Change and Adaptive Behavior in Organizations

Innovation in Non-Competitive Environments as Typified by United States County and Local Governments
  • Andrew P. Jansma
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 59)

Abstract

This is an experience report that evolves into a survey of applicable theory that might be used for additional steps in the diffusion of artefacts into noncompetitive environments. The non-competitive environment in this case is county and local government in the United States. The particular case is the office of the County Register of Deeds/ Recorder, which has not seen a major change in the way business has been conducted since the 1950’s. The background of the decision to develop a document image processing system being is provided, and experiences in introducing this technology are discussed. There is a discussion of how business is conducted today, the barriers to adopting new technology, and how change management methods such as Kotter, Rogers, and Tushman and Romanelli apply. There is also a discussion of different models for characterizing culture such as Meyerson and Schein, and how these apply; theories of development and change such as Van de Ven and Poole, Zipf, and Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw; and the need for additional research in this area.

Keywords

Local Government Behavioural Intention Adaptive Behavior Document Image Technology Acceptance Model 
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.
Download to read the full conference paper text

References

  1. Bass, F. M. (1969), A New Product Growth Model for Consumer Durables, Management Science, 13 (5), 215–227.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A Dialectical View. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 pp. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booker, E. (1991, December 2), Imaging System a Whiz, Computerworld, XXV (48), 29.Google Scholar
  4. CTG. ( 1999, March), Some Assembly Required: Building a Digital Government, Center for Technology in Government, University of Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY. The report is also available at the following web address: http://www.ctg.albany.edu/. Google Scholar
  5. Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  6. Darnell, T. ( 1991, November). 1991 Survey of Issues and Trends, American City & County, 106 (11), 54–55.Google Scholar
  7. Darnell, T. & Carlile, J. (1989, July), User Blues. American City & County, 104 (7), 36–41.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, F. D.; Bagozzi, R., and Warshaw, P. R. (1989, August), User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models, Management Science, 35 (8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fletcher, P., Brentschneider S. and Marchand D, (1992). Managing Information Technology: Transforming County Government in the 1990s, ( Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University School of Information Studies).Google Scholar
  10. Greiner, L. E., (1972) “Evolution and revolution as organizations grow,” Harvard Business Review, (July-August): 165–174.Google Scholar
  11. Hallory, S. R. P. (1998) A Theoretical Framework for Abundance Distributions in Complex Systems, Complexity International, http://life.csu.edu.au/complex/ci/vol6/halloy 2 Vol. 6.Google Scholar
  12. Jen, K. A. (1997). A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 530–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kotter, J. P. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.Google Scholar
  14. Koulopoulos, T. M. and Frappaolo, C. (1995), Electronic Document Management Systems: A Portable Consultant, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, pp. 57–58.Google Scholar
  15. Leach, R. & O’Rourke, R. (1988). State and Local Government: The Third Century of Federalism. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  16. Meyerson, D., and Martin, J. (1987). Cultural Change: An Integration of Three Different Views, Journal of Management Studies, 24: 6, 623–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. NACO, (1999), Technology in America’s Counties: A Survey of Use and Application, National Association of Counties, Washington DC, USA, 1999Google Scholar
  18. Pagano, M. (1990, May). State-Local Relations in the 1990’s, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 509, pp. 94–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations ( 4th ed. ), New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Schein, E. H. (1985) Defining Organization Culture, Organizational Culture and Leadership, Josey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1–22.Google Scholar
  21. Streib, G. & Waugh, W. (1991, June), The Changing Responsibilities of County Governments: Data from a National Survey of County Leaders, American Review of Public Administration, 21 (2), 140–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tushman, M. L., and Romanelli, E. (1985) “Organizational Evolution and Revolution,” in Cummings & Staw, Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, 7: 171–222.Google Scholar
  23. Van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S., (July, 1995 ) Explaining Development and Change in Organizations, Academy of Management Review, 20.Google Scholar
  24. Weinstein, S. H. (1986). Military or Civilian Use of Instructional Innovations: Is There a Difference? San Francisco: National Society for Performance and Instruction. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 271 580 ).Google Scholar
  25. Zipf, G. K. (1949), Human Behavior and The Principle of Least Effort, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew P. Jansma
    • 1
  1. 1.Carlson School of ManagementUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations