Abstract

Compatibility has been recognized as an important element in the adoption of IT innovations in organizations but as a concept it has been generally limited to technical or functional factors. Compatibility is also significant, however, with regard to value compatibility between the organization and the adopted IT innovation. We propose a framework to determine value compatibility analyzing the organization’s and information system’s structure, practices, and culture and to explore the value compatibility of an organization with its adopted self-service computer-based information system. A case study was conducted to determine the congruence of an organization’s value and IT value compatibility. This study found that while there was a high correspondence in the organizational structure and practices dimensions, there were organizational culture disparities. The cultural disparities reflected the self-service acceptance and training issues experienced by the case organization. These findings explain the problems experienced with value compatibility and the adoption of the information systems and show the suitability of the framework for the detection of such problems.

Keywords

Value compatibility IT innovation 

References

  1. Cooper, R. “The Inertial Impact of Culture on IT Implementation,” Information and Management (27), 1994, pp. 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Harrington, S. J., and Ruppel, C. P. “Practical and Value Compatibility: Their Roles in the Adoption, Diffusion, and Success of Telecommuting,” in P. De and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Proceedings of the 20 th International Conference on Information Systems, Charlotte, NC, 1999, pp. 103–112.Google Scholar
  3. Hofstede, G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: Harper Collins Business, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. “A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Klein, K. J., and Sorra, J. S. “The Challenge of Innovation Implementation,” Academy of Management Review (21:4), 1996, pp. 1055–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kraemer, K. L., and King, J. L. “Social Analysis in MIS: The Irvine School, 1970–1990,” in J. F. Nunamaker (ed.), Proceedings of the 27th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1990, Volume 3, pp. 582–590.Google Scholar
  7. Mintzberg, H. Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organizations, New York: The Free Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. Myers, M. D. “Qualitative Research in Information Systems,” MISQ Discovery, archival version, June 1997 (available online at http://www.misq.org/discovery/MISQD_isworld/index.html).Google Scholar
  9. Orlikowski, W. “Learning from Notes: Organizational Issues in Groupware Implementation,” The Information Society (9:3), 1993, pp. 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Robbins, S.P., and Langton, N. Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, Applications, Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc., 1995.Google Scholar
  11. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.), New York: The Free Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. Romm, C. T., Pliskin, N., Weber, Y., and Lee, A. “Identifying Organizational Culture Clash in MIS Implementation: When Is it Worth the Effort,” Information & Management (21), 1991, pp. 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schein, E. H. “Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture,” Sloan Management Review (25:2), 1984, pp. 3–16.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Tornatzky, L. G., and Klein, K. J. “Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption-Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Findings,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (EM-29:1), February 1982, pp. 28–45.Google Scholar
  15. Walsham, G. Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. Zammuto, R. F., and O’Connor, E. J. “Gaining Advanced Manufacturing Technologies’ Benefits: The Roles of Organization Design and Culture,” Academy of Management Review (17:4), 1992, pp. 701–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Bunker
    • 1
  • Karlheinz Kautz
    • 2
  • Anne Luu Thanh Nguyen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Copenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations