A multiple‐theory analysis of a diffusion of information technology case

Abstract. This paper describes a multiple‐theory analysis of a diffusion of information technology case. Three innovation diffusion models, the interactive model, the linked‐chain model and the emergent model, are used to develop an analysis that describes the essential knowledge that each model produces. Rather than develop conflicting stories, each model leads to distinctly different, but complementary, knowledge about the case setting. More generally, the analysis enables us to circumscribe the distinct conceptual domain of each model. These domains define the scope of research questions that can be addressed by each of the innovation diffusion models. In addition to the theoretical implications, the paper also describes the practical indications and actions of the case subjects.

[1]  D. Morgan.  Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis , 1980 .

[2]  Michael B. Usher,et al.  Science in action , 1993, Nature.

[3]  Pamela Jordan.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques , 1994 .

[4]  J. Pries-Heje,et al.  Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology , 1996, IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing.

[5]  Judy Bayer,et al.  A critique of diffusion theory as a managerial framework for understanding adoption of software engineering innovations , 1989, [1988] Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume II: Software track.

[6]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Explaining Development and Change in Organizations , 1995 .

[7]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[8]  R. Rothwell.  Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s , 1992 .

[9]  D. Knights,et al.  Networks and partnerships in the evolution of home banking , 1997 .

[10]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics of organizations , 1996 .

[11]  R. Wolfe.  ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION: REVIEW, CRITIQUE AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH DIRECTIONS* , 1994 .

[12]  M. Callon.  Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay , 1984 .

[13]  Soonchul Lee,et al.  Information technology impacts on innovation , 1988 .

[14]  S. Knox,et al.  R&D centred innovation: extending the supply side paradigm , 1990 .

[15]  Murray S. Davis,et al.  That's Interesting! , 1971 .

[16]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  Research on the management of innovation : the Minnesota studies , 1991 .

[17]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Hong Kong's EDI bandwagon derailed or on the right track? , 1997 .

[18]  Paul Ati ' Ewell.  TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: THE CASE OF BUSINESS COMPUTING* , 1992 .

[19]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  IT diffusion and innovation models: the conceptual domains , 1997 .

[20]  Richard Vidgen,et al.  Technology transfer: diffusion or translation? , 1997 .

[21]  Gerald G. Brown,et al.  Seasonal Production and Sales Planning with Limited Shared Tooling at the Key Operation. , 1979 .

[22]  S. J. Kline,et al.  Innovation Is Not a Linear Process , 1985 .

[23]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  Toward a Theory of the Adoption and Diffusion of Software Process Innovations , 1993, Diffusion, Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology.

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

[25]  Hannu Jaakkola.  Comparison and Analysis of Diffusion Models , 1996 .

[26]  Henry C. Lucas.  Marketing and technology strategy in a "medium-tech" startup , 1994, Inf. Manag..

[27]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations , 1994, TOIS.

[28]  P. Mogensen,et al.  Mediating change: translation and mediation in the context of bricolage , 1997 .