to ascertain the adoption extent, types of social media adopted and the factors that
influenced social media adoption in organisations. Pilot tests were done to help examine
the validity of the instrument after which the instruments were amended accordingly.
Reliability tests were done on the instrument to check for the quality of measures used
using Cronbach’s alpha (coefficient if internal consistency) which was found to be 0.82 and
therefore considered reliable as shown in the table.
Table 3.1 Cronbach’s alpha

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
0.820 16
Cronbach’s alpha is a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. It determines the average
or internal consistency of correlating items in a survey instrument to gauge its reliability.
The values are rated as shown below.
Cronbach's alpha Internal consistency

α≥1 Excellent (High-Stakes testing)
0.5 ≤ α < 0.1 Good (Low-Stakes testing)
0.2 ≤ α < 0.5 Acceptable
0.1 ≤ α < 0.2 Poor
α < 0.1 Unacceptable
24
3.3 Pre-Test Data Analysis
Before processing the primary data, the questionnaires were edited for completeness and
consistency. The data were analysed through SPSS using descriptive analysis. Descriptive
analysis was used to examine the extent to which social media had been adopted as well as
to assess the factors which influenced social media adoption. This was done through
percentages, mean scores and standard deviations. Cronbach alpha is considered an
appropriate method as it has been used before in studies on social media adoption such as
Curtis (2009).
3.3.1 Missing Data Analysis
In statistics, missing data, or missing values, occur when no data value is stored for the
variable in an observation. Missing data are a common occurrence and can have a
significant effect on the conclusions that can be drawn from the data.
Missing data can occur because of non response: no information is provided for several
items or no information is provided for a whole unit. Some items are more sensitive for non
response than others, for example items about private subjects such as income.
3.3.1.1 Analysis Process
The responses from the questionnaires were filtered and only usable questionnaires were
used in the data file, but some missing data values existed. The missing values analysis was
done and produced this output.
3.3.1.2 Analysis Results
Table 3.2: Missing data analysis summary

There are no variables with 5% or more missing values. TTEST table is not produced.
There are no categorical variables. CROSSTAB is not produced.

There are no variables with 5% or more missing values. MISMATCH table is not
produced.
25
Table 3.3: Missing data analysis-detail
N Missing
Count Percent
OWNERSHIP 27 0 0
EMPLOYEES 27 0 0
SOCIAL_MEDIA_USAGE 27 0 0
PLATFORM 27 0 0
RELATIVE_ADVANTAGE1 26 1 3.7
RELATIVE_ADVANTAGE2 27 0 0
RELATIVE_ADVANTAGE3 27 0 0
COMPATIBILITY1 26 1 3.7
COMPATIBILITY2 27 0 0
COMPATIBILITY3 27 0 0
PERCEIVED_RISK1 27 0 0
PERCEIVED_RISK2 26 1 3.7
PERCEIVED_RISK3 27 0 0
OBSERVABILITY1 27 0 0
From the results on tables 3.2 and 3.3, the missing items were less than 5%. This implies
that the data available was statistically sufficient for analysis.
3.3.2 Outlier Analysis
Outliers are values that "lie outside" the other values. When we collect data, sometimes
there are values that are "far away" from the main group of data

This is the stage after missing data analysis with respect to examining the data before data
analysis. Multivariate outlier analysis was testing using SPSS 15. It was necessary to
calculate the Mahalanobis distance which is the distance of a particular case from the
centroid of the remaining cases, where the centroid is the point created by the means of all
the variables.
26
Table 3.4: Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Mahalanobis Distance 26 96.3% 1 3.7% 27 100.0%
Table 3.5: Extreme Values

Case Number Value
Mahalanobis Distance Highest 1 3 22.04167
2 2 22.04167
3 14 11.04000
4 6 10.54167
5 17 10.54167
Lowest 1 26 6.70833
2 24 6.70833
3 21 6.70833
4 19 6.70833
5 10 6.70833(a)
1
Expected Normal
-1
-2
5 10 15 20
Observed Value
Figure 3.1Normal Q-Q Plot for Mahalanobis Distance
Computation of the Mahalanobis measure as shown in table 3.4, 3.5 and fig 3.1 revealed
that there were no cases with outlier characteristics. This implies that the responses
obtained were usable in the determination of factors that affect the adoption of social media
in corporate entities.
27
3.3.3 Multivariate Normality Analysis
This is the fundamental assumption in analysis. Normality is correspondence to the normal

distribution which is the benchmark for statistical methods. Normal is used to describe a
symmetrical, bell shaped curve, which has the greatest frequency of scores in the middle,
with smaller frequencies towards the extremes.
Normality was assessed by obtaining skewness and kurtosis values. Skewness indicates the
symmetry of a distribution while kurtosis provides information about the peakedness of the
distribution.
Table 3.6: Normality Analysis
Variable Descriptive Statistics

N Skewness Kurtosis
Std.
Statistic Statistic Error Statistic Std. Error
COMPANY
OWNERSHIP What is the ownership of the firm? 27 0.707 0.448 -0.997 0.872
NO OF EMPLOYEES How many employees does the firm have? 27 -0.215 0.448 -0.922 0.872
RELATIVE
ADVANTAGE To get information more quickly. 26 -1.215 0.456 -0.112 0.887
To improve the quality of information 27 0.263 0.448 -1.853 0.872
To enhance our effectiveness on information
sharing 27 -0.717 0.448 -1.437 0.872
Experience of persons who have previously
COMPATIBILITY used thetechnology 26 -2.31 0.456 4.582 0.887
Technology is consistent with business needs 27 -2.765 0.448 7.296 0.872
Technology is consistent with industry needs 27 0.057 0.448 -2.024 0.872
PERCEIVED RISK Safety of social media 27 -1.741 0.448 2.08 0.872
No privacy risks involved in the use of social
media 26 -0.809 0.456 -1.129 0.887
Protection of corporate information 27 -1.689 0.448 1.535 0.872
The positive results of using social media
OBSERVABILITY being apparent 27 -1.408 0.448 0.93 0.872
Others in the industry speaking of the
benefits of social media use 27 -0.696 0.448 -0.866 0.872
Customer satisfaction with use of social media 27 -0.739 0.448 -1.034 0.872
Increased profitability 27 -0.734 0.448 -0.79 0.872
Increased productivity 27 -0.456 0.448 -1.532 0.872
Increased product quality 27 -0.45 0.448 -1.454 0.872
Keeping abreast with competition 27 -1.325 0.448 0.148 0.872
SOCIAL MEDIA I recommend my institution to adopt
ADOPTION social media. 27 -0.29 0.448 -1.438 0.872
28
Skewness of 1 indicates moderate skewness. Kurtosis values less than 1 are negligible,
values from 1-10 indicate moderate non-normality while values greater than 10 indicate
severe non-normality. The maximum skewness value in this research was 1.718 and
maximum kurtosis was 7.296. The above results therefore imply that the collected data
conforms to the prerequisites for analysis.
3.3.4 Profile of Organisations

The study sought to determine the distribution of firms in terms of their ownership. Data
was partitioned into two splits. The first split contained 14 respondents while the second
split contained 13 respondents.
Results
Split 1: 14 respondents
From the first 14 respondents, 43% were from the public sector, 14% private sector, 29%
government agencies and 14% foreign firms.
foreign firms
14%
public sector
43%
government
agencies
29%
private sector
14%
Figure 3.2: Ownership of Sampled Firms
Split 2: 13 respondents
From the second split of respondents, 62% were from the public sector, 15% private
sector, 15% government agencies and 8% foreign firms.
29
foreign firms
government 8%
agencies
15%
public sector
62%
private sector
15%
Figure 3.3: Ownership of Sampled Firms
3.3.5 Number of Employees
The study sought to determine the size of the firms surveyed. This was achieved by asking
the respondents the number of employees in their firms. The results are shown in Figure
3.4. As shown, the results reveal that 11% of the firms had less than 100 employees, 18%
had 100 – 200 employees, 41% had 201 – 300 employees and 30% had 301 – 400
employees. It can therefore be observed that most of these firms were large firms
employing more than 200 employees across the country.
Figure 3.4: Number of employees
30
The study sought to identify the firms which use social media platform for communication.
The respondents were therefore asked to state if their firms used any social media platform
for communication purposes. The results are shown in Figure 3. As shown, the study found
that 85% of the firms used some kind of social media platform for communication while
15% did not. Therefore, the results reveal that social media had been adopted by majority
of the listed firms in Kenya.
Figure 3.5: Adoption of Social Media
The study sought to identify the social media platforms which were used by the listed firms
surveyed. The respondents who agreed that their firms had adopted social media use for
communication were therefore asked to state the platform(s) their firms used. The results
are shown in Figure 4. The results show that 85% of the firms used Facebook, 41% used
Twitter, 22% used LinkedIn and 15% used Google+. Facebook was therefore the most used
and adopted social media platform for communication.
31
Figure 3.6: Social Media Platforms Used by Listed Companies in Kenya
3.4 Framework Design
This section deals with the process of identifying the factors that affect the adoption of
social media in the Kenyan corporate organisations.
It involves running tests on the data and these tests include:
Factor analysis
Factor analysis involves reduction of information contained in original variables into

smaller set of components with minimum loss of information. This is a statistical approach
that can be used to analyze interrelationships among a large number of variables and to
explain these variables in terms of common underlying dimensions (factors).
There are two types of factor analysis:

Principal component analysis;
This method provides a unique solution, so that the original data can be reconstructed from
the results. It looks at the total variance among the variables. The solution generated will
include as many factors as there are variables although it is unlikely that they will all meet
the criteria for retention.
Common factor analysis
This family of techniques uses an estimate of common variance among the original
variables to generate the factor solution. Because of this, the number of factors will always
be less than the number of original variables.
32
This research uses principal component analysis of factor analysis.
Factor extraction
This is a factor analysis process that identifies and retains components /factors for further
analysis. It does so by identifying eigenvalues which exceed a certain value and ‘extracts’
such factors as a representation of all the others.
Factor rotation
This is the process of adjusting the extracted factor axes to achieve a simple and
pragmatically more meaningful factor solution- the goal is a simple factor structure.
3.4.1 Factor Analysis Process

Factor analysis involves condensing of information contained in original variables into
smaller set of dimensions with minimum loss of information.
It is a statistical analysis approach that can be used to analyse interrelationships among
large number of variables and to explain those variables in terms of their common
underlying dimensions (factors).
3.4.1.1 Prerequisites for Factor Analysis

i. Multivariate Normality
The dependent variables should be normally distributed for each combination of
independent variables.
ii. Test for outliers
This research used Mahalanobis distance to identify cases which were multivariate
outliers.
iii. Factorability of correlation matrix
Both Bartlett’s test of sphericity and Kaiser Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling
adequacy can be used to determine the factorability of the matrix as a whole.
33
Results
Table 3.7: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy. .760
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 141.032

Sphericity df 21
Sig. .000
Results Discussion
If several values in the correlation matrix exceed 0.3 then it is appropriate to use factor
analysis. The anti-image correlation matrix is used to assess the sampling adequacy of each
variable. Only variables with sampling adequacy of greater than 0.5 are included in the
analysis. The KMO statistic varies between 0-1. Values nearest 1 are desirable for factor
analysis. It is also desirable that Bartlett’s value p<0.05.
iv. Test for Multicollinearity
Multicollinearity increases the standard error of factor loadings, making them less reliable
and thereby making more difficult the process of inferring labels for factors. To detect
Multicollinearity in factor analysis, KMO statistics may be used, or data first screened in
regression analysis using Variance Inflation factor (VIF) or Tolerance. KMO and
correlation matrix were used to detect Multicollinearity and collinear terms were eliminated
prior to factor analysis.
v. Reliability Analysis
It was necessary to check reliability of the scale used to confirm that it used consistently
reflected the variables being measured. Cronbach’s Alpha was used to measure the scale of
reliability.
Reliability Analysis Results
Table 3.8: Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
0.820 16
34
Cronbach’s Alpha value varies from 0-1, with higher values being desirable. The average
Cronbach’s Alpha for our data was 0.820.
3.4.2 Factor Extraction
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used as the extraction method with varimax
rotation.
3.4.2.1 Factor Extraction Results
This analysis produced the table below.
Table 3.9: Factor Extraction
Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 5.358 31.518 31.518 5.358 31.518 31.518
2 3.092 18.189 49.708 3.092 18.189 49.708
3 2.578 15.165 64.873 2.578 15.165 64.873
4 1.955 11.497 76.370 1.955 11.497 76.370
5 1.119 6.581 82.951 1.119 6.581 82.951
6 0.944 5.554 88.505
7 0.877 5.159 93.664
8 0.459 2.703 96.367
9 0.283 1.663 98.029
10 0.238 1.663 99.429
11 0.097 1.663 99.429
12 0.000 1.663 99.429
13 0.000 1.663 99.429
14 0.000 1.663 99.429
15 0.000 1.663 99.429
16 0.000 1.663 99.429
17 0.000 1.663 99.429
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
35
Scree Plot
4
Eigenvalue
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Component Number
Figure 3.7: Scree plot
3.4.2.2 Factor Extraction Results Discussion
Reference is made to the eigenvalue and scree plot of the data. An eigenvalue of 1 is used
to identify the number of factors at this stage of analysis. The eigenvalues associated with
each factor represent the variance explained by that particular linear component and SPSS
also displays the eigenvalues in terms of the percentage of variance explained e.g. factor 1
explains 31.518 of total variance.
All factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted leaving 5 factors which are
displayed in the columns labelled Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings. The values which
are not moved to the above column are discarded. The factors after rotation are displayed in
the columns Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings. Rotation optimizes the factor structure
thus the relative importance of the four factors is equalized.
The cut off for selecting factors should be at the inflexion point of the curve. As seen in the
scree plot above, the inflexion point is at component 5 which agrees with the eigenvalues
table above.
36
This analysis therefore resulted in a solution of 5 factors selected for further analysis. The
scree plot below was also produced.
3.4.3 Factor Rotation
The factors extracted above were further tested with varimax rotation method. The factor
rotation matrix will group the scales which are most highly loaded (correlated) with the
first factor and arranged in descending order to their size of correlation. Next, scales which
load strongly with the second factor will be clustered to form the second factor, and the
process will continue for all the five extracted factors.
3.4.3.1 Factor Rotation Results

Table 3.10: Varimax rotation
Rotated Component Matrix(a)
Component
1 2 3 4 5
RELATIVE_ADVANTAGE1 -0.290 0.648 -0.266 0.387 -0.135
RELATIVE_ADVANTAGE2 0.205 -0.082 0.152 -0.854 0.137
RELATIVE_ADVANTAGE3 0.793 -0.489 -0.015 0.279 -0.006
COMPATIBILITY1 0.938 -0.149 -0.014 -0.118 0.058
COMPATIBILITY2 -0.006 0.441 -0.025 0.656 0.096
COMPATIBILITY3 0.263 -0.435 0.632 -0.194 0.026
PERCEIVED_RISK1 0.938 -0.181 -0.048 -0.119 0.011
PERCEIVED_RISK2 0.705 -0.102 0.639 -0.183 -0.003
PERCEIVED_RISK3 0.675 0.288 0.230 0.114 0.346
OBSERVABILITY1 -0.180 0.891 -0.314 0.145 0.142
OBSERVABILITY2 -0.230 -0.058 0.837 -0.175 -0.212
OBSERVABILITY3 0.303 -0.661 0.095 0.601 0.061
OBSERVABILITY4 0.244 0.183 -0.595 0.555 -0.174
OBSERVABILITY5 0.026 0.862 0.325 0.197 -0.064
OBSERVABILITY6 0.068 -0.150 -0.044 -0.359 0.732
OBSERVABILITY7 0.250 0.172 0.879 0.168 -0.079
ADOPTION 0.078 0.094 -0.124 0.135 0.848
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 9 iterations.
3.4.3.2 Factor Rotation Results Discussion
The scale in table 3.11 was used in the above results:
37
Table 3.11: Factor rotation scale
RELATIVE_ADVANTAGE1 To get information more quickly.
RELATIVE_ADVANTAGE2 To improve the quality of information
RELATIVE_ADVANTAGE3 To enhance our effectiveness on information sharing
COMPATIBILITY1 Experience of persons who have previously used the technology
COMPATIBILITY2 Technology is consistent with business needs
COMPATIBILITY3 Technology is consistent with industry needs
PERCEIVED_RISK1 Safety of social media
PERCEIVED_RISK2 No privacy risks involved in the use of social media
PERCEIVED_RISK3 Protection of corporate information
OBSERVABILITY1 The positive results of using social media being apparent
OBSERVABILITY2 Others in the industry speaking of the benefits of social media use
OBSERVABILITY3 Customer satisfaction with use of social media
OBSERVABILITY4 Increased profitability
OBSERVABILITY5 Increased productivity
OBSERVABILITY6 Increased product quality
OBSERVABILITY7 Keeping abreast with competition
ADOPTION I recommend my institution to adopt social media.
Normally researchers accept a loading of an absolute value of more than 0.3 to be

important. The shaded loadings were selected since they are more than 0.3
All the conceptual framework variables were supported by results of factor analysis. These
variables include:
Independent variables
1. Relative advantage
2. Compatibility
3. Perceived risk
4. Observability
Dependent variables
1. Social media adoption
3.4.4 Validation of Factor Analysis Results
The research examined if the factor model is stable and generalizable and if the factor
solution is impacted by outliers. Stability was examined by splitting the sample into two in
order to see it factor structure and commonalities remain the same. A comparison was
made on the two splits created above. While the communalities differed for the two
models, in all cases they were above 0.3, indicating the factor model is explaining more
than half of the variance in all the original variables.
38
Table 3.12: Component Matrix (a) SPLIT 1
1 2 3 4 5
RELATIVE_ADVANTAGE1 0.548
COMPATIBILITY1 0.838
PERCEIVED_RISK2 0.705
OBSERVABILITY1 0.591
ADOPTION 0.548
Table 3.13: Rotated Component Matrix (a) - SPLIT 2

1 2 3 4 5
ADOPTION 0.848
Discussion
Table 3.12 provides the factor rotation results for the first half of the split sample. Just like
in table 3.13, all cases in this table are above 0.30 thus confirming the results in table 9.
The two rotated factor matrices for each split of the sample produced the same pattern of
loadings for both validation analysis of the complete sample. The pattern factor loadings
for both validation analyses show the same pattern of variables, though the components
switched places. This result validates the factor solution obtained.
39
3.3.5 Resulting model
The analysis of the collected data identified four factors key in the adoption of social media
in corporate organisations namely:
 Relative advantage, moderated by the number of employees
 Compatibility
 Perceived risk moderated by the number of employees
 Observability
Relative Advantage
Compatibility
Social Media
No of employees
Figure 3.8: The Resulting Model
40
4. CHAPTER FOUR: MODEL VALIDATION
4.0 Evaluation Overview
This research sought to achieve the following objectives: To determine the factors which
influence the adoption of social media by corporate organisations in Kenya, to determine
the extent to which these factors influence adoption of social media in corporate
organisations in Kenya and to develop and validate a framework for social media adoption
in corporate organisations in Kenya.
The regression analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were done to validate the
model. This was done on the dependent, independent and the moderating variables in order
to determine the relationship strengths between each other.
4.1 Regression Analysis

Regression analysis is a statistic technique used to investigate the relationships between a
dependent variable and one or more independent variables. Multiple linear regression is
used in this to investigate the relationship between the adoption of social media and the
four independent variables.
Regression coefficients can be used to evaluate the strength of the relationship between the
independent variable and the dependent variable.
Adoption=a+b1RelativeAdv+b2Compatibility+b3PerceivedRisk +b4Observability+e
Where: a= the constant where regression intercepts the y axis
b= regression coefficients
e = random error
4.9.1 Prerequisites for Regression Analysis
Before conducting regression analysis on the data, certain characteristics must be me.
These characteristics were analysed as below.
i. Test for Outliers: This was tested by computing the Mahalanobis distance which
did not show any extreme values.
41
ii. Linearity
Examining the residual scatter is the most common way to identify any nonlinear patterns
in the data. The scatter plot (in appendix 2) of standardized residuals versus the fitted
values was visually inspected. The plots did not reveal any nonlinear patterns in the data
indicating a linear relationship in all the regression models in this study.
iii. Normally distributed Error term
A histogram and a normal probability (P-P plot) were used to asses whether the error terms
are normally distributed. This research tested normality using these two methods as shown
in the appendix 3 and 4 respectively.
iv. Autocorrelation Analysis
For any two observations within the data series, it’s assumed that knowing one observation
treatment tells nothing about the other observation. Dubin-Watson coefficient tests auto-
correlation.
Auto correlation Results
Table 4.1 provides results of the autocorrelation analysis
Table 4.1: Durbin-Watson Values

DEPENDENT VARIABLE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Durbin-Watson
SOCIAL MEDIA ADOPTION RELATIVE ADVANTAGE 1.543
COMPATIBILITY 1.654
PERCEIVED RISK 1.683
OBSERVABILITY 1.828

RELATIVE ADVANTAGE+NO OF EMPLOYEES 1.684
SOCIAL MEDIA ADOPTION COMPATIBILITY 1.462

COMPATIBILITY+NO OF EMPLOYEES 1.875
SOCIAL MEDIA ADOPTION PERCEIVED RISK 1.0665
SOCIAL MEDIA ADOPTION OBSERVABILITY 2.665

OBSERVABILITY+NO OF EMPLOYEES 1.895
OBSERVABILITY+COMPANY OWNERSHIP 1.499
42
Discussion
Durbin-Watson values should be between 1.5 and 2.5 to indicate independence of

observations. Positive autocorrelation means standard errors of the beta coefficients are too
small while negative autocorrelation means errors are too large.
v. Condition index
Condition index is used to test Multicollinearity of the data
Condition Index Results
Table 4.2 provides the results of this test:
Table 4.2: Condition index values
DEPENDENT VARIABLE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Condition Index

COMPATIBILITY 17.887
OBSERVABILITY 9.202
Discussion
Researchers suggest condition indexes over 15 indicate possible Multicollinearity and over
30 indicate serious Multicollinearity problems.
The maximum condition index for this research’s data was 17.887.
43
vi. Tolerance
Tolerance is also used to measure Multicollinearity.
Tolerance Results
Table 4.3: Tolerance values.
DEPENDENT VARIABLE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Tolerance

COMPATIBILITY 0.535
OBSERVABILITY 0.72
Discussion
If the tolerance value is less than 0.20, the independent should be dropped from the analysis
due to Multicollinearity.
The minimum tolerance for the sample was 0.352 thus minimal Multicollinearity.
44
vii. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)
VIF is the reciprocal of tolerance.
Table 4.4a: Tolerance values.

DEPENDENT VARIABLE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Tolerance
COMPATIBILITY 1.869
OBSERVABILITY 1.389



When VIF is greater than 4.0, Multicollinearity is the problem. The maximum VIF value
for the sample was 2.857.
4.2 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
This section will test the strength of the relationships between the independent variables
and the dependent variable. The effect of the moderating variables on the independent
variables will also be tested.
4.2.1Testing for direct effects
The four independent variables, relative advantage, compatibility, perceived risk and
observability in the regression model were regressed against social media adoption and
provided the results in the table below.
45
4.2.1.1 Regression of Relative advantage With Social media adoption
Regression process was done on the relative advantage variable against social media
adoption.
Regression results
Table 4.5 to table 4.17 provide results for each of the independent variables. Each variable
has the model summary, analysis of variance and Relative advantage Coefficients.
Table 4.5: Relative advantage Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .214(a) .046 -.084 .868
A: Predictors: (Constant), To enhance our effectiveness on information sharing, To improve the quality of information,
To get information more quickly.
Table 4.6: Relative advantage Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression .797 3 .266 .352 .788(a)
Residual 16.588 22 .754
Total 17.385 25
A: Predictors: (Constant), To enhance our effectiveness on information sharing, To improve the quality of information,
B: Dependent Variable: I recommend my institution to adopt social media.
Table 4.7: Relative advantage Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
Std.
B Std. Error Beta B Error
1 (Constant) 2.863 1.842 1.554 .134
.156 .278 .198 .562 .579
To improve the quality of
information .055 .142 .116 .383 .705
To enhance our effectiveness on
information sharing .129 .126 .277 1.021 .318
A: Dependent Variable: I recommend my institution to adopt social media.
46
4.2.1.2 Regression of Compatibility with Social media adoption
Table 4.8: Compatibility Model Summary
1 .166(a) .028 -.105 .842
A: Predictors: (Constant), Technology is consistent with industry needs; Technology is consistent with business needs,
Experience of persons who have previously used the technology
Table 4.9: Compatibility Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Sum of
1 Regression .442 3 .147 .208 .890(a)
Residual 15.597 22 .709
Total 16.038 25
A: Predictors: (Constant), Technology is consistent with industry needs; Technology is consistent with business needs,
Table 4.10: Compatibility Coefficients

Std. Std.
B Error Beta B Error
1 (Constant) 3.716 1.023 3.632 .001
Experience of persons who have previously used
the technology .112 .157 .164 .709 .486
Technology is consistent with business needs

.027 .160 .038 .171 .866
Technology is consistent with industry needs
-.048 .102 -.113 -.471 .643
4.2.1.3 Perceived Risk with Social media adoption

Table 4.11: Perceived Risk Model Summary

1 .415(a) .172 .060 .777
A: Predictors: (Constant), Protection of corporate information, Safety of social media, And No privacy risks involved in
the use of social media
47
Table 4.12: Perceived Risk Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Sum of
1 Regression 2.766 3 .922 1.528 .235(a)
Residual 13.272 22 .603
Total 16.038 25
A: Predictors: (Constant), Protection of corporate information, Safety of social media, No privacy risks involved in the
use of social media
Table 4.13: Perceived Risk Coefficients
B: Dependent Variable: I recommend my institution to adopt social media

Std. Std.
1 (Constant) 2.311 1.454 1.589 .126
Safety of social media .134 .349 .103 .384 .705
No privacy risks involved in the use of
social media -.104 .139 -.214 -.750 .461
Protection of corporate information
.367 .180 .454 2.042 .053
4.2.1.4 Observability with Social media adoption

Table 4.14: Observability Model Summary

1 .545(a) .297 .038 .803
A: Predictors: (Constant), Keeping abreast with competition, Increased product quality, The positive results of using
social media being apparent, Customer satisfaction with use of social media, Others in the industry speaking of the
benefits of social media use, Increased profitability, Increased productivity
Table 4.15: Observability Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Sum of
1 Regression 5.170 7 .739 1.147 .377(a)
Residual 12.237 19 .644
Total 17.407 26
A: Predictors: (Constant), Keeping abreast with competition, Increased product quality, The positive results of using
social media being apparent, Customer satisfaction with use of social media, Others in the industry speaking of the
benefits of social media use, Increased profitability, Increased productivity
48
Table 4.16: Observability Coefficients
Constant Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
Std. Std.
1.432 1.984 0.722 0.479
The positive results of using social media being
apparent 0.551 0.358 0.863 1.539 0.14
Others in the industry speaking of the benefits of social
media use -0.09 0.172 -0.166 -0.55 0.59
Customer satisfaction with use of social media 0.214 0.158 0.411 1.357 0.191
Increased profitability -0.09 0.189 -0.158 -0.5 0.624
Increased productivity -0.29 0.252 -0.586 -1.14 0.27
Increased product quality 0.133 0.112 0.268 1.194 0.247
Keeping abreast with competition 0.223 0.204 0.399 1.089 0.29
4.2.1.5 Independent Variable Coefficients Summary
Table 4.17 presents the summarized weights for each variable which will be used to
determine the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent
variables.
Table 4.17: Summary of Coefficients
Coefficients(a,b)
B Std. Error Beta
Relative Advantage 0.113 0.182 0.197 0.655 0.534
Compatibility 0.030 0.140 0.030 0.136 0.665
Perceived Risk 0.132 0.223 0.114 0.559 0.406
Observability 0.092 0.206 0.147 0.428 0.336
Regression Results Discussion
All the four independent variables obtained positive beta weights hence have positive effect
on the adoption of social media. According to the data, relative advantage had the largest
value (ß= 0.197), followed by Observability (ß= 0.147), perceived risk (ß= 0.114) with
compatibility having the least strength (ß= 0.030).
49
4.2.2 Testing Moderating Variables
With respect to interaction variables, the relationships are measured by Beta values, which
represent the strength of the relationship. The Beta for the interaction of the moderator with
the variable provides information regarding the interaction effect.
 The independent variables were combined with the corresponding moderating variable
and regressed against social media adoption.
Regression on Moderating Variables Results
Literature suggests the scale for Beta values as follows:
 Less than 0.1 denotes lack of effect on the variable

 If the Beta value is between 0.1 and 0.3, there is small effect
 If the value is 0.3 and 0.50 there is a medium effect
Above 0.50 denotes a large effect
4.2.2.1 The Moderating Effect of Number of Employees
Table 4:19 Company ownership moderating effects.
Independent + Moderating Variable Beta Value

Relative advantage + No. of employees 0.213
Compatibility + No. of employees 0.039
Perceived risk + No. of employees 0.148
According to the results above, the number of employees has no moderating effect on
compatibility since it has a beta value of 0.039 which is less than 0.1. The number of
employees has a moderating effect on relative advantage and perceived risk with beta
values of 0.213 and 0.148 respectively.
4.2.2.2 The Moderating Effect of No of Company Ownership
Table 4:20 moderating effect of No of employees
Independent + Moderating Variable Beta Value

Perceived risk + Company ownership 0.030
50
Results
From the results above, company ownership has no moderating effect on perceived risk in
the adoption of social media since its beta value of 0.030 is theoretically insignificant.
4.2.3 Validated Model
The validation of the model resulted into four factors which include:
1) Relative Advantage moderated by No of employees
2) Compatibility
3) Relative advantage
4) Perceived Risk (Costs) moderated by No of employees
Relative Advantage H1a
H2a
Compatibility
H3a Social Media

H1b

H4a
H4b
No of employees
Figure 4.1: Validated Model
51
4.2.4 Validated Model Discussion
H1a: Relative advantage has a direct relationship with social media adoption
H1b: The number of employees has a moderating effect on relative advantage in the
adoption of social media.
H2a: Compatibility has a direct relationship with social media adoption.
H2b: The number of employees has a moderating effect on compatibility in the

H3: Observability has a direct relationship with social media adoption.
H4a: Perceived risk has a direct relationship with social media adoption.
H4b: The company ownership has a moderating effect on perceived risk in the
H4c: The number of employees in an organisation has a moderating effect on

perceived risk in the adoption of social media
The entire hypothesis passed with exception of H2b and H4b since the research found out
that the number of employees does not have a moderating effect on compatibility and that
company ownership does not have a moderating effect on perceived risk in the adoption of
social media in corporate organisations.
52
5. CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
The previous chapter has provided the findings of the study from data analysis and the
discussions thereof. This is the last chapter of this paper. This chapter shows the summary
of findings, conclusions of the study, recommendations for policy and practice, and
suggestions for further research. The main purpose of this research is to determine the
determinants of social media adoption in Kenyan corporate organisations.
Problem statement
The use of social media technologies such as blogs, wikis, social networking sites, social
tagging, and microblogging is proliferating at an incredible pace. Social media adoption
within organizations is occurring at a rapid pace. According to a survey by global
consulting firm McKinsey, 65% of companies reported the use of Web 2.0 technologies in
their organizations (Bughin & Chui, 2010). Forrester Research predicted that corporate
spending on enterprise social media would reach more than $4.6 billion annually by 2013
(Young et al., 2008).
Yet despite the increased adoption of social media by firms, the implications of these new
technologies for organizational processes are not yet well understood by communication
researchers. Scholars have suggested that social media adoption in organizations is
outpacing empirical understanding of the use of these technologies and our theories about
why they may alter various organizational processes.
In particular, the study seeked to explore the following specific objectives;
53
The research sought to answer the following research questions:
of social media?
H4a: Does Perceived risks have a direct relationship with social media adoption?
Design process:
This study was a descriptive study of firms listed in the Nairobi Securities Exchange. The
population of this study comprised all the 60 companies listed in the Nairobi Securities
Exchange as at 30th June 2013. A sample size of 50% of the population (or 30 firms) was
selected for this study using simple random sampling technique. During data collection, 27
out of the 30 questionnaires were collected giving a response rate of 90%. This study used
primary data that was collected through semi-structured questionnaires that were
administered to the IT managers of the corporate organisations in Kenya. Descriptive
analysis was used to examine the extent to which social media had been adopted as well as
to assess the factors which influenced social media adoption. This was done through
percentages, mean scores and standard deviations.
54
The study found that 59% of the firms were public, 15% were private, 11% were
government owned, and 15% were foreign firms. The results reveal that 11% of the firms
had less than 100 employees, 18% had 100 – 200 employees, 41% had 201 – 300
employees and 30% had 301 – 400 employees. The results show that 85% of the firms
surveyed had adopted some form of social media for communication purposes either within
the organisations or with the customers. The study also found that the most adopted social
media platforms was Facebook (85%) followed by Twitter (41%), LinkedIn (22%) and
Google+ (15%).
The study also sought to examine the factors that influenced adoption of social media by
companies listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange. The study found that the most
significant factor that influenced adoption of social media platforms was relative advantage
(Beta = 0.197). This was followed by Observability (Beta = 0.147), perceived risk (Beta =
0.114) and compatibility (Beta = 0.030).
5.2 Conclusions
The study was aimed at achieving the following:
It was concluded that corporate organisations have, to a large extent, adopted social media
for communication. The most used social media platform was Facebook followed by
55
Twitter. Therefore, most of the listed firms in Kenya can be said to be technologically
savvy as they have adopted the new forms of communication by adopting social media
platforms.
The study also concludes that the most significant factor which influenced adoption of
social media is relative advantage. It was observed that firms are more concerned with the
benefits achieved from the use of the social media. There is serious competition among the
Kenyan companies and each organisation wants to put its best foot forward. There is also
need to reduce costs, yet the advertising costs in the mainstream media is escalating, thus
the need to use the cheap yet effective social media. The number of employees in the
organisations was found to be the moderator of relative advantage and perceived risk.
5.3 Recommendations
The study makes a number of recommendations. First, the study notes that there is
overreliance on only once social media platform – Facebook. There is need for companies
to adopt other social media platforms especially Twitter which has been found in other
surveys to be the most effective for marketing brands all over the world. Other platforms
such as the use of Google’s Youtube platform for making videos about the company would
also be useful in building the brand of the organisation.
Secondly, the study recommends that organisations should be concerned about how they
intend to use the social media by having an elaborate social media strategy as they adopt
the same as just adopting such for communication without giving it a thorough thought
would make the organisation look rudderless. Case example of a firm that has used social
media with clear social media strategy is Safaricom which used both Twitter and Facebook
to engage the customers about their products and also for customer care purposes. Other
56
companies such as Kenya Power and banks such as Co-operative Bank and Kenya
Commercial Bank also have a strong presence on social media and a clear social media
strategy.
The Government, through legislation, should enact laws that will enhance security of firms
using social media for communication. In the era of internet and cyber-crimes, it is
important that laws be available which can be used to prosecute those who use these
platforms to defraud organisations. With the current Media Bill, it is an opportunity to
legislate how social media is used in Kenya.
5.4 Recommendations for Future Research
The study made an attempt at establishing the factors that influence social media adoption
in Kenya. A lot, however, still remains to be done. Further studies should examine more
factors other than the ones used in this study to come up with a complete model of social
media adoption in Kenya. It is also recommended that studies of similar nature be done
within mid-sized organisations.
57
REFERENCES
Briones, R. L., Kuch, B, Liu, B. F. & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How
the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations
Review, 37(1), 37-43.
Jin, Y. & Liu, B. (2010). The blog-mediated crisis communication model:

Recommendations for responding to influential external blogs. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 22(4), 429-455.
Nah, S., & Saxton, G. D. (2013). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by
nonprofit organizations
Kothari, C.R (2006) Research Methodology-Methods and Techniques, 2nd edtn New Delhi,
Wiley Eastern Limited
Munene and Nyaribo (2013). African Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Number 4
(2013), pp. 153.
Dodds et al. (1991). Buyers' Product Evaluations. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research;
Aug 1991; 28, 3; ABI/INFORM Global.
Lewis L (2005) The civil society sector: A review of critical issues and research agenda for
organizational communication scholars. Management Communication Quarterly
19: 238–267.
Chan et al. (2008). The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2008; 198:941–2.
Raeth, Smolnik, Urbach, & Zimmer.(2009).Social Media in Human Resource

Management.
Tsukada YI, et al. (2006) Histone demethylation by a family of JmjC domain-containing

proteins. Nature 439(7078)
58
Liu, B F., Austin, L & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication
strategies: The interplay of information form and source. Public Relations Review,
37(4), 345-353.
Reitz, S. R. & J. Funderburk. (2012). Management strategies for western flower thrips
Okolloh, O. (2009). Ushahidi, or 'testimony': Web 2.0 tools for crowd-sourcing crisis
information, IIED Participatory Learning and Action Journal pp. 65-70(6)
Pettenati, M.C and Cigognini, M.E (2007) Social networking theories and tools to support
connectivist learning activities. University of Florence, Florence.
Elizabeth Mwambui. (2012). Conservation 2.0: Leveraging social media for fundraising
in Kenya.
Sallot, L.M., Porter, L. & Alzuru-Acosta, C. (2004). Practitioners’ Web use and
perceptions of their own roles and power: A qualitative study. Public Relations
Review, 30(3), 269-278.
Wanner and Ritz, (2011). Holocene Climate Atlas (HOCLAT)
Taylor, M. & Kent, M. (2010). Anticipatory socialization in the use of social media in
public relations: A content analysis of PRSA’s Public Relations Tactics. Public
Relations Review, 36(3), 207-214.
Toledano, M. (2010). Professional competition and cooperation in the digital age: A pilot
study of New Zealand practitioners. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 230-237.
Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert, Gardner Lindsey (2010). Handbook of Social

Psychology,
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB and Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27: 425-478.
Venter, B. (2010). Views of PRISA members on South African public relations: An

exploration. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 281-284.
59
Zyl, A.S.V. (2009) The Impact of Social Networking 2.0 on Organisations. Electronic
Library, 27(6):906-918.
Azjen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Young, Et Al (2008). Principles of Marketing'. Publisher, Rex Bookstore, Inc. ISBN,

9712350630, 9789712350634.
Lindley Curtis, Carrie Edwards, Kristen L. Fraser, Sheryl Gudelsky, Jenny Holmquist,
Kristin Thornton, Kaye D. Sweetse (2009). Adoption of social media for public relations
by non-profit organizations.
William Schroeder (2010). Individualism and Gay and Lesbian Subjectivity in Urban
China. In American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting17 November 2010 - 21
November 2010. New Orleans, LA, USA. EScholarID:Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ployhart & Holtz (2008) - Adverse Impact
Agarwal, R., and Prasad, (1998) J. "A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal
Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology,"Information Systems Research
(9:2), pp 204-221.
Ajzen, I. (1991)"The Theory of Planned Behavior," Organizational Behaviror and Human

Decision Processes (50), pp 179-211.
Chang et al. (2007) Association study of the genetic polymorphisms of the transcription
factor 7-like 2.
Baker, B.D, & Green, P.C. (2008). Conceptions of equity and adequacy in school finance,
in H.F.Ladd & E.B. Fiske (Eds.). Handbook of research in Education Finance and Policy
(pp. 203-221) New York: Routledge
J.Bughin, et al. (2011). The impact of internet technologies: search, High Tech Practice,
McKinsey & Company [online].
Vaast & Walsham, (2009).How work practices change with the use of social media in a
network of practice .
60
(Grudin, 2006; McAfee, 2006; Steinhuser,. Smolnik, & Hoppe, 2011)
(Financial Times Lexicon, 2011). ‘Cybersecurity’, Financial Times Special Report, 1

November 2011.
61
APPENDICEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE
Section A: Introduction Letter
Sammy Gimoi
P.O. Box 100026, 00101,
Nairobi
14th Nov, 2013.
Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: RESEARCH INFORMATION FOR A MASTERS PROJECT
I am a postgraduate student undertaking a Master of Science in Information Systems at the School of

computing and Informatics at the University of Nairobi. As a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
award of the MIS degree, I am conducting a survey on “An examination of the determinants of social media
adoption by corporate organizations in Kenya”. You are one of the key respondents and I would like to
kindly request for information regarding ICT in your daily activities.
The information you provide in this study will not be used for any other purpose apart from its intended
academic use. I hereby undertake not to make any reference to your name in any presentation or report
hitherto the study.
I am aware that filling the questionnaire is time consuming and I will greatly appreciate your assistance. Any
additional information in form of suggestions and comments that you deem necessary to make my research
findings more conclusive, relevant and reflective of the study area will be highly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
Yours faithfully,
Sammy Gimoi
MIS Student
Section B: Questionnaire
62
Demographic Data
 Name of the institution
………………………………………………………………………………….
 Year of incorporation
………………………………………………………………………………….
 What is the ownership of the firm?
Public [ ]
Private [ ]
Government [ ]
Foreign [ ]
 How many employees does the firm have?
Below 100 [ ]
100-200 [ ]
201-300 [ ]
301-400 [ ]
Above 400 [ ]
 Does your organisation use any social media platform for communication?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
 If yes, what social media platform does your firm use? You can tick more than 1
choice.
Facebook [ ]
63
Twitter [ ]
Google plus (G+) [ ]
Other (specify) [ ] ………………………………………..
Section 2: Factors Influencing Adoption of Social Media
 To what extent do you agree that the following factors influence the decision of
your company to adopt social media use?
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

disagree(1) (4) agree (5)
(2) (3)
RELATIVE ADVANTAGE
To improve the quality of information
To enhance our effectiveness on

information sharing

(2) (3)
COMPATIBILITY
Experience of persons who have

previously used the technology
64
Technology is consistent with business
needs
Technology is consistent with industry

needs

(2) (3)
PERCEIVED RISK
Safety of social media
No privacy risks involved in the use of

social media
Protection of corporate information

OBSERVABILITY (2) (3)
The positive results of using social media

being apparent
Others in the industry speaking of the

benefits of social media use
65
Customer satisfaction with use of social
media
Increased profitability
Increased productivity
Increased product quality
Keeping abreast with competition
SOCIAL MEDIA ADOPTION
I recommend my institution to adopt social

media.
End of Questionnaire
66
APPENDIX 2: SCATTER PLOTS
Scatterplot Scatterplot
Scatterplot 3
Scatterplot 1
Dependent Variable: I recommend my institution to adopt social media. Dependent Variable: I recommend my institution to adopt social media.
3 1.5
Regression Standardized Residual

1.0
2
0.5
1
0.0
0
-0.5
-1
-1.0
-2 -1.5
-2 -1 0 1 2 -1 0 1 2 3
Regression Standardized Predicted Value Regression Standardized Predicted Value
Scatterplot 2
Scatterplot 4
2 2
1 1
0
0
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3 -2 -1 0 1
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Regression Standardized Predicted Value
Regression Standardized Predicted Value
67
Scatterplot
Scatterplot Scatterplot 7
Scatterplot 5
Dependent Variable: I recommend my institution to adopt social media.

3
2

1
1
0
0
-1
-1
-2
-3 -2 -1 0 1
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Regression Standardized Predicted Value
Scatterplot
Scatterplot 6
3
-1
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

68
Scatterplot 8 Scatterplot 10
3 2

2
1
-1
-1
-2 -2
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Regression Standardized Predicted Value Regression Standardized Predicted Value
Scatterplot
Scatterplot
Scatterplot 9
Scatterplot 11

2.0
3
1.5
2
1.0
0.5 1
0.0
-0.5
-1.0 -1
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
69
Scatterplot12
Scatterplot 14
3 3

2
2
1
1
-1
-1
-2
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
-3 -2 -1 0 1
Scatterplot
Scatterplot
Scatterplot 13 Scatterplot 15

2 2
1 1
0 0
-1
-1
-3 -2 -1 0 1
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
70
Scatterplot 18
Scatterplot 16

1
1
0 0
-1
-1
-2
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
-3 -2 -1 0 1
Scatterplot
Scatterplot Scatterplot 19
Scatterplot 17

3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
-1
-1
-2 -1 0 1
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
71
APPENDIX 3: HISTOGRAMS
What is the ownership of the firm? Does your organisation use any social media platform for communication?
30
Histogram 1 Histogram 3
12.5
10.0
20
Frequency
Frequency
7.5
5.0 10
2.5
Mean =1.93
Std. Dev. =1.107 Mean =1.19
N =27 Std. Dev. =0.396
0.0 0 N =27
0 1 2 3 4 5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
What is the ownership of the firm? Does your organisation use any social media platform for
communication?
How many employees does the firm have? what social media platform does your firm use?
12 Histogram 2 15
Histogram 4
10
8 10
Frequency
Frequency
5
4
2
Mean =1.78
Mean =2.74 Std. Dev. =1.013
Std. Dev. =0.984 N =27
N =27 0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 what social media platform does your firm use?
How many employees does the firm have?
72
To enhance our effectiveness on information sharing
20
Histogram 5 15
Histogram 7
15
Frequency
10
Frequency
10
5
5
Mean =4.35 Mean =3.63

Std. Dev. =1.056 Std. Dev. =1.779
N =26 N =27
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
To get information more quickly. To enhance our effectiveness on information sharing
To improve the quality of information

12
Histogram 6 20
10 Histogram 8
15
8
Frequency
Frequency
6 10
Mean =2.7 Mean =4.46

Std. Dev. =1.772 Std. Dev. =1.174
N =27 0 N =26
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Experience of persons who have previously used the
To improve the quality of information technology
73
Technology is consistent with business needs Safety of social media
20 20
15 15
Frequency
Frequency
10
10
5
5
Mean =4.52
Std. Dev. =1.087 Mean =4.67
N =27 Std. Dev. =0.62
0 N =27
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Technology is consistent with business needs
Safety of social media
No privacy risks involved in the use of social media

12 Histogram 12
12.5
Histogram 10
10
10.0
Frequency
8
Frequency
7.5
5.0
2.5
2 Mean =3.69
Std. Dev. =1.644
Mean =2.96 N =26
Std. Dev. =1.891 0.0
N =27 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 No privacy risks involved in the use of social media
74
Protection of corporate information Others in the industry speaking of the benefits of social media use
20 12
10
15
Frequency
Frequency
6
10
5
2
Mean =4.48 Mean =3.7

Std. Dev. =0.975 Std. Dev. =1.436
N =27 0 N =27
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
Others in the industry speaking of the benefits of social
Protection of corporate information media use
The positive results of using social media being apparent

Customer satisfaction with use of social media
15
12
Histogram 14
Histogram 16
10
10
8
Frequency
Frequency
5 4
2
Mean =4.11 Mean =3.63
Std. Dev. =1.281 Std. Dev. =1.573
N =27 N =27
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
The positive results of using social media being apparent Customer satisfaction with use of social media
75
Histogram 17
Histogram 19
12
12
10
10
8
8
Frequency
Frequency
6
6
4
4
2
2
Mean =3.78
Std. Dev. =1.368 Mean =3.44
N =27 Std. Dev. =1.649
0 N =27
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Increased productivity
20
Histogram 20
12
Histogram 18
10
15
8
Frequency
Frequency
10
6
Mean =3.44
Std. Dev. =1.672 Mean =4.07
N =27 Std. Dev. =1.466
0 N =27
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
Increased productivity 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
76
APPENDIX 4: P-P PLOTS
P-P Plot 2
P-P Plot 1
Normal P-P Plot of Does your organisation use any social media platform for
Normal P-P Plot of What is the ownership of the firm? communication?
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
Expected Cum Prob
Expected Cum Prob

0.6 0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob
Observed Cum Prob
P-P Plot 4
P-P Plot 2 Normal P-P Plot of what social media platform does your firm use?
Normal P-P Plot of How many employees does the firm have?
1.0
1.0
0.8
Expected Cum Prob
0.8
Expected Cum Prob
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Observed Cum Prob
Observed Cum Prob
67
P-P Plot 5 P-P Plot 7
Normal P-P Plot of To get information more quickly. Normal P-P Plot of To enhance our effectiveness on information sharing
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
Expected Cum Prob
Expected Cum Prob

0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
Observed Cum Prob
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob

Normal P-P Plot of To improve the quality of information Normal P-P Plot of Experience of persons who have previously used the
technology
1.0 1.0
0.8
0.8
Expected Cum Prob
Expected Cum Prob
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob
Observed Cum Prob
68
P-P Plot 11
P-P Plot 9
Normal P-P Plot of Technology is consistent with business needs Normal P-P Plot of Safety of social media
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
Expected Cum Prob
Expected Cum Prob

0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob Observed Cum Prob
P-P Plot 12
P-P Plot 10 Normal P-P Plot of No privacy risks involved in the use of social media
Normal P-P Plot of Technology is consistent with industry needs
1.0
1.0
0.8
Expected Cum Prob
0.8
Expected Cum Prob
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Observed Cum Prob
Observed Cum Prob
69
Normal P-P Plot of Protection of corporate information Normal P-P Plot of Others in the industry speaking of the benefits of social
media use
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
Expected Cum Prob
Expected Cum Prob

0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob
Observed Cum Prob
P-P Plot 16
P-P Plot 14
Normal P-P Plot of Customer satisfaction with use of social media
Normal P-P Plot of The positive results of using social media being apparent
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
Expected Cum Prob
Expected Cum Prob
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob Observed Cum Prob
70
Normal P-P Plot of Increased profitability Normal P-P Plot of Increased product quality
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
Expected Cum Prob
Expected Cum Prob

0.6 0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob
Observed Cum Prob
P-P Plot 18
P-P Plot 20
Normal P-P Plot of Increased productivity
Normal P-P Plot of Keeping abreast with competition
1.0
1.0
0.8 0.8
Expected Cum Prob
Expected Cum Prob
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Observed Cum Prob
Observed Cum Prob
71
APPENDIX 5: NSE COMPANIES SAMPLED
1. Kenya Power & Lighting Ltd
2. Liberty Kenya Holdings Limited
3. Access Kenya Group
4. Unga Group
5. Eveready East Africa
6. Mumias Sugar Company Limited
7. East African Breweries
8. Jubilee Holdings Limited
9. Uchumi Supermarkets
10. Standard Group Limited
11. Longhorn Kenya Limited
12. Kakuzi Limited
13. Kapchorua Tea Company Limited
14. Marshalls East Africa
15. CMC Holdings
16. Barclays Bank
17. CFC Stanbic Holdings
18. Equity Bank Group
19. CIC Insurance Group
20. Housing Finance Company of Kenya
21. I&M Holdings Limited
22. Diamond Trust Bank Group
23. Kenya Commercial Bank Group
24. Cooperative Bank of Kenya
25. Hutchings Biemer Limited
26. Kenya Airways
27. Athi River Mining Limited
28. Bamburi Cement Limited
29. KenolKobil
30. Nation Media Group
72
APPENDIX 6: COMPANIES LISTED IN THE NSE
Agricultural
Symbol Listing Notes
EGAD Eaagads Limited Coffee growing and sales
Coffee, tea, passionfruit, avocados, citrus,

KUKZ Kakuzi Limited
pineapple, others
Kapchorua Tea Company

KAPC Tea growing, processing and marketing
Limited
Limuru Tea Company

LIMT Tea growing
Limited
REA Rea Vipingo Sisal Estate Sisal
SASN Sasini Tea and Coffee Tea, coffee
Williamson Tea Kenya

WTK Tea growing, processing and distribution
Limited
Automobiles and Accessories
G&G Car & General Kenya Automobiles, engineering, agriculture
CMC CMC Holdings Automobile distribution
MASH Marshalls East Africa Automobile assembly
FIRE Sameer Africa Limited Tires
73
Banking
Barclays Bank
BBK Banking, finance
(Kenya)
CFC Stanbic
CFC Banking, finance
Holdings
Diamond Trust
DTK Banking, finance
Bank Group
Banking, finance; crosslisted at the Uganda Securities

EQTY Equity Bank Group
Exchange
Housing Finance
HFCK Mortgage financing
Company of Kenya
I&M Holdings
I&M Banking, Financial services
Limited
Banking & finance. Crosslisted on the Uganda Securities

Kenya Commercial
KCB Exchange, the Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange and the
Bank Group
Rwanda Over The Counter Exchange
National Bank of
NBK Banking, finance
Kenya
National Industrial
NIC Banking, finance
Credit Bank
Standard Chartered
SCBK Banking, finance
Kenya
Cooperative Bank of
COOP Banking, finance
Kenya
74
Commercial and Services
Express Kenya
XPRS Logistics
Limited
Hutchings Biemer
HBER Furniture
Limited
Kenya's flagship airline; crosslisted at Uganda

KQ Kenya Airways Securities Exchange and Dar es Salaam Stock
Exchange
Longhorn Kenya
LKL Publishing
Limited
Newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television

NMG Nation Media Group
stations
SCAN Scangroup Advertising and marketing
Standard Group
SGL Publishing
Limited
TPSE TPS Serena Hotels & resorts
UCHM Uchumi Supermarkets Supermarkets
Construction and Allied
Cement, fertilizers, minerals; mining and

ARM Athi River Mining Limited
manufacturing
BAMB Bamburi Cement Limited Cement
BERG Crown-Berger (Kenya) Paint manufacturing
75
CABL East African Cables Limited Cable manufacture
East African Portland Cement

PORT Cement manufacture and marketing
Company
Energy and Petroleum
KEGN Kengen Electricity generation
Petroleum importation, refining, storage &

KENO KenolKobil
distribution
Kenya Power and Lighting

KPLC Electricity transmission, distribution and retail sale
Company
TOTL Total Kenya Limited Petroleum importation and distribution
Electric power distribution. Crosslisting from

UMME Umeme
Uganda Securities Exchange[1]
Insurance
British-American Investments
BRIT Insurance
Co.(Kenya)
CIC CIC Insurance Group Insurance
Liberty Kenya Holdings Limited

CFCI Insurance
(formally CFC Insurance)
Insurance, investments; crosslisted at the

JUB Jubilee Holdings Limited
Uganda Securities Exchange
76
KNRE Kenya Re-Insurance Corporation Reinsurance
PAFR Pan Africa Insurance Holdings Insurance
Investment
ICDC Centum Investment Company Investments
OCH Olympia Capital Holdings Construction and building materials
TCL TransCentury Investments Investments
Manufacturing and Allied
A Baumann and
BAUM Machinery distribution and marketing, investments
Company
BOC BOC Kenya Industrial gases, welding products
British American
BAT Tobacco products
Tobacco Limited
Carbacid Investments
CARB Carbon dioxide manufacturing
Limited
Beer, spirits; crosslisted at Uganda Securities

EABL East African Breweries
Exchange and Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange
EVRD Eveready East Africa batteries
Kenya Orchards Fruit growing, preservation and distribution, fruit-

ORCH
Limited juice manufacture and marketing
77
Mumias Sugar
MSC Sugar cane growing, sugar manufacture & marketing
Company Limited
UNGA Unga Group Flour milling
Telecommunication and Technology
ACCS Access Kenya Group Internet service provider
SCOM Safaricom Mobile telephony
Fixed income security market segment
(FISMS)
KPLC- Kenya Power & Lighting Ltd 4%

--
P4 Pref 20.00
KPLC- Kenya Power & Lighting Ltd 7%

----
P7 Pref 20.00
78

An Examination of The Factors Influencin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Examination of The Factors Influencin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Examination of The Factors Influencin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATICS

AN EXAMINATION OF THE FACTORS INFLUENCING SOCIAL MEDIA

SAMMY SOITA GIMOI

Dr. Lawrence Muchemi

RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

Keywords: Social Media, adoption, corporate organizations

This project is dedicated to my dear parents Mr and Mrs Wycliffe Gimoi.

My classmates were a great inspiration; the guidance through the testing of

Figure 2.2 : Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ........................................................ 13

Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................... 19

Figure 3.1Normal Q-Q Plot for Mahalanobis Distance .................................................... 27

Figure 3.2: Ownership of Sampled Firms ......................................................................... 29

Figure 3.3: Ownership of Sampled Firms ......................................................................... 30

Figure 3.4: Number of employees .................................................................................... 30

Figure 3.5: Adoption of Social Media .............................................................................. 31

Figure 3.7: Scree plot ........................................................................................................ 36

Figure 4.1: Validated Model ............................................................................................. 51

Table 3.2: Missing data analysis summary ....................................................................... 25

Table 3.3: Missing data analysis-detail ............................................................................. 26

Table 3.4: Case Processing Summary............................................................................... 27

Table 3.5: Extreme Values ................................................................................................ 27

Table 3.6: Normality Analysis .......................................................................................... 28

Table 3.7: KMO and Bartlett's Test .................................................................................. 34

Table 3.8: Reliability Statistics ......................................................................................... 34

Table 3.9: Factor Extraction ............................................................................................. 35

Table 3.10: Varimax rotation ............................................................................................ 37

Table 3.11: Factor rotation scale ....................................................................................... 38

Table 3.12: Component Matrix (a) SPLIT 1 ..................................................................... 39

Table 3.13: Rotated Component Matrix (a) - SPLIT 2 ..................................................... 39

Table 4.1: Durbin-Watson Values .................................................................................... 42

Table 4.2: Condition index values .................................................................................... 43

Table 4.3: Tolerance values. ............................................................................................. 44

Table 4.4a: Tolerance values. ........................................................................................... 45

Table 4.5: Relative advantage Model Summary ............................................................... 46

Table 4.6: Relative advantage Analysis of variance (ANOVA) ....................................... 46

Table 4.7: Relative advantage Coefficients ...................................................................... 46

Table 4.9: Compatibility Analysis of variance (ANOVA) ............................................... 47

Table 4.10: Compatibility Coefficients............................................................................. 47

Table 4.11: Perceived Risk Model Summary ................................................................... 47

Table 4.12: Perceived Risk Analysis of variance (ANOVA) ........................................... 48

Table 4.13: Perceived Risk Coefficients ........................................................................... 48

Table 4.14: Observability Model Summary...................................................................... 48

Table 4.15: Observability Analysis of variance (ANOVA).............................................. 48

Table 4.16: Observability Coefficients ............................................................................. 49

Table 4.17: Summary of Coefficients ............................................................................... 49

1.1.1 Adoption of Social Media by Organisations

Social networking sites encourage businesses to change their traditional marketing

1.1.2 Usage of Social Media by Organisations in Kenya

1.2 Problem Statement

1.2 Research Objectives

1.4 Research Hypotheses

The research seeks to answer the following research questions:

H4c: Does the number of employees in an organisation have a moderating effect on

1.5 Value of the Study

This study will be important to corporate organisation, policy makers, as well as

2.2 Theoretical Framework

2.2.1 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Figure 2.1 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)