The assimilation of software process innovations: an organizational learning perspective

The burden of organizational learning surrounding software process innovations SPIs-and complex organizational technologies in general-creates a "knowledge barrier" that inhibits diffusion. Attewell Attewell, P. 1992. Technology diffusion and organizational learning the case of business computing. Organ. Sci.31 1-19. has suggested that many organizations will defer adoption until knowledge barriers have been sufficiently lowered; however, this leaves open the question of which organizations should be more likely to innovate, even in face of high knowledge barriers. It is proposed here that organizations will innovate in the presence of knowledge barriers when the burden of organizational learning is effectively lower, either because much of the required know-how already exists within the organization, or because such knowledge can be acquired more easily or more economically. Specifically, it is hypothesized that organizations will have a greater propensity to initiate and sustain the assimilation of SPIs when they have a greater scale of activities over which learning costs can be spread learning-related scale, more extensive existing knowledge related to the focal innovation related knowledge, and a greater diversity of technical knowledge and activities diversity. An empirical study using data on the assimilation of object-oriented programming languages OOPLs by 608 information technology organizations strongly confirmed the importance of the three hypothesized factors in explaining the assimilation of OOPLs.

[1]  Lawrence B. Mohr,et al.  Conceptual issues in the study of innovation , 1976 .

[2]  D. Dillman,et al.  Mail and telephone surveys , 1978 .

[3]  W. W. Muir,et al.  Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity , 1980 .

[4]  E. Rogers,et al.  Reinvention in the Innovation Process , 1980 .

[5]  J. Ettlie Adequacy of Stage Models for Decisions on Adoption of Innovation , 1980 .

[6]  R. M. Durand,et al.  Applying the Jackknife Statistic in Testing and Interpreting Canonical Weights, Loadings, and Cross-Loadings , 1982 .

[7]  R. Zmud Diffusion of Modern Software Practices: Influence of Centralization and Formalization , 1982 .

[8]  L. G. Tornatzky,et al.  Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[9]  Gavin J. Wright An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1982 .

[10]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[11]  Claes Fornell,et al.  A second generation of multivariate analysis , 1982 .

[12]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory , 1982 .

[13]  R. Zmud An Examination of Push-Pull Theory Applied to Process Innovation in Knowledge Work , 1984 .

[14]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Response Effects in the Electronic Survey , 1986 .

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

[16]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  Measurement of Business Economic Performance: An Examination of Method Convergence , 1987 .

[17]  E. Rogers,et al.  Innovations and Organizations , 1988 .

[18]  A. Meyer,et al.  Organizational Assimilation of Innovations: A Multi-Level Contextual Analysis , 1988 .

[19]  Brad J. Cox,et al.  Planning the software industrial revolution , 1990, IEEE Software.

[20]  Vijay Gurbaxani,et al.  Diffusion in computing networks: the case of BITNET , 1990, Commun. ACM.

[21]  M. Fleischer,et al.  processes of technological innovation , 1990 .

[22]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[23]  L. Argote,et al.  The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings , 1990 .

[24]  James C. Wetherbe,et al.  The Adoption of Spreadsheet Software: Testing Innovation Diffusion Theory in the Context of End-User Computing , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[25]  Edward Yourdon,et al.  Object-oriented analysis , 2012 .

[26]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Beating Murphy's Law , 1991 .

[27]  William E. Lorensen,et al.  Object-Oriented Modeling and Design , 1991, TOOLS.

[28]  F. Damanpour Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis Of Effects Of Determinants and Moderators , 1991 .

[29]  G. Huber Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures , 1991 .

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

[31]  Magid Igbaria,et al.  Determinants of MIS employees' turnover intentions: a structural equation model , 1992, CACM.

[32]  Robert G. Fichman,et al.  International Conference on Information Systems ( ICIS ) 1992 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION : A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH , 2017 .

[33]  J. Pennings,et al.  Technological Networking and Innovation Implementation , 1992 .

[34]  Chamond Liu,et al.  What contributes to successful object-oriented learning? , 1992, OOPSLA.

[35]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  Now the learning curve affects CASE tool adoption , 1992, IEEE Software.

[36]  Clifford C. Huff,et al.  Elements of a realistic CASE tool adoption budget , 1992, CACM.

[37]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  Object-oriented and conventional analysis and design methodologies , 1992, Computer.

[38]  Arun Rai,et al.  Promise and problems: CASE usage in the US , 1993, J. Inf. Technol..

[39]  Stuart Bretschneider,et al.  Organizational Adoption of Microcomputer Technology: The Role of Sector , 1993, Inf. Syst. Res..

[40]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Object-oriented programming: The promise and the reality , 1993, J. Syst. Softw..

[41]  D. L. Mitchell A multivariate analysis of the effects of gender and computer vs paper/pencil modes of administration on survey results , 1993 .

[42]  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.

[43]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Applying Adaptive Structuration Theory to Investigate the Process of Group Support Systems Use , 1992, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[44]  Grady Booch,et al.  Object-oriented analysis and design with applications (2nd ed.) , 1993 .

[45]  Varun Grover,et al.  The Initiation, Adoption, and Implementation of Telecommunications Technologies in U.S. Organizations , 1993, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[46]  Gerald W. Both,et al.  Object-oriented analysis and design with applications , 1994 .

[47]  George S. Yip,et al.  Exploiting globalization potential: U.S. and japanese strategies , 1994 .

[48]  Computer Staff Dark Side of Objects , 1994 .

[49]  Ian M. Graham,et al.  Migrating to object technology , 1994 .

[50]  George S. Yip,et al.  EXPLOITING GLOBALIZATION POTENTIAL: U.S. , 1994 .

[51]  Sue A. Conger,et al.  INNOVATIONS : A CLASSIFICATION BY IT LOCUS OF IMPACT AND RESEARCH APPROACH , 2002 .

[52]  Adele Goldberg,et al.  Succeeding With Objects: Decision Frameworks for Project Management , 1995 .

[53]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  The assimilation and diffusion of software process innovations , 1995 .

[54]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  Object Technology and Reuse: Lessons from Early Adopters , 1997, Computer.