The contribution of this review is in the integration of separate findings from separate relevant studies. It is also in the critical evaluation of what is currently known and currently not know and in proposing new areas for research. The aim of this literature review is to critically review and synthesise current academic publications, as well as grey social science literature (SSL) on the effectiveness of CAS within higher education application and admission processes in SA.

This literature review makes use of the theories of technology acceptance and user behaviour. These methods enable a solid basis to be established and to critique the effectiveness of CAS in the context of the South African higher education sector (Granić & Marangunić 2019:2586). The predominant theoretical lens for this study is the technology acceptance model (TAM), extended by both Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Technology Planned Behaviour (TPB). This approach provides an in-depth explanation on the psychological and behavioural factors that might contribute to technology acceptance (Zhonggen & Xiaozhi 2019:6).

This approach is vital for explaining user engagement with CAS among different socio-economic settings (Granić & Marangunić 2019:2583). The TAM is an empirically validated theoretical instrument, particularly suitable for information systems research (Lin & Yu 2023:15). Fundamentally, TAM suggests that there are two critical beliefs driven by which an individual’s perceptions of whether he or she will use a new technology (Yazdanpanahi et al. 2024:107).

The degree to which a person believes that using a particular system will improve his or her performance and help them attain their objectives (Zaineldeen et al. 2020:5063). This would refer, in the context of CAS, to an applicants’ confidence that the system will help them to be admitted into a higher institution fairly without much trouble while ensuring all vital information is submitted on time and held true. The extent to which a person believes that using a particular system will be free of effort (Lin & Yu 2023:24).

Although TAM is powerful in terms of prediction, it will be incomplete if we do not reflect the complex role of external factors that may affect negatively or positively technology adoption, especially within a diverse socio-economic context. To account for these nuances, in this review, the extended TAM was developed based on the TRA and TPB to offer a more complete behavioural view (Yazdanpanahi et al. 2024:69). The TRA was established in 1975 by Fishbein and Ajzen (Conner 2020:170). Theory of reasoned action states that individual’s intention is its immediate cause for his or her action (Hagger 2019:4).

The South African higher education sector has existing application and admission CAS. The primary central application platforms currently in use include the CAO and CACH. The CAO that is based in the KwaZulu-Natal province accesses a regional data repository for compiling and processing student application information (CAO, South Africa 2025:21). However, it is extremely limited as it functions as a provincial platform; therefore, this platform is not available at a national level. On the other hand, it also lacks system integration functionality (Dzingwa 2018:430). This platform sometimes requires essential application data like ID numbers to be manually re-entered by the staff at the CAO (Dzingwa 2018:430). This manual process tends to lead to inconsistent data quality errors, as well as wasting valuable time (Dzingwa 2018:329). The limitations of this platform point to a lack of development and the need for innovation to develop the platform such that user PU and PEOU are achieved.

The CACH falls under the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) (CACH 2021:267). This platform acts as a reactive national placement platform for academically eligible students who have not received an offer from any institution of higher learning (Department of Higher Education and Training 2019:323). Although this is a national platform, its biggest limitation is that it is currently a reactive platform. Furthermore, this platform also relies on institutions of higher learning to upload the required application information on a voluntary basis (Sesale 2025:671). This process likely does not result in any meaningful benefit for users because of its reliance on voluntary performance, especially considering the reactive nature of the platform’s performance.

Both these platforms are heavily criticised for the lack of real-time updates, transparency, collaboration and efficiency features (Ngcobo 2023:93). These inefficiencies reduce user perceptions of usefulness and ease of use. In their current functionalities, these platforms seemingly have not been able to effectively and efficiently assist users in achieving their application and admission goals seamlessly because of fragmentation and inefficiency challenges.

Dominant literature critical themes about the primary CAS in SA emphasise the lack of live visibility or real-time updates about essential information for users. This information includes real-time updates relating to applications and admissions status and progress, respectively (Ngcobo 2023:72). These limitations are particularly obvious when functionalities are benchmarked against international performance standards. Criticisms argue that users are often left in the dark, resulting in increased levels of worry and distrust (Chipps 2024:215). This experience directly affects user influence about PU of the respective CAS. Users faced with ambiguity and uncertainty end up not knowing who to direct application enquiries to (Ngcobo 2023:71). Some users may end up directing their inquiries to institutions of higher learning directly, while others may decide to direct the same queries via the CAS.

The literature repeatedly emphasises how disconnected current CAS are (Mahmood, Khan & Bokhari 2020:135). These platforms are basically working in isolation. Unlike many of its international models that follow seamless integration, like the ApplyTexas platform (Taylor 2021). Central application systems in SA lack strong collaborative tools between users and other essential external stakeholders, such as NSFAS as an example (Dzingwa 2018:411). National Student Financial Aid Scheme is likely a key aspect for the majority of users of CAS in SA. Therefore, the lack of integration goes beyond creating administrative challenges for users. It also results in decreased PU and ease of use. Users of the platform require passive additional effort as they need to switch between two different CAS to apply.

Institutions of higher learning are also faced with limitations. These institutions are unable to confirm applicants’ personal data like ID numbers; they are also unable to confirm the results of applicants and must depend on the supporting attachments provided by their applicants. Institutions of higher learning are therefore required to use different platforms when they need confirmation of results via the DHET ERP platform. They also have to make use of the NSFAS platform to confirm funding status. These challenges of fragmented data may result in poor data quality problems and lots of unnecessary delays.

This extensive literature review has been developed on the TAM that has been extended by the TRA and further expanded to include TPB. This process includes critically scrutinising transparency, efficiency and collaboration. This approach has systematically integrated what is currently known regarding CAS in SA. By critically examining publications, this review has highlighted numerous limitations about understanding the application and admission practices. This includes the concerns around information management, policy and practice within South African institutions of higher learning.

Although studies have categorised the systemic and functional limitations of SA’s CAS, there is a lack of empirical studies focusing on users’ perceptions of transparency and collaboration regarding the CAO and CACH. Current research often focuses on a top-down, technology-driven perspective and fails to consider the everyday experiences of end users (Passey et al. 2024:205). This review’s analysis through the TAM, TRA and TPB elements indicates a lack of transparency, including limited real-time updates and collaboration, including disjointed integration with the NSFAS ERP system. Directly reducing users’ PU and PEOU. This lack of user-centred data is particularly problematic in relation to the extent to which these systems’ attributes affect acceptance, usage intentions and PBC. The academic impact is severe, as it hampers progress with a truly user-centred CAS and equitable access structures in SA.

The synthesis of this review illustrates a lack of or inadequate integration between the primary CAS with critical ERP systems like NSFAS (Mahmood et al. 2020:119). These vital systems are not integrated in an efficient and user-friendly manner, forcing users to bear enormous administrative burdens, especially low-income students who disproportionately rely on financial aid and need to also submit an NSFAS application for financial aid. This limitation reflects inefficiency and decreases PEOU and PU because of the need to switch between different portals. This lack of integration has a negative impact on users’ perceived behaviour. The analysis in this review reinforces the imperative for attention to this integration gap, not only in terms of system effectiveness but also for enhancing equitable access and narrowing the digital divide.

While the paper compares South African models, like the CAO and CACH, with other international models like the UCAS, VTAC and ApplyTexas. It also highlights that a lack of structured empirical benchmarking of SA’s CAS against global best practice exists (Dzingwa 2018:309). Despite the impressive body of literature, there has been no comprehensive canvas about what can be taken from comparable international systems in a way that goes beyond merely reporting on specific aspects of PU or ease of use. Such as placing objectively organised information practices, equity conceptualisations that can inform understanding and what exactly the South African context might do as it proceeds within digitalisation.

The initial benchmarking within this review can only partially address this as it identifies and underscores the requirements for detailed, empirically grounded comparative research to underpin the strategic development of such a fully national CAS. Articulating these knowledge gaps, this review also contributes scientifically and practically by presenting a critically appraised synthesis of what is currently known about the effectiveness of CAS in the South African context. It presents these inefficiencies as important intellectual matters and offers a justification for research that might help fill them. The strength of this review is in being able to crystallise these knowledge gaps and provide clarity as a stepping stone towards further development of information management within South African institutions of higher learning.

The existing literature confirms that the success of the CAS is inherently connected with three key, mutually supportive themes, namely transparency, collaboration and integration. These ideas do not work separately. A system that is created to work well with others automatically generates transparency, which in turn leads to administrative efficiency. Such systemic attributes are external predispositions that directly influence PU and PEOU of end users. This means technology acceptance processes are prompted mainly by system functionality, like collaborative tools or transparent workflows.

The framework assumes that PU and PEOU are not fixed; instead, they are supported by the psychosocial variables, such as the attitude of the user, subjective norms and behavioural controls (BI). This set of drivers will dictate the intention to adopt or reject the system. The model also ends with a dynamic feedback process, where the decision to use the system is continuously reconsidered according to the constant user experience that the end user has with its transparency, collaboration and efficiency (Figure 1). This establishes a positive feedback system between long-term system performance and the positive perception, ensuring long-term usage.

This conceptual framework is scalable across higher education, where similar socio-technical conditions exist. By emphasising adoptable features like multilingual functionality, user-friendly interfaces and data integration functionality means the platform will support a diverse range of user needs. Structural and contextual factors such as digital literacy, connectivity and diversity have the potential to moderate PBC. This suggests that the effective design of any CAS will promote transparency and collaboration, leading to improved PU and PEOU.

This literature search was limited between 2018 and 2025 literature to prioritise recent publications as much as possible for relevance and to enhance and improve coverage. All the literature included was restricted to English language. The search date of the database was set from January 2018 to May 2025. The search strategy followed a two-tiered screening process with well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria that produced the final synthesis of high-quality literature (Figure 3).

High-quality conference papers, dissertations and peer reviewed journal articles are mainly considered. All articles considered are written in English. The date of studies considered ranges but mainly constitutes data published between 2018 and 2025. This approach ensures that the literature reviewed is recent and in line with technological developments within the higher education sector. All literature considered discuss directly at least one of the key research concepts of this literature review.

Literature from other studies was identified and examined, but non-academic sources such as blog posts, news articles and unreferenced websites were excluded. Literature that covers technology in education but did not cover any of the main concepts of this literature review was also excluded. Papers covering the application and admission process for primary, secondary or senior school were identified and excluded.

After applying the search strategy, the eligible literature identified was added to one of three classification outcomes. Through the PRISMA guidelines, guided by the 27-item checklist, this study was able to locate relevant literature, classify the literature and document it according to dominant themes. Classification of the literature was done through reading the titles and abstracts of identified academic literature. Grey literature was classified and documented using main arguments of selected articles and policy documents.

A multi-source search strategy was applied to achieve a wide spectrum of results, covering both relevant academic literature and relevant grey literature. The search criteria were combined, refined and finally merged to achieve a thorough search.

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the North-West University Economic and Management Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Reference No. NWU 0078825A4).

The literature analysis highlights a lack of transparency as a major shortcoming of the primary CAS in SA, namely CAO and CACH (Ngcobo 2023:44). Existing literature indicates that the inability of these platforms to update information in real time for user benefits about user results reduces user perception of usefulness (Yazdanpanahi et al. 2024:187). The lack of this functionality creates confusion among users, reducing PEOU (Yazdanpanahi et al. 2024:59). This is because users must guess and accept ambiguity because of a lack of transparency (Dzingwa 2018:321).

These feature limitations are particularly obvious when SA CAS are compared with international best practise and performance standards. Universities and Colleges Admissions Service’s TRACK Button function is a case in point. Users of UCAS can track their applications and admission offers by simply using the ‘TRACK’ button functionality (McGrath 2018:144). When this button is pressed by the user, UCAS updates the user profile and generates in real-time latest information.

South African users are reported to be overwhelmed by feelings of anxiety resulting from distrusting the available information accessible on the CAS (Chipps 2024:25). Distrust results from the realisation that the information available on the CAS may be largely outdated. This situation radically reduces user PU of the respective platform. Central application systems in SA have an obvious limitation in providing real time up-to-date user information (Ngcobo 2023:136). Users may even lose confidence and trust, especially users who rely on the information provided by the respective CAS and have no other source of information. Where the CAS is unable to provide updated information, users may turn directly to the institutions of higher learning for answers.

Another theme that emerged is the lack of system collaboration and gaps among relevant stakeholders involved during the application and admission process (Mahmood et al. 2020:110). These stakeholders include potential student applicants, institutions of higher learning, other relevant government institution departments like NSFAS, DHET and the Department of Home Affairs. Central application systems in SA are largely fragmented as they operate in isolation (Rossouw & Goldman 2023:447). This suggests that there is no integration, and users are forced to jump between different platforms depending on the information required during the application and admission process.

For example, users who are using the CAO to apply for admission are forced to move between the respective CAO and the NSFAS financial aid application portal. Applicants needing to apply for financial aid can only apply using the NSFAS portal. They cannot apply for financial assistance on the same CAS they are using to apply for admission. Institutions of higher learning are also required to inspect applicants’ funding status via the NSFAS portal to confirm the latest student funding status. This information is not available on the used for the application and admission.

Switching between two or more CAS, like the CAO and NSFAS, to submit or review a single application can be perceived as requiring a lot of effort by some users, especially those users who are not computer literate. These users turn out to be intimidated by different application platforms, which in the main are likely to have different interfaces, requiring different navigation strategies to use them successfully (Dzingwa 2018:27). This user likely experiences potentially decreased usefulness, leading to more paper-based applications.

International comparisons provide useful international lessons as well as illustrative implications for improving current primary CAS in SA. Universities and Colleges Admissions Service from the UK, VTAC from Australia and ApplyTexas from the US are good examples of how to develop high PU and PEOU through their respective integrated ranking approaches, multi-institution collaboration and equity-centred design. Universities and Colleges Admissions Service’s power in data handling ability to simply control a range of applications and provide full end-to-end service is the result of an integrated system (McGrath 2018:46).

Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre’s advanced integration features and proactive equity programmes are evidence that regional systems can be strong and open tool diverse users (VTAC 2019:563). ApplyTexas is much easier to use and more useful to a lot more users because it can be used in different languages, and it also automatically links to scholarship applications (Taylor 2021:37). This functionality makes the platform attractive to a wide range of users, increasing PU and ease of use, especially from non-English-speaking users. These international platforms indicate the possibility of achieving transparency, collaboration and efficiency through the use and adoption of CAS.

The limitations of these international platforms share valuable insights that inform actionable recommendations towards the design and development of a fully centralised application platform in SA. ApplyTexas, with its lack of user satisfaction data, provides insights that users’ perceptions are vital in establishing usefulness regardless of the advancements of technological design. Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre, with its integration features and proactive equity programmes, demonstrates that a CAS can still lack availability, disadvantaging users outside regional boarders. Universities and Colleges Admissions Service’s lack of flexibility indicates that even integrated CAS can lack flexibility, affecting usefulness and ease of use in cases where users wish to adjust or amend their applications. Therefore, integration with other platforms must not completely compromise flexibility.

The review shows international comparators have strong evidence about the essential nature of well-designed CAS for achieving substantial reduction in administrative burden and cost (Taylor 2021:13). Evidently from the experience of UCAS in the UK and ApplyTexas in the US, a centralised application system that provides PU and PEOU simplified procedures, incorporates interrelated features and allows for multilingual support (McGrath 2018:289). Effectively, such a platform improves user’s PEOU and PU. Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, on the other hand, is recognised for being a one-stop shop for applications, from the application stage all the way to managing admission offers (McGrath 2018:359). Users submit one application form, and UCAS does all the heavy lifting. Sending multiple applications from a single input increase PU and ease of use.

The bilingual functionality of ApplyTexas has the effect of increasing accessability by making the platform more user-friendly, especially to non-English first-language speakers (Taylor 2021:6). These global platforms offer evidence-based confirmations that adoption of a comprehensive single platform greatly expediates the application and admission process. Use of CAS effectively reduces administrative burdens that are brought about by the increasing volume of applications year-on-year (Madwe, Chonco & Zungu 2025:37).

The synthesis finds that SA’s current primary CAS, namely CAO and CACH, are categorised by inadequate access to equity (Sekonyela 2021:347). They are categorised by a lack of transparency when compared to their international counterparts. These characteristics decrease user trust as users cannot track their applications or get real-time user feedback that is reliable and updated in real time (Dzingwa 2018:424). This could also be the reason why users feel they are being kept in the dark. User perception is that these platforms require increased effort from them. Perceived increased efforts result into decreased PEOU and PU (Lin & Yu 2023:6).

Lack of collaboration exacerbates the problems by causing fragmented data flows. Central application systems in SA are even more expensive, given the dominant social-economic conditions of users (Sesale 2025:655). Yet, these platforms are reported to be less user-friendly than their international counterparts. As a result, PU decreases. Systematic failures are compounded by an enormous barrier to equity in an environment that remains hard to bridge the digital gap. These collaboration challenges and systematic failures adversely affect the PBC of users. Furthermore, environmental factors prevent users from using CAS effectively even in cases where users have the best intentions of using a CAS (Kruger & Steyn 2024:56).

This review makes use of an important extension of the selected theoretical framework of TAM. Although the TAM extended by TRA and TPB provides a solid base for insights, the inclusion of key structural aspects would offer a more comprehensive framework to assess CAS’ effectiveness in the distinct setting of SA. The results of the equity barriers’ theme suggest strongly that digital literacy, system integration and institutional are not just exogenous factors (Ngcobo 2023:89). These key factors significantly impact the PU, PEOU and PBC (Conner 2020:254).

For example, a student with low digital literacy or poor Internet access is likely to have naturally lower PEOU and low PU, regardless of how friendly the interface of the respective application platform is. Therefore, this extension is a major theoretical advancement. It goes beyond the single perspective of technology diffusion and acknowledges that there are mediating factors because of socio-economic or infrastructural constraints that affect technology adoption (Conner 2020:519). With the assistance of the extensions to TAM, future research can thoroughly examine how technology is adopted in social-economic and infrastructural challenging environments.

In line with the results and gaps identified during this literature review, this review provides several important implications for policy development and practise adoption, as well as avenues for future research. These implications emanate from unpacking transparency gaps, collaboration shortfalls and efficiency barriers towards developing a more equitable and effective fully national CAS in SA.

Policymakers should encourage the development of sound and practical policies that will support the development and deployment of a fully centralised national application system with seamless integration abilities, promoting transparency, collaboration and efficiency. The policy should prioritise ensuring the CAS achieves high levels of usefulness and ease of use through integration with all essential ERP systems necessary for completing the application and admission processes. Practically, the policy focus should eliminate call operation deficiencies completely.

The adoption of fourth industrial revolution (4IR) technologies in line with the increasing technological adoption levels within institutions of higher learning is key. Artificial intelligence capabilities bring smart chatbots’ functionality, enhancing and enabling the CAS to answer questions about applications in real time (Madwe et al. 2025:84). With this AI enhancement, CAS users could receive personalised feedback from the platform without any human intervention.

This could potentially result in increased transparency, improving PEOU. Internet of Things (IoT) technology, if enabled, would allow the platform to consolidate data across a number of different systems from different institutions (Nkosi, Dlamini & Nkomo 2024:493). This functionality could also assist with integrating essential user information required to start and complete the application and admission process while increasing the platform’s agility and efficiency. Blockchain technology can support and improve traceability and trust while offering strong data security (Nkosi et al. 2024:461).

A truly national CAS must be established with equity principles to drive access into higher education. These equity requirements must be in line with government education equity access policies. Suggestions include adding a strong focus on multilingual support, making the platform more accessible to a greater number of users (Taylor 2021:6). This is particularly important given the SA context with over 10 official languages. Equity features should also enable the platform to establish whether it should consider waiving operational fees for users who are less fortunate users coming from low-income households without compromising service functionality and usability.

This review used a systematic approach based on the PRISMA principles to guarantee methodological rigour and transparency in its search strategy and selection criteria. A wide range of priorities in viewpoints were obtained through synthesising both academic and relevant grey literature. This range of perspectives contributed credibly to identify gaps in this literature. The coherent use of the theoretical framework, TAM and its extensions as an analysis tool provided a depth of insights for the interpretation of the findings. However, this literature review process was not without limitations.

The reliance on second-hand data collection meant that the findings of this review mirror the current state of publication bias (Lame 2019:262). Although an attempt was made to select and use the latest literature because of constant technological advancements, many results in some emerging solutions are not adequately addressed in this study (Kruger & Steyn 2024:120). Although a broader theoretical lens is used, this literature review has been limited to theories that are available. These limitations indicate that, although the results of this literature analysis are robust, the interpreter should be mindful of the natural constraints of using secondary data.

There is a critical need to conduct mixed-method empirical studies on how users perceive and experience CAS, as well as perceive the effectiveness of CAS, especially for rural, low-income, first-generation users. Such studies must go beyond what is numerically measurable to articulate the qualitative lives of individuals, specifically to help fill the knowledge gap of users’ perception regarding transparency and collaboration. This would offer a bottom-up, user-focused perspective about how these users interact with the CAS platforms.

Future research should empirically test this framework extension to establish if structural factors such as digital literacy, funding integration, and institutional autonomy influence TAM, TRA, and TPB in the South African context. This would give some empirical foundation to understanding how these contextual variables moderate technology adoption. Detailed comparisons of various CAS integration models with ERP systems like NSFAS need to be conducted. Such work could inform how to efficiently integrate in a manner that promotes collaboration and efficiency and maintains data integrity and the satisfaction of users, addressing the insufficient integration gap directly.

This review assessed the readiness and efficiency of CAS phenomenon as it applies to the application and admission process in SA, within institutions of higher learning. This review benchmarked primary CAS in SA with selected international CAS. It also conducted a robust systematic literature review through the lens of the TAM and its extensions, TRA and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). This review demonstrated that the current primary CAS in SA are faced with significant challenges of inefficiency, lack of transparency and a lack of collaboration (Dzingwa 2018:394).

These systems have significant capacity constraints, which means users cannot receive real-time updates from their current functionalities (Ngcobo 2023:136). These systems are also unable to provide admission and application status updates in real time. These systems are substantially behind when compared to international performance standards of selected CAS. These systems are not designed to cater for the phenomena of the digital divide affecting users from disadvantaged backgrounds (Ajani & Luthuli 2025:13).

Test synthesis results from this review highlight current performance standards of the primary CAS used in SA to be currently poor. Focus must prioritise efficiency, transparency and collaboration in a manner that adds to usefulness and ease of use.

In conclusion, the literature shows that there is a great gap in the adoption of centralised systems in the South African context. Even though the theoretical advantages are apparent, the anthropocentric obstacles have not been studied thoroughly. In turn, the results of this literature review have a direct conceptual foundation in the empirical research of Chapter 3. Using the TAM variables that are determined here, the following chapter shifts theoretical discussion to empirical confirmation, as to whether these perceived barriers are indeed true among higher education administrative employees.