Adoption of innovation has long been studied and covered extensively in the literature. Although these studies are strong in identifying theoretical foundations, factors, players, organisational structure, and how these factors influence adoption of innovation in an organisation, and provide a comprehensive coverage of the topic, there is still a need to take a fresh, systematic look at the literature to map and structure the vast amount of information it provides. A few studies have proposed frameworks to analyse the literature such as the dichotomy of variance research and process research (King 1990), the distinction between diffusion, determinants, and process research (Wolfe 1994), and roles and the interaction between individual and organisation (Slappendel 1996). Rogers (1995) stated that diffusion of innovation involved a social system, where the elements within that system interact in the adoption process. Slappendel’s framework is the only one that takes a different perspective of the interaction between individual and structure. The paper also contains a comprehensive literature review to support the findings (Kautz and Nielsen 2004). Therefore, we believe that it is the most appropriate framework to analyse the literature on adoption of innovation. The other frameworks did not provide as complete a set of perspective as Slappendel’s. Slappendels framework looks at an individual perspective, organisation perspective, and interactive process perspective (Slappendel 1996; Kautz 2004; Kautz and Nielsen 2004). The other frameworks only provided either individualist perspectives (for example Iacovou, Benbasat et al. 1995; Elliot 1996; Thong and Yap 1996; Fink 1998; Thong 1999; Utomo and Dodgson 2001) or structuralist perspectives (for example Premkumar and Ramamurthy 1995; Thong and Yap 1995; Yao, Xu et al. 2003; Bagchi, Hart et al. 2004; Gefen, Rose et al. 2005). Only Slappendel’s framework provided the interactive process model (Kautz and Nielsen 2004). This model views innovation as a dynamic phenomenon, therefore the adoption of innovation (in this article IT) is also a dynamic phenomenon.
Slappendel’s framework identified three perspectives on innovations studies: individualist, structuralist, and interactive process. The elements of the framework are illustrated in Table 1.
Slappendel (1996) also suggested the use of case research and case histories as a research methodology to investigate the adoption of innovation from the interactive process perspective. Slappendel’s framework is also supported by the perspectives of individual behaviour in an organisation or organisational behaviour. A model of organisational behaviour contingency shows the development of organisational behaviour as individual, group, and organisational systems, as depicted in Figure 1 (Robbins 2003). The contingency theory of organisational behaviour recognises that an organisation is situated in an environment and consists of individuals who interact with each other within groups.
|Basic assumptions||Individuals cause innovation||Innovation is determined by structural characteristics||Innovation is produced by the interaction of structural influences and the action of individuals|
|Conceptualisations of an innovation||Static and objectively defined objects or practices||Static and objectively defined objects or practices||Innovations are subject to reinvention and reconfiguration. Innovations are perceived|
|Conceptualisations of an innovation process||Simple linear, with focus on the adoption stage||Simple linear, with focus on the adoption stage||Complex process|
|Core concepts||Champion, leader, entrepreneur||Environment, size, complexity, differentiation, formalisation, centralisation, strategic type||Shocks, proliferation, innovative, capability, context|
|Research methodology||Cross-sectional survey||Cross-sectional survey||Case studies, case histories|
Table 1. Slappendel’s framework (Slappendel 1996)
Figure 1. Contingency model of Organisational Behaviour (Robbins 2003)
With this model as a guide, it is understandable that the study of adoption of innovation takes different perspectives within an organisation according to the organisation’s building blocks (Slappendel 1996), rather than process research, diffusion, and determinants (King 1990; Wolfe 1994).
Bagchi, K., P. Hart, et al. (2004). “National Culture and Information Technology Adoption.” Journal of Global Information Technology Management 7(4): 29-46.
Elliot, S. R. (1996). Adoption and Implementation of IT: An Evaluation of the Applicability of Western Strategic Models to Chinese Firms. Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology. K. Kautz and J. Pries-Heje. London, Chapman & Hall: 3-31.
Fink, D. (1998). “Guidelines for The Successful Adoption of Information Technology in Small and Medium Enterprises.” International Journal of Information Management 18(4): 243-253.
Gefen, D., G. M. Rose, et al. (2005). “Cultural Diversity and Trust in IT Adoption: A Comparison of Potential e-Voters in The USA and South Africa.” Journal of Global Information Technology Management 13(1): 54-78.
Iacovou, C. L., I. Benbasat, et al. (1995). “Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organizations: Adoption and Impact of Technology.” MIS Quarterly 19(4): 465-485.
Kautz, K. (2004). The Enactment of Methodology: The Case of Developing a Multimedia Information Systems. Proceedings The 25th International Conference on Information Systems.
Kautz, K. and P. A. Nielsen (2004). “Understanding The Implementation of Software Process Improvement Innovations in Software Organizations.” Information Systems Journal 14(1): 3-22.
King, N. (1990). Innovation at Work: The Research Literature. Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. M. A. West and J. L. Farr. Chichester, Wiley: 15-80.
Premkumar, G. and K. Ramamurthy (1995). “The Role of Interorganizational and Organizational Factors on the Decision Mode for Adoption of Interorganizational Systems.” Decision Sciences 26(3): 303-336.
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, Free Press.
Slappendel, C. (1996). “Perspectives on Innovation in Organizations.” Organization Studies 17(1): 107-129.
Thong, J. Y. L. (1999). “An Integrated Model of Information Systems Adoption in Small Businesses.” Journal of Management Information Systems 15(4): 187-214.
Thong, J. Y. L. and C. S. Yap (1995). “CEO Characteristics, Organizational Characteristics and Information Technology Adoption in Small Businesses.” Omega The International Journal of Management Science 23(4): 429-442.
Thong, J. Y. L. and C. S. Yap (1996). Information Technology Adoption by Small Business: An Empirical Study. Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology. K. Kautz and J. Pries-Heje. London, Chapman & Hall: 160-175.
Utomo, H. and M. Dodgson (2001). “Contributing Factors to The Diffusion of IT Within Small and Medium-sized Firms in Indonesia.” Journal of Global Information Technology Management 4(2): 22-37.
Wolfe, R. A. (1994). “Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique and Suggested Research Directions.” Journal of Management Studies 31(3): 405-431.
Yao, J. E., X. Xu, et al. (2003). “Organizational Size: A Significant Predictor of IT Innovation Adoption.” Journal of Computer Information Systems 43(2): 76-82.