Advertisement

Applying “Business Case” Construct Using the “Diffusion of Innovations” Theory Framework: Empirical Case Study in the Higher Education

Chapter
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 28)

Abstract

Real-world cases have highlighted the need for better understanding of the process by which risk-averse organizations introduce new enterprise systems. There is a particular need to focus on the “business case document” which comprehensively outlines the pros and cons of adopting the new system. This chapter describes the complex innovation and diffusion process of enterprise systems as not described before. It asks questions about how information on a new system is communicated to potential stakeholders. Taking the specific case of a large public sector university, it examines all the processes involved in evaluating whether a new ­system is right for an organization and convincing both end-users and upper management to approve the change. Accordingly, any document that drives this change must be as credible as possible. And so, this paper looks at the possible sources of credibility for both the document and the sponsor who writes it.

Keywords

Business case Diffusion of Innovations Financial management ­information systems executive sponsor upper management perceived attributes of the innovation 

Abbreviation

BCDoI

Business Case, Diffusion of Innovations

References

  1. Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 819–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahuja, M. K., & Thatcher, J. B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: Effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information use. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 427–459.Google Scholar
  3. Amesse, F., & Cohendet, P. (2001). Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy, 30(9), 1459–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations: The limits to organizational knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Avery, J. (1997). Progress, poverty and population: Re-reading Condorcet, Godwin and Malthus. Portland, OR: Frank Cass Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Baskerville, R. L., & Pries-Heje, J. (2001). A multiple-theory analysis of a diffusion of information technology case. Information Systems Journal, 11(3), 181–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 493–524.Google Scholar
  9. Bell, W., et al. (1996). An overview of future studies. In The knowledge base of future studies (Foundations, Vol. 1, pp. 26–56). Hawthorne: DDM Media Group.Google Scholar
  10. Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (2002). The case research strategy in studies of ­information systems. In M. D. Myers & D. Avison (Eds.), Qualitative research in information systems: A reader (pp. 79–99). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Bhaskar, R. (2002). From science to emancipation: alienation and the actuality of enlightenment. Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.Google Scholar
  13. Borge, D. (2001). The book of risk. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Bottomore, T., & Nisbet, R. (Eds.). (1978). A history of sociological analysis. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2003). Bringing non-adopters along: The challenge facing the PC industry. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 399–426.Google Scholar
  17. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Brynjolfsson, E., & Kemerer, C. F. (1996). Network externalities in microcomputer software: An econometric analysis of the spreadsheet market. Management Science, 42(12), 1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Building a business case. (2008). Retrieved Oct. 25, 2008 from http://www.shortcourses.auckland.ac.nz/courses/37/1812/.
  20. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (2005). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Ardershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  21. Caldwell, B. (1998 July). Andersen sued on R/3. InformationWeek.Google Scholar
  22. Canals, J. (2000). Managing corporate growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Clarke, S. P. (2007). Making the business case for nursing: Justifying investments in nurse staffing and high-quality practice environments. Nurse Leader, 5(4), 34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coleman, J., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1957). The diffusion of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry, 20, 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organisational innovations: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Damanpour, F. (1992). Organisation size and innovation. Organization Studies, 13, 375–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: Combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Information Systems Journal, 8(4), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  33. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Dettmer, H. W. (2003). Strategic navigation: A systems approach to business strategy. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.Google Scholar
  37. Dimick, J. B., Weeks, W. B., Karia, R. J., Das, S., & Campbell, J. D. A. (2006). Who pays for poor surgical quality? Building a business case for quality improvement. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 202(6), 933–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Durkheim, E. (1938). The rules of sociological method. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Durlabhji, S. (1993). The influence of Confucianism and Zen on the Japanese organization. In S. Durlabhji, N. E. Marks, & S. Roach (Eds.), Japanese business: Cultural perspectives (pp. 57–75). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  40. Easterbrook, S. M., Yu, E., Aranda, J., Fan, Y., Horkoff, J., Leica, M., et al. (2005 Aug 29–Sept 2). Do viewpoints lead to better conceptual models? An exploratory case study. Paper presented at the 13th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  41. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  42. Eom, S. B. (Ed.). (2005). Inter-organizational information systems in the internet age. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.Google Scholar
  43. Ettlie, J. E. (1980). Adequacy of stage models for decision on adoption of innovation. Psychological Reports, 46, 991–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fang, J. S., Ford, D. M., & Mannan, M. S. (2004). Making the business case for process safety using value-at-risk concepts. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 115(1–3), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1986). Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncement, and predation. American Economic Review, 76(5), 940–956.Google Scholar
  46. Ferrier, A. (2004 Oct 7). Address by Andrew Ferrier CEO Fonterra to the Annual Meeting of Shareholders. Retrieved Nov 24, 2008 from http://www.fonterra.com/wps/wcm/connect/55711700452c52a4bbc2ff873d7e2c80/AGM04_Andrew_Presentation.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
  47. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 695–727). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Inc.Google Scholar
  49. Funk, K. (2003). Sustainability and performance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(2), 65.Google Scholar
  50. Gattiker, T. F., & Goodhue, D. L. (2005). What happens after ERP implementation: Understanding the impact of interdependence and differentiation on plant-level outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 559–585.Google Scholar
  51. Giddens, A. (1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  52. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  53. Gilbert, D. (2006). Stumbling on happiness. New York: Random House, Inc.Google Scholar
  54. Granados, A., Johnson, E., Banta, H. D., Bero, L., Bonair, A., Cochet, C., et al. (1997). EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on dissemination and impact. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 13(2), 220–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Green, S. (2004). Manager’s guide to Sarbanes–Oxley act: Improving internal controls to prevent fraud. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of ­innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). New York: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  58. State Services Commission and the Treasury. (2001). Guidelines for Managing and Monitoring Major IT Projects. http://www.ssc.govt.nz/publications-and-resources/1066/all-pages.
  59. State Services Commission. (2007). Guidelines for preparing E-government business cases. http://www.e.govt.nz/plone/archive/policy/governance/business-case-07.1.html.
  60. Hart, H. L. A., & Honoré, T. (1985). Causation in the law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (trans: Macquarrie, J., & Robinson, E.). New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  62. Heidegger, M. ([1954]2010). The question concerning technology. In C. Hanks (Ed.), Technology and values: Essential readings (pp. 99–113). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  63. Howell, B., Corbett, L., Mishra, V., & Ryan, L. (2004 Feb 10). Information and Communications Technologies in New Zealand: Nine Case Studies. Retrieved Nov 24, 2008 from http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/2492/05-fonterra.pdf.
  64. Hume, D. (2004). An enquiry concerning human understanding: A critical edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  65. Hurt, H. T., & Hubbard, R. (1987). The systematic measurement of the perceived characteristics of information technologies: Microcomputers as innovations. Paper presented at the ICA annual conference, Montreal, Quebec.Google Scholar
  66. Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of science and technologies studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  67. Jongseok, L., Jeho, L., & Habin, L. (2003). Exploration and exploitation in the presence of network externalities. Management Science, 49(4), 553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  69. Kant, I. (1934). The critique of pure reason (trans: Meiklejohn, J.M.D.). London: J.M. Dent.Google Scholar
  70. Karat, C.-M., Randolph, G. B., & Deborah, J. M. (2005). A business case approach to usability cost justification for the web. In Cost-justifying usability (2nd ed., pp. 103–141). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  71. Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. American Economic Review, 75, 424–440.Google Scholar
  72. Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1986). Technological adoption in the presence of network externalities. Journal of Political Economics, 94, 822–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1994). Systems competition and network effects. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 93–115.Google Scholar
  74. Katz, R. (2004). Managing technological innovation in organization. In R. Katz (Ed.), The human side of managing technological innovation: A collection of readings (2nd ed., pp. 685–700). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. King, C. A., & Sapnas, K. G. (2007). Building a business case for the advanced practice registered nurse. Perioperative Nursing Clinics, 2(1), 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Kinnunen, J. (1996). Gabriel Tarde as a founding father of innovation diffusion research. Acta Sociologica, 39(4), 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kwon, T. H., & Zmud, R. W. (1987). Unifying the fragmented models information systems implementation. In R. J. Boland Jr. & R. J. Hirschheim (Eds.), Critical issues in information systems research (pp. 227–251). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  78. Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 461–491.Google Scholar
  79. Larsen, M. E., & Myers, M. D. (1999). When success turns into failure: A package-driven business process re-engineering project in the financial services industry. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 8, 395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Latour, B. (2004). The social as association. In N. Gane (Ed.), The future of social theory (pp. 77–90). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  81. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Menzel, H. (1963). Mass media and personal influence. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  82. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1949). Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action. In W. Schramm (Ed.), Mass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  83. Leifer, R., O’Connor, G. C., & Rice, M. P. (2004). Implementing radical innovation in mature firms. In R. Katz (Ed.), The human side of managing technological innovation: A collection of readings (2nd ed., pp. 464–477). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Leonard-Barton, D. (1985). Experts as negative opinion leaders in the diffusion of a technological innovation. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 914–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Leonard-Barton, D. (1988). Implementation and mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17(5), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Management Science, 34, 1252–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (n.d.). Network externalities (effects). Retrieved August 1 2008 from http://www.utdallas.edu/∼liebowit/palgrave/network.html.
  88. Llewelyn, S. (2003). What counts as “theory” in qualitative management and accounting research? Introducing five levels of theorizing. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(4), 662–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Luftman, J., & Koeller, C. T. (2003). Assessing the value of IT. In J. N. Luftman (Ed.), Competing in the information age: Align in the sand (2nd ed., pp. 77–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Luhmann, N. (2006). System as difference. Organization, 13(1), 37–57.Google Scholar
  91. MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (1999). The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Mahajan, V., & Peterson, R. A. (1985). Models for innovation diffusion. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  93. Maklan, S., Knox, S., & Ryals, L. (2005). Using real options to help build the business case for CRM investment. Long Range Planning, 38(4), 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1973). Karl Marx: On society and social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  95. McLaughlin, J. (2004). Winning project approval: Writing a convincing business case for project funding. Journal of Facilities Management, 2(4), 330–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Meyer, A. D., & Goes, J. B. (1988). Organizational assimilation of innovations: A multilevel ­contextual analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 897–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Meyers, P. W., Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (1999). Implementation of industrial process innovations: Factors, effects, and marketing implications. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(3), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorêt, A. (1976). The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 21, 246–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Mohr, L. B. (1987). Innovation theory. In J. M. Pennings & A. Buitendam (Eds.), New technology as organizational innovation. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  100. Moir, L., Kennerley, M., & Ferguson, D. (2007). Measuring the business case: Linking stakeholder and shareholder value. Corporate Governance, 7(4), 388–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. More, T. (2003). Utopia. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  103. O’Leary, D. E. (2000). Enterprise resource planning systems: Systems, life cycle, electronic ­commerce, and risk. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Ogburn, W. F. (2007). Social changes in 1931. Evanston, IL: Adams Press.Google Scholar
  105. Ogburn, W. F. (Ed.). (1964). On culture and social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  106. Olavson, T., & Fry, C. (2006). Understanding the dynamics of value-driven variety management. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(1), 63.Google Scholar
  107. Ormerod, P. (2005). Why most things fail: Evolution, extinction and economics. London: Faber and Faber Limited.Google Scholar
  108. Passmore, J. (1962). Explanation in everyday life, in science and in history. History and Theory, 2, 105–123.Google Scholar
  109. Pennings, J. M., & Buitendam, A. (Eds.). (1987). New technology as organizational innovation: The development and diffusion of microelectonics. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  110. Perry, C., Alizadeb, Y., & Riege, A. M. (1997 September). Qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research. Paper presented at the annual conference of the small enterprise association of Australia and New Zealand, Coffs Harbour (pp. 21–23).Google Scholar
  111. Polak, F. L. (1973). The image of the future. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  112. Riege, A. M. (2003). Validity and realiability tests in case study: A literature review with “hands-on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Roberts, E. B. (2007). Managing invention and innovation. Research-Technology Management, 50(1), 35–54.Google Scholar
  114. Roberts, S., & Daker, I. (2004). Using information and innovation to reduce costs and enable better solutions. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 6(3), 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  116. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  117. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  118. Rogers, E. M. ([1962]2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press/Simon & Schuster, Inc.Google Scholar
  119. Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  120. Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15–24.Google Scholar
  121. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. SAP and Deloitte Sued by FoxMeyer. (Aug 27 1998). The New York Times. Retrieved Feb 17, 2007 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res  =  9A05E7D7123CF934A1575BC0A96E958260.
  123. Scarre, G. (1998). Mill on induction and scientific method. In J. Skorupski (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Mill (pp. 112–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Seidel, J. V. (1998). Qualitative data analysis. Retrieved Dec 1 2005 from www.qualisresearch.com.
  125. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text, and interactions (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  126. Silverman, D. (Ed.). (1997). Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  127. Siu, A. L., Spragens, L. H., Inouye, S. K., Morrison, R. S., & Leff, B. (2009). The ironic business case for chronic care in the acute care setting. Health Affairs, 28(1), 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Smaling, A. (1987). Methodological objectivity and qualitative research.. the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  129. Smith, A. ([1776] 2009). The wealth of nations: Book I–III, complete and unabridged. New York: Classic House Books.Google Scholar
  130. Smith, M. L. (2006). Overcoming theory-practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research. Information and Organization, 16, 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinhart & Winston.Google Scholar
  132. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  133. Stein, T. (Aug 31 1998). SAP sued over R/3. InformationWeek.Google Scholar
  134. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  135. Surry, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 2(1), 24–36.Google Scholar
  136. Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. London: Penguine Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  137. Tarde, G. (1903). The Laws of Imitation (trans: Parsons, E.C.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  138. Thull, J. (2005). The prime solution. Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing.Google Scholar
  139. Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  140. Tönnies, F. (2001). Tönnies: Community and civil society (trans: Hollis, M.). Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  141. Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleishcher, M. (1990). The process of technological innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  142. Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29, 28–45.Google Scholar
  143. Trompenaars, F., & Prud’homme, P. (2004). Managing change across corporate cultures. Chichester: Capstone.Google Scholar
  144. Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2007). The business case for regulation of corporate social responsibility and accountability. Accounting Forum, 31(4), 332–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks, 18, 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  147. Waterson, P. (2005). Sociotechnical design of work systems. In J. R. Wilson & E. N. Corlett (Eds.), Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology (3rd ed., pp. 769–792). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  148. Weber, R. (2003). Editor’s comments: Theoretically speaking. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), iii–xii.Google Scholar
  149. Weber, R. (2004). The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: A personal view. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii–xii.Google Scholar
  150. Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Wheeler, D., & Sillanpaa, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Willard, R. G. (2005). Drivers of corporate commitment to sustainability and inhibiters to ­overcome: The importance of a compelling business case.: Unpublished PhD, University of Toronto (Canada), Canada.Google Scholar
  153. Williams, M. D., Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., & Schwartz, A. (2009). Contemporary trends and issues in IT adoption and diffusion research. Journal of Information Technology, 24(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Yano, E. M., Goldzweig, C., Canelo, I., & Washington, D. L. (2006). Diffusion of innovation in women’s health care delivery: The department of veterans affairs’ adoption of women’s health clinics. Women’s Health Issues, 16(5), 226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  157. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  158. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  159. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  160. Zmud, R. W. (1984). An examination of “push-pull” theory applied to process innovation in knowledge work. Management Science, 30, 727–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting, Bang College of BusinessKazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research (KIMEP)AlmatyKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations