Advertisement

Social Bookmarking on a Company’s Intranet: A Study of Technology Adoption and Diffusion

  • Nina D. Ziv
  • Kerry-Ann White
Chapter

Abstract

Until recent developments in digital-based innovation, companies were defined by how they made use of resources which were tangible things such as equipment, land, raw materials and human talent for the purpose of supplying goods and services to the economy [37]. Such companies had a clearly defined central management structure which was responsible for the general policies under which the company’s hierarchy operated with well delineated reporting relationships and job responsibilities [47]. Within this rigid hierarchical organizational structure, decision making was bureaucratic and an anti-innovation bias was prevalent [55]. Even with the development of electronic communications and computing systems, innovation was relegated to the purview of professional R&D departments [22] within a highly structured corporate environment [51]. Indeed, in 1992, when managers were surveyed about the structure of their companies, most answered that their companies were still structured in a very traditional way, that is, with standardized jobs, procedures and policies and a hierarchical organization which emphasized a top-down chain of command [6].

Keywords

Behavioral Intention Relative Advantage Technology Adoption Technology Acceptance Model Early Adopter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Agarwal and J. Prasad, “The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies,” Decision Science, Vol. 28, No. 3, 1997, pp. 557–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. Ajzen, “Attitude, Personality and Behavior,” Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Ajzen, “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, 1991, pp. 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    I. Ajzen, “Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2002, pp. 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    I. Ajzen, “Constructing a TPB Questionnaire: Conceptual and Methodological Consideration,” Retrieved April 1, 2009 from http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf, January 2006.
  6. 6.
    L. M. Applegate, “Business Transformation Self-assessment: Summary of Findings – 1992–93,” Harvard Business School, Note 194–013, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. M. Applegate, “Managing in an Information Age: Organizational Challenges and Opportunities,” Harvard Business School, Case #9–196–002, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 1977, pp. 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Bandura, “Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency,” American Psychologist, Vol. 37, No. 2, 1982, pp. 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Bobek and R. Hatfield, “An Investigation of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Role of Moral Obligation in Tax Compliance,” Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 15, 2003, pp. 13–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. W. Bock, R. W. Zmud, Y. Kim, and J. Lee, “Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2005, pp. 87–111.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Boone and R. Ganeshan, “Knowledge Acquisition and Transfer Among Engineers: Effects of Network Structure,” Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 29, 2008, pp. 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. G. Borrello, M. Morricone, A. Pedon, and P. Benevene, “Ethical Finance Between Saving and Investment,” Paper presented at the 29th Annual Colloquium of the International Association for Economic Psychology/SABE-IAREP Conference, Philadelphia, USA, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. M. Chang, “Predicting Unethical Behavior: A Comparison of the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 16, 1998, pp. 1825–1834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. L. Christensen and M. M. Eining, “Factors Influencing Software Piracy: Implications for Accountants,” Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1991, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. R. Compeau and C. Higgins, “Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1995, pp. 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Cross and L. Prusak, “The People Who Make Organizations Go-Or Stop,” Harvard Business Review, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. D’Astous, F. Colbert, and D. Montpetit, “Music Piracy on the Web – How Effective Are Anti-Piracy Arguments? Evidence from the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 28, 2005, pp. 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. D. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1989, pp. 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Eisend and P. Schuchert-Guller, “Explaining Counterfeit Purchase,” Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 12, 2006, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, “Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research,” Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Freeman and L. Soete, “The Economics of Industrial Innovation,” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Gagliardi and D. Compeau, “The Effect of Group Presentations on Intentions to Adopt Smart Card Technology: A diffusion of Innovations Approach,” Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada 23rd Conference ASAC, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. T. Gourville, “Note on Innovation Diffusion: Rogers’ Five Factors,” Case #9–505–075, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Greenfield and F. Rohde, “Technology Acceptance: Not all Organizations or Workers May Be the Same,” International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2009, pp. 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Hemlin, “Creative Knowledge Environments: An Interview Study with Group Members and Group Leaders of University and Industry R&D Groups in Biotechnology,” Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2009, pp. 278–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Hinkle, “Grassroots Political Action as an Inter-group Phenomenon,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 52, No. 1, 1996, pp. 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    W. Hong, J. Thong, W. Wong, and K. Tam, “Determinants of User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: An Empirical Examination of Individual Differences and Systems Characteristics,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 3, Winter 2001–2002, pp. 97–124.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    E. Karahanna, D. W. Straub, and N. L. Chervany, “Information Technology Adoption Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1999, pp. 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    N. B. Kurland, “Ethical Intentions and the Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1995, pp. 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    N. B. Kurland, “Sale Agents and Clients: Ethics, Incentives, and a Modified Theory of Planned Behavior,” Human Relations, Vol. 49, No. 1, 1996, pp. 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    T. Lee, “Nurses’ Adoption of Technology: Application of Rogers’ Innovation-Diffusion Model” Applied Nursing Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2004, pp. 231–238.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    K. Mathieson, “Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1991, pp. 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    G. C. Moore and I. Benbasat, “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1991, pp. 192–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. N. Nguyen, “Regular Exercise in 30-to-60 Year Old Men: Combining the Stages-of-Change Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior to Identify Determinants for Targeting Heart Health Interventions,” Journal of Community Health, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1997, pp. 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Parthasarathy and R. A. Mittelstaedt, “Illegal Adoption of a New Product: A Model of Software Piracy Behavior,” in Advances in Consumer Research 22, Eds., F. R. Kardes and M. S. Provo, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1995, pp. 693–698.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    E. Penrose, “The Theory of the Growth of the Firm,” New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    C. R. Plouffe, J. S. Hulland, and M. Vandenbosch, “Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions – Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2001, pp. 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. Porter, “Strategy and the Internet,” Harvard Business Review, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2001, pp. 63–78.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    C. K. Prahalad, “The Role of Core Competencies in the Corporation” in Managing Strategic Innovation and Change, M. Tushman and P. Anderson, Eds., New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    D. Robey, “User Attitudes and Management Information Systems Use,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1979, pp. 527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    E. Rogers, “Diffusion of Innovations,” New York: The Free Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    E. Rogers, “Diffusion of Innovations (3rd Edition),” New York: The Free Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    E. Rogers, “Diffusion of Innovations, (4th Edition),” New York: The Free Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    E. Rogers, “Diffusion of Preventive Innovations,” Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 27, 2002, pp. 989–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    D. B. Schifter and I. Ajzen, “Intention, Perceived Control and Weight Loss: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 49, 1985, pp. 843–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    C. B. Schoonhoven and M. Jelinek, “Dynamic Tension in Innovative, High Technology Companies: Managing Rapid Technological Change Through Organizational Structure,” in “Managing Strategic Innovation and Change,” M. Tushman and P. Anderson, Eds., New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    H. Shih, “Extended Technology Acceptance Model of Internet Utilization Behavior,” Information & Management, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2004, pp. 719–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    B. Szajna, “Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model,” Management Science, Vol. 42, No. 1, 1996, pp. 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    S. Taylor and P. A. Todd, “Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1995, pp. 561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    D. J. Teece, “Design Issues for Innovative Companies: Bureaucracy, Incentives and Industrial Structure,” in “The Dynamic Company: The Role of Technology, Strategy, Organization and Regions,” A. Chandler, Jr., P. Hagstrom, and O. Solvell, Eds., New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    V. Venkatesh, “Creation of Favorable User Perceptions Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivations,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1999, pp. 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2003, pp. 425–478.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    V. H. Vroom, “Work and Motivation,” New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    O.E. Williamson, “Markets and Hierarchies,” New York: The Free Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    D. J. Woolley and M. M. Eining, “Software Piracy Among Accounting Students: A Longitudinal Comparison of Changes and Sensitivity,” Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2006, pp. 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    A. K. Yarbrough and T. B. Smith, “Technology Acceptance Among Physicians: A New Take on TAM,” Medical Care Research and Review, Vol. 64, No. 6, 2007, pp. 650–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Technology ManagementPolytechnic Institute of New York UniversityBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations