Applying QCA and Cross-impact Analysis to the Study on ICT Adoption and Use by Croatian SMEs

  • Arnela CericEmail author
  • Branka Krivokapic-Skoko
Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)


QCA reduces complexity and richness of each individual case through the process of Boolean minimization. This poses a challenge for future development of QCA as a case study method. We address this challenge and propose complementing QCA with cross-impact analysis. This latter method provides an in-depth, holistic analysis of a single case by focusing on the set of factors that are an essential part of each case, and focuses on capturing and analyzing interactions between these factors. That is, after deriving causal explanations, researchers can return to the cases and capture their complexity and interactions. Application of both methods is demonstrated in this paper in the context of ICT adoption and use in Croatian SMEs. While QCA provides a macro overview of a number of cases and identifies seven key factors that influence SMEs’ adoption of ICT, cross-impact analysis has a case-based focus that provides additional insights into SMEs actual experiences and challenges with ICT use. The alignment between the two methods produces important implications for the future development of QCA towards in-depth case analysis and exploring the complexity of each case.


Cross-impact analysis ICT adoption ICT value Interactions QCA 



The authors would like to thank Professor Kevin Parton for his comments on previous drafts of this paper.


  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a system of systems concepts. Management Science, 17(11), 661–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amenta, E., & Poulsen, J. D. (1996). Social politics in context: The institutional politics theory and social spending at the end of the New Deal. Social Forces, 75(1), 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asan, U., Bozdağ, C. E., & Polat, S. (2004). A fuzzy approach to qualitative cross impact analysis. Omega, 32(6), 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of complex systems (Vol. 213). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Biggert, R. (1997). Why labour wins, why labour loses: A test of two theories. The Sociological Quarterly, 38(1), 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooksbank, R., Kirby, D., & Kane, S. (1992). IT adoption and the independent retail business: The retail newsagency. International Small Business Journal, 10(3), 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caren, N., & Panofsky, A. (2005). TQCA: A technique for adding temporality to qualitative comparative analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 2(34), 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ceric, A. (2015a). Alternative model of ICT value creation based on cross-impact analysis. Contemporary Management Research, 11(3), 223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ceric, A. (2015b). Bringing together evaluation and management of ICT value: A systems theory approach. Electronic Journal of IS Evaluation, 18(1), 223–248.Google Scholar
  10. Cheng, C.-F., Chang, M.-L., & Li, C.-S. (2013). Configurational paths to successful product innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2561–2573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Cole, A., Allen, W., Kilvington, M., Fenemor, A., & Bowden, B. (2007). Participatory modelling with an influence matrix and the calculation of whole-of system sustainability values. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 10(4), 382–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, B., & Glaesser, J. (2011). Using case-based approach to analyze large datasets: A comparison of Ragin’s fsQCA and fuzzy cluster analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coverdill, J. E., Finlay, W., & Martin, J. K. (1994). Labour management in the southern textile industry: Comparing qualitative, quantitative, and qualitative comparative analyses. Sociological Methods and Research, 23(1), 54–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dann, Z., & Barclay, I. (2006). Complexity theory and knowledge management application. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
  16. Davern, M. J., & Kauffman, R. J. (2000). Discovering potential and realizing value from information technology investments. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(4), 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denk, T. (2010). Comparative multilevel analysis: Proposal for a methodology. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(1), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiss, P. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiss, P. (2008). Configurations of strategy, structure and environment: A fuzzy set analysis of high technology firms. Retrieved from
  20. Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2014). Configurational paths to organizational innovation: Qualitative comparative analysis of antecedents and contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1285–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gordon, T. J., & Hayward, H. (1968). Initial experiments with the cross impact matrix method of forecasting. Futures, 1(2), 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V. F., Elms, H., & Lacey, T. (2008). Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 695–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregor, S., Fernandez, W., Holtham, D., Martin, M., Stern, S., Vitale, M., et al. (2004). Achieving value from ICT: Key management strategies (ICT research study, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Canberra, Australia). Retrieved from
  24. Hellström, E. (1998). Qualitative comparative analysis: A useful tool for research into forest policy and forestry conflicts. Forest Science, 44(2), 254–265.Google Scholar
  25. Helmer, O. (1972). Cross-impact gaming. Futures, 4(2), 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herrmann, A. M., & Cronqvist, L. (2009). When dichotomization becomes a problem for the analysis of middle-sized datasets. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iacovou, C. L., Benbasat, I., & Dexter, A. A. (1995). Electronic data interchange and small organisations: Adoption and impact of technology. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Julien, P. A., & Raymond, L. (1994). Factors of new technology adoption in the retail sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(5), 79–90.Google Scholar
  29. Kardaras, D., & Karakostas, B. (1999). The use of fuzzy cognitive maps to simulate the information systems strategic planning process. Information and Software Technology, 41(4), 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirby, D., & Turner, M. (1993). IT and the small retail business. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 21(7), 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kithenerm, M., Beynon, M., & Harrington, C. (2002). Qualitative comparative analysis and public services research. Public Management Review, 4(2), 485–504.Google Scholar
  32. Kogut, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2006). Exploring complexity when diversity is limited: Institutional complementarity in theories of rule of law and national systems revisited. European Management Review, 3(1), 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krivokapic-Skoko, B. (2001). Understanding ethnic entrepreneurship in agricultural settings: Qualitative comparative analysis of ethnic groups in New Zealand agriculture (Doctoral dissertation, Lincoln University, New Zealand).Google Scholar
  34. Kvist, J. (2003). Conceptualisation, configuration, and categorization—Diversity, ideal types and fuzzy sets in comparative welfare state research (COMPASSS working paper series 2003-15). Retrieved from
  35. Lambert, S., & Fairweather, J. (2010). The socio-technical networks of technology users’ innovation in New Zealand: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (Research Report No. 320). Retrieved from
  36. Marx, A. (2010). Crips-set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA) and model specification: Benchmarks for future csQCA applications. International Journal of Multiple Journal Approaches, 4(2), 138–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marx, A., Cambré, B., & Rihoux, B. (2013). Crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis in organizational studies. In P. Fiss, B. Cambré, & A. Marx (Eds.), Configurational theory and methods in organizational research (Vol. 38, pp. 23–47). Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Review: Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 283–322.Google Scholar
  39. Messerli, P. (2000). Use of sensitivity analysis to evaluate key factors for improving slash-and-burn cultivation systems on the eastern escarpment of Madagascar. Mountain Research and Development, 20(1), 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Özlem, Ö. (2004). Using Boolean and fuzzy-logic based methods to analysis multiple case study evidence in management research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2), 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pajunen, K. (2008). Institutions and inflows of foreign direct investment: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 652–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poon, S., & Swatman, P. (1999). An exploratory study of small business internet commerce issues. Information and Management, 35(1), 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Premkumar, G., & Roberts, M. (1999). Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses. Omega, 27(4), 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  45. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rantala, K., & Hellström, E. (2011). Qualitative comparative analysis and a hermeneutic approach to interview data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(2), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rashid, M. A., & Al-Qirim, N. A. (2001). E-commerce technology adoption framework by New Zealand small to medium enterprises. Research Letters in the Information Mathematical Science, 2(1), 63–70.Google Scholar
  48. Ratnasingham, P. (1997). EDI security—Re-evaluation of controls and its implications on the organisations. Computers and Security, 16(8), 650–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rihoux, B. (2003). Bridging the gap between the qualitative and quantitative worlds? A retrospective and prospective view on qualitative comparative analysis. Field Methods, 15(4), 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rihoux, B., Álamos-Concha, P., Bol, D., Marx, A., & Rezsöhazy, I. (2013). From niche to mainstream method? A comprehensive mapping of QCA applications in journal articles from 1984 to 2011. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rihoux, B., & Lobe, B. (2009). The case for qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Adding leverage for thick cross-case comparison. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of case-base methods (pp. 222–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds.). (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  54. Romme, A. G. L. (1995). Self-organising processes in top management teams: A Boolean comparative approach. Journal of Business Research, 34(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schlange, L. E. (1995). Linking futures research methodologies: An application of systems thinking and metagame analysis to nuclear energy policy issues. Futures, 27(8), 823–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skyttner, L. (1996). General systems theory: An introduction. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stokke, O. S. (2007). Qualitative comparative analysis, shaming and international regime effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thong, J., & Yap, C. (1996). Information technology adoption by small business: An empirical study. In K. Kautz & J. Pries-Heje (Eds.), Diffusion and adoption of information technology (pp. 160–175). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trochim, W. M., Cabrera, D. A., Milstein, B., Gallagher, R. S., & Leischow, S. J. (2006). Practical challenges of systems thinking and modelling in public health. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 538–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Akeren, J. K., & Cavaye, L. M. A. (2000). Factors impacting on entry-level electronic commerce adoption in the automobile industry in Australia: An empirical study. Paper presented at ICSB World conference, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  61. Vester, F., & Hesler, A. (1982). Sensitivity model. Frankfurt am Main: Umlandverband.Google Scholar
  62. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). Review: The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 107–142.Google Scholar
  64. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Management and MarketingCharles Sturt UniversityBathurstAustralia
  2. 2.Branka Krivokapic-Skoko, School of Management and MarketingCharles Sturt UniversityBathurstAustralia

Personalised recommendations