Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Negotiating Technology Implementation: An Empirical Investigation of a Website Introduction

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Negotiated implementation is suggested as a cogent approach to meeting user and implementer needs, and thus, to increasing technology implementation. Negotiated implementation is expected to have its effect through three well‐known dimensions: ease of use, usefulness, and commitment. The efficacy of negotiated implementation is tested in the context of a university‐based field study of World Wide Web site use. Empirical support is found for the negotiated implementation approach. Implications and future research related to both theory and application are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, D. A., R. R. Nelson, and P. A. Todd. (1992). “Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication,” MIS Quarterly 16(2), 227-247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. S. (1963). “Toward an Understanding of Inequity,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 422-436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An Introduction to Motivation. Princeton,NJ: Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barki, H. and J. Hartwick. (1994). “Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude,” MIS Quarterly 18(1), 59-82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., E. A. Mannix, and L. L. Thompson. (1988). “Groups as Mixed-Motive Negotiations,” in E. J. Lawler and B. Markovsky (eds.), Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research, Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H. and M. A. Neale. (1992). Negotiating Rationally. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bikson, T. (1987). Understanding the Implementation of Office Technology, The Rand Corporation.

  • Bikson, T. and B. Gutek. (1984). Implementation of Office Automation, Rand Corporation.

  • Burton, F. G., Y. Chen, V. Grover, and K. A. Stewart. (1992). “An Application of Expectancy Theory for Assessing User Motivation to Utilize an Expert System,” Journal of Management Information Systems 9, 183-198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly 13, 319-340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D., R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw. (1992). “Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22, 1111-1132.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G. (1983). “Expectancy Theory as an Explanation of Voluntary Use of a Decision-Support System,” Psychological Reports 52, 247-260.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., M. S. Poole, and G. W. Dickson. (2000). “Teams and Technology: Interactions Over Time,” in M. A. Neale, E. A. Mannix, and T. L. Griffith (eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Technology, Vol. 3. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earley, P. C. and C. E. Shalley. (1991). “New Perspectives on Goals and Performance: Merging Motivation and Cognition,” in Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 9. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 121-157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie, J. E. (1984). “Implementation Strategy for Manufacturing Innovations,” in M. Warner (ed.), Micro-Processors, Manpower and Society: A Comparative, Cross-National Approach. New York: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. and W. Ury. (1981). Getting to Yes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulk, J. and G. DeSanctis. (1995). “Electronic Communication and Changing Organizational Forms,” Organization Science 6(4), 337-349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasser, L. (1986). “The Integration of Computing and Routine Work,” ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 4, 205-225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S. and T. L. Griffith. (1991). “A Process Approach to the Implementation of New Technology,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 8, 261-285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (1993). Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, L. and D. I. Chapman. (1998). “Negotiator Relationships: Construct Measurement, and Demonstration of Their Impact on the Process and Outcomes of Negotiation,” Group Decision and Negotiation 7, 465-489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, T. L. (1996). “Negotiating Successful Technology Implementation: A Motivation Perspective,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 13(1), 29-53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, T. L. (1999). “Technology Features as Triggers for Sensemaking,” Academy of Management Review 24(3), 472-488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, T. L., R. F. Zammuto, and L. Aiman-Smith. (1999). “Why New Technologies Fail: Overcoming the Invisibility of Implementation,” Industrial Management 41, 29-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. and R. E. Walton. (1986). “The Leadership of Groups in Organizations,” in P. S. Goodman (ed.), Designing Effective Work Groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, A. P. (1976). Small Group Research. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwick, J. and H. Barki. (1994). “Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use,” Management Science 40(4), 440-465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenbeck, J. R., H. J. Klein, A. M. O'Leary, and P. M. Wright (1989). “Investigation of the Construct Validity of a Self-Report Measure of Goal Commitment,” Journal of Applied Psychology 74(6), 951-956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunton, J. E. (1996). “Involving Information System Users in Defining System Requirements: The influence of Procedural Justice Perceptions on User Attitudes and Performance,” Decision Sciences 27(4), 647-671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunton, J. E. and K. H. Price. (1997). “Effects of the User Participation Process and Task Meaningfulness on Key Information System Outcomes,” Management Science 43(6), 797-812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Igbaria, M., N. Zinatelli, P. Cragg, and A. L. M. Cavaye. (1997). “Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model,” MIS Quarterly 21(3), 279-305.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R. and J. M. Brett. (1984). “Mediators, Moderators, and Tests for Mediation,” Journal of Applied Psychology 69, 307-321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, K. (1990). “An Investigation of Equity as a Determinant of User Information Satisfaction,” Decision Sciences 21, 786-807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., A. Conn, and J. S. Sorra. (in press). “Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology.

  • Kotter, J. P. (1995). “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” Harvard Business Review 73(2), 59-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P., D. C. Winters, and E. A. Locke. (1994). “Cognitive and Motivational Effects of Participation: A Mediator Study,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 15(1), 49-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E. E., III (1968). “Equity Theory as a Predictor of Productivity and Work Quality,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10, 306-313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1987). “Implementing Structured Software Methodologies: A Case of Innovation in Process Technology,” Interfaces 17, 6-17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, H. G. and D. Rossmoore. (1993). “Diagnosing the Human Threats to Information Technology Implementation: A Missing Factor in Systems Analysis Illustrated in a Case Study,” Journal of Management Information Systems 10(2), 55-73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, M. R. and R. W. Zmud. (1991). “The Influence of a Convergence in Understanding Between Technology Providers and Users on Information Technology Innovativeness,” Organization Science 2(2), 195-217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., G. P. Latham, and M. Erez. (1988). “The Determinants of Goal Commitment,” Academy of Management Journal 13, 23-39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, H. C. (1991). Implementation: The Key to Successful Information Systems. New York: Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, H. C. (1997). Information Technology for Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainiero, L. A. and R. L. DeMichiell. (1986). “Minimizing Employee Resistance to Technological Change,” Personnel July, 32-37.

  • Majchrzak, A. (1988). The Human Side of Factory Automation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L. (1983). “Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation,” Communications of the ACM 26, 430-444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L. and R. I. Benjamin. (1997). “The Magic Bullet Theory in IT-Enabled Transformation,” Sloan Management Review Winter, 55-68.

  • Markus, M. L. and M. Keil. (1994). “If We Build It, They Will Come: Designing Information Systems that People Want to Use,” Sloan Management Review 35(4), 11-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinsons, M. G. and P. K. C. Chong. (1999). “The Influence of Human Factors and Specialist Involvement on Information Systems Success,” Human Relations 52(1), 123-152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, M. A. and M. H. Bazerman. (1991). Cognition and Rationality. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northcraft (1993). “Managing Clean Room Personnel with a Feedback-Centered Employee-Involvement Program,” Microcontamination April, 20.

  • Orlikowski, W. J. and D. C. Gash. (1994). “Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems 12(2), 174-207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkely, R. L., T. L. Griffith, and G. B. Northcraft. (1995). “‘Fixed-Pie’ a la Mode: Information Availability, Information Processing, and the Negotiation of Sub-Optimal Agreements,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62(1), 101-112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G. (1983). “Integrative Agreements: Nature and Consequences,” in M. H. Bazerman and R. J. Lewicki (eds.), Negotiating in Organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, S. (1987). “Successful Implementation of End-User Computing,” Interfaces 17, 25-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey, D. and D. L. Farrow. (1982). “User Involvement in Information System Development: A Conflict Model and Empirical Test,” Management Science 28(1), 73-85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey, D., D. L. Farrow, and C. R. Franz. (1989). “Group Process and Conflict in System Development,” Management Science 35, 1172-1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey, D., L. A. Smith, and L. R. Vijayasarathy. (1993). “Perceptions of Conflict and Success in Information Systems Development Projects,” Journal of Management Information Systems 10, 123-139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, J. Z. and B. R. Brown. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R. (1977). “Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior and Belief,” in B. M. Staw and G. R. Salancik (eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behavior. Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, L. S. and K. R. Hofmeister. (1986). “Thinking about Implementation,” Journal of Management 12, 43-60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. A. (1972). Group Processes and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szajna, B. (1996). “Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model,” Management Science 42(1), 85-92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. and L. Walker. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornatzky, L. G. and E. C. Johnson. (1982). “Research on Implementation: Implications for Evaluation Practices and Evaluation Policy,” Evaluation and Program Planning 5, 193-198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V. H. and A. G. Jago. (1988). The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V. H. and P. W. Yetton. (1973). Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1990). “Technology as Equivoque: Sensemaking in New Technologies,” in P. S. Goodman and L. S. Sproull (eds.), Technology and Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1-44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1997). “Look out for the Luddite Label,” MIT Technology Review 100(8), 62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zmud, R. W. and J. F. Cox. (1979). “The Implementation Process: A Change Approach,” MIS Quarterly, 35-43.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leavey School of Business, Santa Clara University, 106 St. Joseph's Hall, Department of Management, Santa Clara, CA, 95053, USA

    Terri L. Griffith

  2. College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona, 405 McClelland Hall, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    David A. Tansik & Lehman Benson III

Authors
  1. Terri L. Griffith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Tansik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lehman Benson III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Griffith, T.L., Tansik, D.A. & Benson, L. Negotiating Technology Implementation: An Empirical Investigation of a Website Introduction. Group Decision and Negotiation 11, 1–22 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014596623389

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014596623389

Keywords

Search

Navigation