A Test of the Individual Action Model for Organizational Information Commons

This research elaborated and empirically tested the individual action component of the collective action model as applied to individual contributions to organizational information commons. The model extended prior theory and research by making six elaborations on the classic collective action model based on unique characteristics of information goods compared to material collective goods. The structural equation model was tested via LISREL analyses of data provided by 781 respondents in three high-tech firms who had access to corporate intranets as shared information goods. The results were highly similar across organizations and indicated that (a) level of production, information retrieval, and cost predicted the perceived value of information, (b) information value and cost predicted gain, and (c) information retrieval and gain predicted the level of individual contributions to the commons.

[1]  P. Samuelson.  The Pure Theory of Public Expanditure , 1954 .

[2]  R. Sitgreaves.  Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). , 1979 .

[3]  Chester A. Schriesheim,et al.  The Invariance of Anchor Points Obtained by Magnitude Estimation and Pair-Comparison Treatment of Complete Ranks Scaling Procedures: an Empirical Comparison and Implications for Validity of Measurement , 1978 .

[4]  T. L. Schwartz.  The Logic of Collective Action , 1986 .

[5]  R. Pitetti,et al.  Managerial dilemmas. , 2001, Pediatric emergency care.

[6]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation , 1992, CSCW '92.

[7]  W. Kim,et al.  Fair process: managing in the knowledge economy. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[8]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Distinguishing Between the Forest and the Trees: Media, Features, and Methodology in Electronic Communication Research , 1994 .

[9]  G. Marwell,et al.  The critical mass in collective action : a micro-social theory , 1993 .

[10]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Motivations to Resolve Communication Dilemmas in Database-Mediated Collaboration , 2002, Commun. Res..

[11]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: User's Reference Guide , 1997 .

[12]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Theories of Communication Networks , 2003 .

[13]  Paul S. Goodman,et al.  A process approach to the implementation of new technology , 1991 .

[14]  J. H. Dyer.  Effective interim collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximise transaction value , 1997 .

[15]  Beth E Allen,et al.  Information as an Economic Commodity , 1990 .

[16]  Joan F. Cheverie.  The changing economics of information, technological development, and copyright protection: what are the consequences for the public domain? ☆ , 2002 .

[17]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[18]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications , 1988 .

[19]  H. A. Green,et al.  THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY , 2001 .

[20]  Pamela Oliver,et al.  Whatever Happened to Critical Mass Theory? A Retrospective and Assessment* , 2001 .

[21]  R. Rice,et al.  Attitudes toward New Organizational Technology: Network Proximity as a Mechanism for Social Information Processing. , 1991 .

[22]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of Interactive Media , 1987 .

[23]  S ButlerBrian.  Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability , 2001 .

[24]  G. Marwell,et al.  The critical mass in collective action , 1993 .

[25]  P. Ekeh,et al.  Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions. , 1975 .

[26]  Brian K. Thorn,et al.  Discretionary Databases: Theory, Data, and Implications , 1990 .

[27]  Hal R. Varian,et al.  Information rules - a strategic guide to the network economy , 1999 .

[28]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Executives’ Perceptions of the Business Value of Information Technology: A Process-Oriented Approach , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[29]  M. Olson,et al.  The Logic of Collective Action , 1965 .

[30]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  FOSTERING INTRANET KNOWLEDGE- SHARING: AN INTEGRATION OF TRANSACTIVE MEMORY AND PUBLIC GOODS APPROACHES , 2001 .

[31]  Alan R. Simon,et al.  WorkGroup Computing: Workflow, Groupware, and Messaging , 1996 .

[32]  G. Hardin,et al.  The Tragedy of the Commons , 1968, Green Planet Blues.

[33]  John W. Sweeney.  An experimental investigation of the free-rider problem , 1973 .

[34]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  Competing for Attention in Knowledge Markets: Electronic Document Dissemination in a Management Consulting Company , 2001 .

[35]  Abraham Silberschatz,et al.  Database research faces the information explosion , 1997, CACM.

[36]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Connective and Communal Public Goods in Interactive Communication Systems , 1996 .

[37]  Chester A. Schriesheim,et al.  Development and Empirical Verification of New Response Categories to Increase the Validity of Multiple Response Alternative Questionnaires , 1974 .

[38]  Jeffrey H. Dyer.  EFFECTIVE INTERFIRM COLLABORATION : HOW FIRMS MINIMIZE TRANSACTION COSTS AND MAXIMIZE TRANSACTION VALUE r , 1998 .

[39]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Production of Collective Action in Alliance-Based Interorganizational Communication and Information Systems , 1998 .

[40]  M. Castells.  The rise of the network society , 1996 .

[41]  Brian S. Butler,et al.  Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-Based Model of Online Social Structures , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[42]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  The Value of Formative Investment in Organizational Federations , 2001 .

[43]  A. J. Head.  Demystifying intranet design : Five guidelines for building usable sites , 2000 .

[44]  Telecommunications Board.  The digital dilemma : intellectual property in the information age , 2000 .