Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

Negotiating Technology Implementation: An Empirical Investigation of a Website Introduction

  • Terri L. Griffith
  • David A. Tansik
  • Lehman BensonIII
Article

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.

Keywords

Field Study World Wide Empirical Support Empirical Investigation Technology Implementation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. Adams, J. S. (1963). “Toward an Understanding of Inequity,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 422-436.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An Introduction to Motivation. Princeton,NJ: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  4. Barki, H. and J. Hartwick. (1994). “Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude,” MIS Quarterly 18(1), 59-82.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bazerman, M. H. and M. A. Neale. (1992). Negotiating Rationally. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bikson, T. (1987). Understanding the Implementation of Office Technology, The Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  8. Bikson, T. and B. Gutek. (1984). Implementation of Office Automation, Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Davis, F. D. (1989). “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly 13, 319-340.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. DeSanctis, G. (1983). “Expectancy Theory as an Explanation of Voluntary Use of a Decision-Support System,” Psychological Reports 52, 247-260.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Fisher, R. and W. Ury. (1981). Getting to Yes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  17. Fulk, J. and G. DeSanctis. (1995). “Electronic Communication and Changing Organizational Forms,” Organization Science 6(4), 337-349.Google Scholar
  18. Gasser, L. (1986). “The Integration of Computing and Routine Work,” ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 4, 205-225.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Greene, W. H. (1993). Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Griffith, T. L. (1996). “Negotiating Successful Technology Implementation: A Motivation Perspective,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 13(1), 29-53.Google Scholar
  23. Griffith, T. L. (1999). “Technology Features as Triggers for Sensemaking,” Academy of Management Review 24(3), 472-488.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Hare, A. P. (1976). Small Group Research. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hartwick, J. and H. Barki. (1994). “Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use,” Management Science 40(4), 440-465.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. James, L. R. and J. M. Brett. (1984). “Mediators, Moderators, and Tests for Mediation,” Journal of Applied Psychology 69, 307-321.Google Scholar
  33. Joshi, K. (1990). “An Investigation of Equity as a Determinant of User Information Satisfaction,” Decision Sciences 21, 786-807.Google Scholar
  34. Klein, K. J., A. Conn, and J. S. Sorra. (in press). “Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology.Google Scholar
  35. Kotter, J. P. (1995). “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” Harvard Business Review 73(2), 59-67.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Leonard-Barton, D. (1987). “Implementing Structured Software Methodologies: A Case of Innovation in Process Technology,” Interfaces 17, 6-17.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. Locke, E. A., G. P. Latham, and M. Erez. (1988). “The Determinants of Goal Commitment,” Academy of Management Journal 13, 23-39.Google Scholar
  42. Lucas, H. C. (1991). Implementation: The Key to Successful Information Systems. New York: Columbia.Google Scholar
  43. Lucas, H. C. (1997). Information Technology for Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  44. Mainiero, L. A. and R. L. DeMichiell. (1986). “Minimizing Employee Resistance to Technological Change,” Personnel July, 32-37.Google Scholar
  45. Majchrzak, A. (1988). The Human Side of Factory Automation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Markus, M. L. (1983). “Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation,” Communications of the ACM 26, 430-444.Google Scholar
  47. Markus, M. L. and R. I. Benjamin. (1997). “The Magic Bullet Theory in IT-Enabled Transformation,” Sloan Management Review Winter, 55-68.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. Neale, M. A. and M. H. Bazerman. (1991). Cognition and Rationality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Northcraft (1993). “Managing Clean Room Personnel with a Feedback-Centered Employee-Involvement Program,” Microcontamination April, 20.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
  56. Rivard, S. (1987). “Successful Implementation of End-User Computing,” Interfaces 17, 25-33.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Robey, D., D. L. Farrow, and C. R. Franz. (1989). “Group Process and Conflict in System Development,” Management Science 35, 1172-1191.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  61. Rubin, J. Z. and B. R. Brown. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Sproull, L. S. and K. R. Hofmeister. (1986). “Thinking about Implementation,” Journal of Management 12, 43-60.Google Scholar
  64. Steiner, I. A. (1972). Group Processes and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  65. Szajna, B. (1996). “Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model,” Management Science 42(1), 85-92.Google Scholar
  66. Thibaut, J. and L. Walker. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  69. Vroom, V. H. and A. G. Jago. (1988). The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  70. Vroom, V. H. and P. W. Yetton. (1973). Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Winner, L. (1997). “Look out for the Luddite Label,” MIT Technology Review 100(8), 62.Google Scholar
  73. Zmud, R. W. and J. F. Cox. (1979). “The Implementation Process: A Change Approach,” MIS Quarterly, 35-43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terri L. Griffith
    • 1
  • David A. Tansik
    • 2
  • Lehman BensonIII
    • 2
  1. 1.Leavey School of BusinessSanta Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA
  2. 2.College of Business and Public AdministrationUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations