Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology Adoption in Small Family-Owned Businesses: Accessibility, Perceived Advantage, and Information Technology Literacy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Family and Economic Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine the antecedents and impacts of information technology (IT) adoption by small family-owned businesses, using data from the National Family Business Survey. This research tested a model based on the Diffusion of Innovations framework and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Family business managers’ prior knowledge and level of IT use, business location, and community size/type were important antecedents to the decision to adopt IT. Ease of use and decision to adopt IT accounted for over 60% of the variance in usefulness of IT and implementation of internet and IT capabilities. The implementation of IT capabilities accounted for nearly 40% of the variance in actual use of IT and perceived impact of the internet.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. C. (2003). Family businesses’ contribution to the U.S. economy: A closer look. Family Business Review, 16(3), 211–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behind the Numbers. (2004). Small companies play catch-up on the internet. Information Week, 999(July), 70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bei, L. T., Chen, E. Y. I., & Widdows, R. (2004). Consumers’ online information search behavior and the phenomenon of search vs. experience products. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25(4), 449–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitler, M. P. (2002). Does PC use pay? Computers and small business performance. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitler, M. P., Robb, A., & Wolken, J. (2001). Financial services used by small businesses: Evidence from the 1998 survey of small business finances. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 87(April), 183–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boles, J. S. (1996). Influences of work-family conflict on job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and quitting intentions among business owners: The case of family operated businesses. Family Business Review, 9(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, C. (2003). Women, guilt, and home computers. In J. Turow & A. Kavanaugh (Eds.), The wired homestead: An MIT sourcebook on the internet and the family (pp. 325–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. (2005). The impact of firm size on internet use in small businesses. Electronic Markets, 15(2), 79–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel, Prelis, and Simplis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y., & Cude, B. J. (2008). Online shopping. In J. Xiao (Ed.), Handbook of consumer finance research (pp. 137–159). New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

  • Campione, W. (2008). Employed women’s well-being: The global and daily impact of work. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29(3), 346–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S. C., & Lu, M. T. (2004). Understanding internet banking adoption and use behavior: A Hong Kong perspective. Journal of Global Information Management, 12(3), 21–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L., Gillenson, M., & Sherrell, D. L. (2004). Consumer acceptance of virtual stores: A theoretical model and critical success factors for virtual stores. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 35(2), 8–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Litz, R. A. (2003). Commentary: A unified perspective of family firm performance: An extension and integration. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 467–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cody, M. M., Dunn, D., Hoppin, S., & Wendt, P. (1999). Silver surfers: Training and evaluating internet use among older adult learners. Communication Education, 48, 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S. (2005). Computer use in small U.S. firms: Is there a digital divide? Journal of Small Business Strategy, 15(2), 91–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 982–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. S., & Harveston, P. D. (2000). Internationalization and organizational growth: The impact of internet usage and technology involvement among entrepreneur-led family business. Family Business Review, 13(2), 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLong, J. B., Basu, S., & Jovanovic, B. (2002). Productivity growth in the 2000s. NBER Macroeconomics Annual., 17, 113–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devins, D. (1999). Supporting established micro businesses: Policy issues emerging from an evaluation. International Small Business Journal, 18(1), 86–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillworth, J. E., & Kingsbury, N. (2005). Home-to-job spillover for generation X, boomers, and matures: A comparison. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26(2), 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinlersoz, E. M., & Hernandez-Murillo, R. (2004). The diffusion of electronic business in the U.S. (working paper 2004-009A). St. Louis, MO: The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Research Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doumas, D., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (2008). Spillover patterns in single-earner couples: Work, self-care, and the marital relationship. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duval, Y., & Biere, A. (2002). Product diffusion and demand for new food products. Agribusiness, 18(1), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmanouilides, C., & Hammond, K. (2000). Internet usage: Predictors of active users and frequency of use. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 14(2), 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairlie, R. W. (2006). The personal computer and entrepreneurship. Management Science, 52(2), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, M. A., & Winter, M. (2001). The intrusiveness of home-based work on family life. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(1), 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, J., Dixon, R. A., & Wilson, T. D. (2003). Implementing a new health management information system in Uganda. Health Policy and Planning, 18(2), 214–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golden, L. (2008). Limited access: Disparities in flexible work schedules and work-at-home. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29(1), 86–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. J. (2000). Does the “new economy” measure up to the great inventions of the past? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 49–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S., & Pryde, P. (1990). Black entrepreneurship in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M., & MacMillan, I. C. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 451–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackney, R., Griffiths, G., & Ranchhod, A. (2002). Towards an e-commerce business strategy. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 3(1), 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Ziemba, S. J., & Lyness, K. P. (2006). Practices of dual earner couples successfully balancing work and family. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27(2), 207–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, G. W., Danes, S. M., & Haynes, D. C. (2008). Management issues of business owning families. In J. Xiao (Ed.), Handbook of consumer finance research (pp. 239–251). New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R. K. Z., & Trent, E. (1999). The prevalence of family business from a household sample. Family Business Review, 12(3), 209–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, B. S., & Elman, N. S. (1988). Family-owned businesses: An emerging field of inquiry. Family Business Review, 1, 145–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovav, A., Patnavakuni, R., & Schuff, D. (2004). A model of internet standards adoption: The case of IPv6. Information Systems Journal, 14(3), 265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experiences. Information and Management, 3(1), 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, P. J., Chau, Y. K., Sheng, O. R., & Tarn, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(2), 91–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Technology Association of America. (2007). Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.itaa.org.

  • Innes, J., & Simpson, D. (1993). Implementing GIS for planning: Lessons from the history of technological innovation. American Planning Association, 59(2), 230–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W., & Stiroh, K. J. (2000). Raising the speed limit: U.S. economic growth in the information age. Brookings Papers Economic Activity, 1, 125–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurison, J. (2000). Perceived value and technology adoption across four end-user groups. Journal of End User Computing, 12(4), 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karakaya, F., & Khalil, O. (2004). Determinants of internet adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management, 2(4), 341–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., & Galliers, R. (2005). Toward a diffusion model for internet systems. Internet Research, 14(2), 155–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 205–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J., Rainie, L., Allen, K., Boyce, A., Madden, M., et al. (2003). The ever-shifting internet population: A new look at internet access and the digital divide. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/88/report_display.asp. Pew internet and American Life Project.

  • Levenburg, N. M., Magal, S. R., & Kosalge, P. (2006). An exploratory investigation of organizational factors and e-business motivations among SMFOEs in the U.S. Electronic Markets, 16(1), 70–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litz, R. A. (1995). The family business: Toward definitional clarity. Family Business Review, 8(2), 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loges, W., & Jung, J. (2001). Exploring the digital divide: Internet connectedness and age. Communication Research, 28(4), 536–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2004). The technology acceptance model: A meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, E. (2006). Small firm technology tips. Journal of Accountancy, 210(5), 43–45, 47–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, C., & Zell, D. (2001). The future of innovation diffusion research and its implications for management: A conversation with Everett Rogers. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(4), 386–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N. J., Fitzgerald, M. A., Winter, M., & Paul, J. (1999). Exploring the overlap of family and business demands: Household and family business managers’ adjustment strategies. Family Business Review, 12(3), 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monna, B., & Gauthier, A. H. (2008). A review of literature on the social an economic determinants of parental time. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29(4), 634–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myrie, J., & Daly, K. (2009). The use of boundaries by self employed home based workers to manage work and family: A qualitative study in Canada. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30(4), 386–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Federation of Independent Business Research Foundation. (2005). The state of technology. National Small Business Poll, 5(5), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2000). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion: A report on Americans’ access technology tools. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov.

  • National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the internet. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/index.html.

  • Newburger, E. (2001). Home computers and internet use in the United States: August 2001, special studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Cass, A., & Fenech, T. (2002). Web retailing adoption: Exploring the nature of internet users’ web retailing behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10(2), 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2005). The adoption and use of information technology: A longitudinal study of a mature family firm. New Technology, Work, and Employment, 20(1), 2–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research: A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research Journal, 12(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliner, S., & Sichel, D. (2000). The resurgence of growth in the late 1990s: Is information technology the story? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Secretariat. (2000). Emerging trends and issues: The nature of the digital divide in learning. Learning to bridge the digital divide. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, National Center On Adult Literacy. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/scripts/publications/bookshop/redirect.asp?962000081P1.

  • Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2006). Internet activities. Retrieved March, 2007, from http://pewinternet.org/trends/internet_Activities_7.19.06.htm.

  • Pratt, J. H. (2002). E-BIZ.COM: Strategies for small business success (SBAHQ-00-C-0004). Washington, DC: Small Business Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangone, A., Balocco, R., Bassani, P., & Andreoni, M. C. (2002). A framework to support the formulation of internet strategy in traditional enterprises. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 4(2–4), 248–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reda, S. (2004). It clicks! Sales and profitability rise for on-line retailers. Stores, 86(7), 106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarborough, N., & Zimmerer, T. (2006). Effective small business management: An entrepreneurial approach (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2006). Digital division or digital decision? A study of non-users and low-users of computers. Poetics, 34, 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Servon, L. J. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: Technology, community, and public policy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, D., McLeod, J., & Yoon, S. (2001). Communication, context, and community: An exploration of print, broadcast, and internet influences. Communication Research, 4(28), 464–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelley, M. C., I. I., Thrane, L. E., & Shulman, S. W. (2006). Generational differences in information technology use and political involvement. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 2(1), 36–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelley, M., Thrane, L., Shulman, S., Lang, E., Beisser, S., Larson, T., et al. (2004). Digital citizenship: Parameters of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 256–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, H. P. (2004). An empirical study on predicting user acceptance of e-shopping on the web. Information and Management, 41(3), 351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swierczek, F. W., Shrestha, P. K., & Bechter, C. (2005). Information technology, productivity, and profitability in Asia-Pacific Banks. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 8(1), 6–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. S. (2001). Demographic and motivation variables associated with internet usage activities. Internet Research, 11(2), 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thong, J., & Yap, C. (1995). CEO characteristics, organizational characteristics, and information technology adoption in small businesses. Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 23(4), 442–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thouin, M. F., Hoffman, J. J., & Ford, E. W. (2008). The effect of information technology investment on firm-level performance in the health care industry. Health Care Management Review, 33(1), 60–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • UCLA Internet Report. (2000). Surveying the digital future. UCLA center for communication policy. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.ccc.ucla.edu.

  • U.S. Small Business Administration. (2002). E-Biz.com: Strategies for small business success. Retrieved September 1, 2004, from http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs220tot.pdf.

  • U.S. Small Business Administration. (2004). Small business by the numbers. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from http://www.sba.gove/advo.

  • Van Dijk, J. (2003). A framework for digital divide research. Electronic Journal of Communication, 12(1). Retrieved March, 2007, from http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v12n102.htm.

  • Weber, L., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates and why? An analysis of citizens on the internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 26–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M., Danes, S., Koh, S., Fredericks, K., & Paul, J. (2004). Tracking family businesses and their owners over time: Panel attrition, manager departure, and business demise. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 535–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M., Fitzgerald, M. A., Heck, R. K. Z., Hayes, G. W., & Danes, S. M. (1998). Revisiting the study of family businesses: Methodological challenged dilemmas and alternative approaches. Family Business Review, 11(3), 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Data for this study were drawn from the 1997 and 2000 Cooperative Regional Research Project survey. The National Family Business Survey (NE 167) was partially supported by the Cooperative States Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the affiliated experiment stations at the University of Arkansas, the University of Hawai’i at Manoa, the University of Illinois, Purdue University (Indiana), Iowa State University, Oklahoma State University, the University of Minnesota, Montana State University, Cornell University (New York), North Dakota State University, the Ohio State University, Utah State University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Apparel, Educational Studies, and Hospitality Management, Iowa State University, 1066 Le Baron Hall, Ames, IA, 50011-1121, USA

    Linda S. Niehm

  2. Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Texas State University-San Marcos, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX, 78666, USA

    Keila Tyner

  3. Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, 539 Ross Hall, Ames, IA, 50011-1204, USA

    Mack C. Shelley

  4. Department of Political Science, Iowa State University, 539 Ross Hall, Ames, IA, 50011-1204, USA

    Mack C. Shelley

  5. Department of Child Development and Family Science, North Dakota State University, 283G EML Hall, Fargo, ND, 58105-5057, USA

    Margaret A. Fitzgerald

Authors
  1. Linda S. Niehm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keila Tyner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mack C. Shelley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Margaret A. Fitzgerald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda S. Niehm.

Appendix: Information Technology Diffusion and Adoption for Family-Owned Businesses

Appendix: Information Technology Diffusion and Adoption for Family-Owned Businesses

Antecedents of IT Adoption

Family Business Managers’ IT Knowledge/Use (Derived from 1997 Data)

Summed Item = Level of Integrated IT Use

  • Are computers used in your business? (B22)

  • Is the internet or World Wide Web used in your business? (B23)

  • Response options to these questions included 0 = no use; 1 = yes to either computer or internet use; 2 = yes to both computer and internet use. The indicators were summed.

Family Business and Community Demographics

Is [BUSINESS NAME] based in or from your home? (BZA5a. HomeBase)

  • Businesses were classified as home-based (0 = no and 1 = yes) if the business manager reported that the business was based in or from the home and also reported that there was no other business office outside the home.

How satisfied are you with the amount of support your business gets from your community? (BZH7. CommSupp)

  • The business manager’s perception of community support was assessed based on this question with response options ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied.

Do you currently live in what type of community (HZH 247–248 LiveWhere)

  • The response options for this question were: 1. On a farm, 2. In a rural area but not on a farm, 3. In a small town of less than 2,500, 4. In a town or city from 2,500 up to 10,000, 5. In a city from 10,000 up to 50,000, 6. In a city or urban are of 50,000 or more.

To what extent is your spouse involved in decision-making in your business? On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all and 5 is a great deal, what number would you choose? (BZB1. SpousDec)

  • Business managers indicated the extent to which their spouses were involved in business decision-making with response options ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal.

How many employees, other than yourself, work for [BUSINESS NAME]? (BZA2a. TotEmpl)

  • Number of employees was used as a proxy for business size in this analysis.

IT Diffusion and Decision to Adopt

Perceived IT Ease of Use

How often are computers used in the day-to-day operations of your business? (BZB4. Computer)

  • Response options to this question ranged from 1 = never to 5 = very often.

Consequences of IT Adoption

Implementation and IT Usefulness

Summed Item = Family Business internet and IT Strategies

  • To what extent does your business use computers for each of the following purposes:

    • Sending or receiving E-mail? (BZB5a. Email)

    • Selling products or services over the internet? (BZB5b. SellInte)

    • Using the computer for design? (BZB5c. CompDesi)

    • Using the computer for other business purposes such as inventory control, accounting, payroll, or ordering supplies? (BZB5d. CompOthe)

    • Respondents who used the computer and the internet for business purposes were asked this question with response options that ranged from 1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal. The four indicators were summed and then an average score was calculated.

Confirmation and Impact of IT

Overall, has the internet affected your business? (BZB6a. Impact)

Respondents who used the computer and the internet for business purposes were asked this question with response options 1 = not at all to 4 = a great deal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Niehm, L.S., Tyner, K., Shelley, M.C. et al. Technology Adoption in Small Family-Owned Businesses: Accessibility, Perceived Advantage, and Information Technology Literacy. J Fam Econ Iss 31, 498–515 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9197-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9197-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation