the case of an innovation management tool at a ...

Int. J. Networking and Virtual Organisations, Vol. X, No. Y, xxxx

1

Organisational adoption of e-business: the case of an innovation management tool at a university and technology transfer office Indrit Troshani* The University of Adelaide Business School, The University of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney Street, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Giselle Rampersad Flinders University, School of Computer Science, Engineering and Mathematics, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia E-mail: [email protected]

Carolin Plewa The University of Adelaide Business School, The University of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney Street, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: While innovation is increasingly attracting the attention of academics and practitioners alike, there is paucity of research investigating the adoption of e-business solutions that support innovation development and commercialisation. Using qualitative evidence that is based on a case study incorporating a focus group and sixteen in-depth interviews across R&D, marketing and administration functions in a mid-sized Australian university and a technology transfer office, we investigate the organisational adoption of an innovation management tool. By applying the technology-organisationenvironment framework to an innovation context, this study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by enhancing the current understanding of organisational adoption of innovation management tools. Management implications and future research directions are also discussed. Keywords: innovation adoption; technology-organisation-environment; organisational adoption; case study; innovation management; networking. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Troshani, I., Rampersad, G. and Plewa, C. (xxxx) ‘Organisational adoption of e-business: the case of an innovation management tool at a university and technology transfer office’, Int. J. Networking and Virtual Organisations, Vol. X, No. Y, pp.000–000.

Copyright © 200x Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2

I. Troshani et al. Biographical notes: Indrit Troshani is a Senior Lecturer in Information Systems at the University of Adelaide Business School. He received his PhD in Computer Science from Edith Cowan University (Western Australia), MSc in Computer-based Information Systems (Sunderland, UK), and BBA (Hons) from Malaysia. His research interests include adoption and diffusion of network innovations and mobile services as well as e-health. His work has been published in several international conferences and journals including Information Technology & People, Electronic Markets, and European Journal of Innovation Management. Giselle Rampersad is a Lecturer in Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Flinders University, Australia. She received her PhD from University of Adelaide (Australia), MSc in E-Business and Internet Systems from Durham University (UK), and BSc in Management Studies from University of the West Indies (Trinidad and Tobago). Her research interests include innovation and technology management, networks, service innovation and technology adoption. She has contributed to the body of knowledge in innovation and technology management with several international conference and journal publications including Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, and International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization. Carolin Plewa is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the University of Adelaide Business School, following employment as Manager for Marketing & Strategy at a technology transfer office in Australia. She was nominated for the Adelaide Postgraduate Alumni Medal in 2006 and was awarded the Scott Henderson Award for Excellence in Learning and Teaching in 2007. She has presented her results at a number of international conferences, and has published several articles in journals including Marketing Theory, Australasian Marketing Journal, Journal of Service Marketing and International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation.

1

Introduction

E-business is increasingly becoming pervasive in all areas of the digital economy. Enabled by ICT, the adoption of e-business tools calls for a host of advances that range from making alliances with partners to understanding and complying with relevant emerging legislation, and to implementation of technology that can support related endeavours (Suh, 2005). Recently, innovation development and commercialisation is one type of endeavour that has been attracting increasing attention in both academia and industry (Schläpfer, 2009; Thavasi and Ramakrishna, 2009; Tsai et al., 2009). Globalisation, economic shifts and the subsequent intensification of networks and the blurring of boundaries of financial systems and organisations have jointly led to a redistribution of wealth and power among nations. Thus, innovation has become a prominent issue for a growing number of both advanced and emerging economies. Governments in many countries have developed innovation policies and are competing in the race towards innovation, for example, in relation to sustainable energy solutions (Freeman and Hagedoorn, 1994; Hagedoorn, 1996). Similarly in a vast number of organisations, management is recognising innovation as a source strategic advantage and crucial in revenue generation.

Organisational adoption of e-business

3

Given the increased importance of innovation to management, the objective of this exploratory study is to contribute to extant sparse literature on the organisational adoption of e-business solutions that support innovation management including development and commercialisation. Due to the unique challenges and idiosyncrasies that exist in innovation development contexts, we anticipate that the adoption of these types of e-business tools is different to that of other types of applications for at least two main reasons. First, because innovation development and commercialisation is increasingly regarded as strategic priority by contemporary management it can bring about strategic, and potentially inimitable gains, rather than just operational and transactional gains that are derived by typical e-business applications (Bendoly et al., 2007). Second, innovation is increasingly occurring as a result of the interaction of heterogeneous organisational partners, including businesses, research organisations, and government agencies, that are connected in fluid inter-organisational innovation networks (Powell et al., 2004; Möller and Rajala, 2007; Möller and Svahn, 2009). Extant research shows that interactions in these networks can be unique in relation to governance, coordination and communication efficiency (Möller and Svahn, 2009; Rampersad et al., in-press). Consequently, further research is needed to investigate the adoption of emerging e-business tools in innovation development and commercialisation contexts. This study is based on the organisational adoption of an e-business innovation tool, henceforth referred to simply as the innovation tool, in a university and a technology transfer office (TTO). The innovation tool is an emerging web-based application that supports the interface between R&D, marketing and administration by allowing researchers to enter innovation project details from early inception stages, thereby, increasing knowledge intensity and facilitating the communication and collaboration between these innovation functions. Thus, the innovation tool facilitates and improves inter-organisational information supply chains, potentially enhancing e-business collaboration and integration for fostering innovation development and commercialisation. This setting provides a unique opportunity for exploring the adoption of innovation tools. While there are a number of technologies that support various aspects of the innovation development and commercialisation process including those pertaining to manufacturing and the supply chain (Kumar and van Dissel, 1996; Lin and Ho, 2007), less attention has been placed on tools that strengthen the interface between R&D, marketing and administration. This strategic interface is core in the innovation process (Gupta et al., 1986; Song and Thieme, 2006) and this study is a direct response to calls for further research in this area (Bendoly et al., 2007). In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework which is validated using qualitative evidence. This framework is important as it advances the existing body of knowledge in this area, thus providing an improved understanding, insights, and implications that can support innovation initiatives and decision making in organisations that are involved in innovation (Sia et al., 2004; Teo and Ranganathan, 2004; Liu et al., 2008). The structure of the paper is as follows. First, a theoretical framework for the adoption of innovation tools is provided. The qualitative method, a case study involving a focus group and in-depth interviews, is discussed before the research findings are presented and managerial implications highlighted.

4

2

I. Troshani et al.

Theoretical background and conceptual framework

Technology adoption is complex and context-sensitive (Wolfe, 1994). There are various factors that may shape the adoption of technology (including innovation tools), such as the characteristics of the technology itself, existing systems and technical competency in the adopting organisation, and environmental factors such as the characteristics of partners, competition, and government regulation. Hence, with its three contextual categories, namely, technology, organisation and environment, the TOE framework is deemed to be appropriate in this study as a systematic and structured analytical framework for investigating the factors that can impact decisions to adopt innovation management tools. The TOE framework has been applied to examine the adoption of various technologies, including EDI (Iacovou et al., 1995; Kuan and Chau, 2001), financial reporting systems (Troshani and Doolin, 2005; Doolin and Troshani, 2007), inter-organisational systems (Henriksen, 2006), which suggests that it may also be useful in investigating under-researched areas, such as the adoption of innovation tools. Technology, organisation and environment contexts can vary across the different application domains. Thus, further research is warranted to better understand the organisational adoption of innovation tools using the TOE framework.

2.1 Technology context The technology context is concerned with both internal and external technologies available to an organisation (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990). It focuses on the manner in which technology characteristics themselves can influence the adoption process and includes factors such as a perceived benefits-obstacles trade-off and organisational fit. The perceived benefits-obstacles trade-off of particular technologies relate to the ‘possible gains and barriers’ associated with their adoption [Chau and Hui, (2001), p.6]. Perceived benefits represent the benefits expected upon adoption in an organisation’s specific setting. For example, innovation technologies are expected to generate a competitive advantage due to increased levels of quality and service, efficiency and reliability (Fillis et al., 2004; Gilbert et al., 2004; Taylor and Murphy, 2004; Warren, 2004). Perceived obstacles represent barriers anticipated in relation to technology adoption (Chau and Tam, 1997), including set up and ongoing complexities or technical difficulties that can make technological innovations unattractive, thus, adversely affecting their adoption (Simpson and Docherty, 2004; Taylor and Murphy, 2004; Hong and Zhu, 2006). The extent to which perceived benefits outweigh (or are outweighed by) perceived adverse effects or costs expected to be incurred during adoption can have a deep impact on adoption decisions. Organisational fit has been defined as the congruence between the technological innovation and an organisation’s goals, values, structure and processes (Markus and Robey, 1988; Rogers, 1995; Sia et al., 2004). Greater fit between the technology and organisational goals and values can lead to enhanced organisational effectiveness (Nadler and Tushman, 1992). The technology is also likely to encounter lesser overall resistance as the organisation may have a greater positive predisposition to adopt it (Sia et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006). The impact of potential organisational misfit between the technology and organisational requirements can have adverse consequences, if adoption is to occur jointly amongst partners. These consequences are compounded, particularly if partner


5

diversity (e.g., business, government, research organisations and universities) is high (Plewa, 2005; Rampersad, 2008).

2.2 Organisational context The organisational context captures the characteristics of an organisation, including technology competency of its human resources, management commitment, availability of financial resources, and size and the manner in which these might affect adoption of technology in organisations. These are discussed in turn below. Technology competency refers to the extent to which technical skills and technological know-how are available in an organisation (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005; Lin, 2006). For example, organisations can delay the adoption of a technology until they acquire sufficient skills and know-how to operate it successfully (Kwon and Zmud, 1987; Attewell, 1992; Chau and Tam, 1997). Additionally, organisations that exhibit technology competency are more apt to successfully adopt new technologies (Zhu et al., 2003, 2004; Lin, 2006; Pan and Jang, 2008). One of the ways in which organisations can establish technology competency is via training (Warren, 2004). Management commitment reflects top management support for technology adoption (Molla and Licker, 2005). The greater the support from top management, the easier it will be for adopting organisations to overcome difficulties and complexities encountered during adoption (Premkumar and Ramamurthy, 1995; Tan et al., 2007). Characteristics of decision makers, such as their personal innovativeness and ICT knowledge, can have a major impact on their commitment (Thong, 1999). Also, risk-averse decision-makers may be more likely to exhibit negative attitudes towards technology adoption. A possible consequence of such attitudes is the failure to allocate necessary resources to support technology adoption (Tidd et al., 2001; Basu et al., 2002; Fillis et al., 2004). In relation to organisational resources, Kwon and Zmud (1987) assert that technologies are successfully adopted when adequate resources are directed towards establishing motivation and sustaining adoption efforts. Organisational resources include financial resources that are required to cover perceived financial investment and administrative costs in technology adoption processes (Swatman and Swatman, 1992; Chau and Hui, 2001; Kuan and Chau, 2001). Financial resources may also be used to cover licensing fees of technology-related applications, set-up costs and user training costs (Chau and Hui, 2001). Organisational size is one of the most tested factors of organisational technology adoption. However, empirical results across various studies have been mixed and inconsistent (Lee and Xia, 2006) and relate to the conflicting impacts of size implications, namely, resource availability and organisational inertia, on technology adoption (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). Some argue that due to financial advantages and buffers against financial loss, larger organisations should be more likely to successfully adopt technologies than smaller organisations (Tornatzky and Klein, 1982; Lai and Guynes, 1997; Flanagin, 2000) which generally suffer from limited technology budgets and in-house expertise (Thong, 1999). Counter arguments suggest that smaller organisations adopt technologies faster than larger organisations due to flexibility and adaptability factors (Hitt et al., 1990).

6

I. Troshani et al.

2.3 Environmental context The environmental context represents the arena where adopting organisations conduct their business (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990; Mehrtens et al., 2001; Tidd et al., 2001; Pan and Jang, 2008). The influence of partners, competitive pressure, and regulatory compliance are outlined as relevant environmental factors and are discussed below. The influence of partners in technology adoption decisions has been widely accepted in the literature (Kuan and Chau, 2001), particularly when technologies are meant to facilitate the establishment of strategic inter-organisational alliances (Chwelos et al., 2001; Lin, 2006). The benefits perceived by partners concerning joint technological innovations can significantly affect adoption decisions (Iacovou et al., 1995; Marshall and McKay, 2002; Doolin and Troshani, 2007). For instance, perceptions of enhanced access to partner expertise or the capability to rely on partners for decision-making support can affect technology adoption positively (Hart and Sauders, 1998; Simatupang et al., 2002). Organisations often embark on technology adoption initiatives in response to competitive pressure and threats of losing competitive advantage (Porter and Millar, 1985; Abrahamson, 1991; Kuan and Chau, 2001; Patterson et al., 2003; Zhu et al., 2004). Furthermore, organisations that fit leader profiles or that aspire to become leaders in their industries might be particularly prone to fulfil expectations of leadership and to remain current by adopting latest technologies (Flanagin et al., 2001). Competitive pressure has, thus, been found to positively affect technology adoption decisions in organisations (Lai and Wong, 2003; Zhu et al., 2004; Zhu and Kraemer, 2005; Lin, 2006). Regulatory compliance has also been recognised as a critical factor that can impact technology adoption (Williamson, 1983; Lyytinen and King, 2006; Lai, 2008). Williamson (1983) argues that governments can affect technology adoption by applying regulatory pressure in two ways: “One is to take specific actions to increase or decrease payoffs – by taking tax and other measures to encourage research and development. … The second way of influencing innovations is by altering the climate in which they are received.” (p.126). For instance, in response to the paper reduction act in 1997, US Government agencies were required to upgrade to EDI systems (USMBA, 1997). As a consequence, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that needed to deal with these agencies also had to upgrade to EDI systems, which drove EDI adoption amongst SMEs (Kuan and Chau, 2001). Governments can also play a vital role in creating a positive adoption atmosphere by funding training and awareness campaigns and even subsidising technology adoption initiatives (Damsgaard and Lyytinen, 2001; Lawson et al., 2003; Troshani and Doolin, 2007).

2.4 Conceptual framework Based on the previous discussion, we propose a conceptual framework (Figure 1) that summarises the organisational adoption of e-business innovation tools. The sign shown besides each factor indicates the direction of the influence on adoption decisions, namely, enabling, i.e., (+) or inhibiting, i.e., (–). Where both signs are shown, i.e., (+/–), the direction of the influence can be interpreted as being most commonly enabling although occasionally inhibiting.

Organisational adoption of e-business Figure 1

7

A conceptual framework for the adoption of innovation management tools

Technology context • Perceived benefits/obstacles trade-off (+/–) • Organisational fit (+)

Organisational context • Technology competency (+) • Management commitment (+) • Organisational resources (+) • Organisation size (+/–)

Adoption decision-making

Environment context • Partner influence (+) • Competitive pressure (+) • Regulatory compliance (+)

3

Method

Exploratory qualitative research was deemed the most suitable method for this study since it allows identifying of subtle nuances of information, and thus, it grasps complex issues in rich detail (Galliers, 1990). It is also valuable for the in-depth understanding of situations, behaviours, attitudes and perceptions (Carson et al., 2001). Specifically, a case study was used as it affords the ability to examine topics of interest in their ‘natural setting’ (Benbasat et al., 1987) while improving understanding of the inherent complexity of the adoption of the innovation tool under investigation. The case study comprised an inductive focus group and interviews which helped capture relevant data. Supporting secondary data on the adoption of the innovation tool were also used. The focus group was conducted prior to the interviews in order to stimulate the creative process and generate relevant content areas and ideas that may not necessarily be encountered in one-to-one interviews (Kinnear et al., 1996). A series of sixteen in-depth face-to-face interviews followed. The interviews were a valuable tool for exploring the research aims and for generating a comprehensive list of ideas and explanations of complex concepts (Fern, 1982) where information was anticipated to vary considerably (Benbasat et al., 1987; Ticehurst and Veal, 2000).

3.1 The case organisations, the innovation tool, and sampling The organisations in which this study was conducted are in Australia and include a mid-sized university and a TTO, an independent organisation that remains fully owned by the university. The diversity of research areas and innovation projects was deemed advantageous in the university context, given that it allowed for a multitude of perspectives, and thus, the potential to gather data on all possible facets for investigating the research objective (Marshall and Rossman, 1989).

8

I. Troshani et al.

The investigation into the adoption of a newly developed innovation tool by the TTO was well-suited for this research. The aim of this tool was to create a supportive collaborative e-business management and evaluation interface for all parties involved in innovation development and commercialisation, a process that typically includes researchers and university management and TTO staff. To use the innovation tool, researchers who have innovative ideas that might be commercially viable complete a questionnaire as a first step. Responses are subsequently transformed into issues that require attention, leading to customised work plans providing guidance to individual members of relevant teams. Other functionalities include document sharing and information exchange as well as a comprehensive and customisable reporting system. Given the early stage of adoption, the sample identified using judgment sampling consists of a large number of the staff who had used the tool at the time of data collection. A diverse group of interviewees was chosen with regards to roles, ranks and backgrounds, all of whom were knowledgeable on the topics of interest. The focus group included six research administrators and researchers from both university and the TTO, whereas, the subsequent 16 interviewees, conducted during June to July 2009, included four researchers (interviewees_resarchers#1–4) and three research administrators (interviewees_administrators#5–7) from university and nine TTO staff (interviewees_TTO#8–16). Research administrators support researchers in innovation processes by assisting them with funding applications or other tasks. Researchers, however, source research funding, engage in research collaboration and carry out research, in addition to other teaching and administrative duties.

3.2 Data collection, analysis, and validity The focus group and in-depth interviews followed a guide consisting of themes relating to perceptions of adoption drivers and barriers concerning relevant technology, organisational, and environmental factors. The interviews were semi-structured which ensured that a systematic approach was undertaken and all themes were covered. Once consensus was reached on relevant themes, interviews were concluded. The analysis of the data was undertaken thematically. Codes were first developed based on the literature review and interview guide (Miles and Huberman, 1994) allowing an initial structure for the identification of patterns in the data. Analysing data hermeneutically, the structure and analysis of findings was amended until a thorough understanding of the phenomena represented in the data was developed. In order to address construct validity, multiple information sources were employed, including primary data from the focus group and interviews, and additional relevant archival documentation found on the TTO and university websites (Yin, 1994). This allowed for extensive triangulation. Additional triangulation of qualitative information sources was also achieved, as the sample comprised of respondents from multiple disciplines and functions within both target organisations (Patton, 1990). Finally, the chain of evidence was maintained to further improve research validity and reliability (Yin, 1994). Nevertheless, due to the single case study approach, the findings reported in this paper may not be generalisable beyond this case suggesting that future research is required in other contexts (Shanks et al., 1993).


4

9

Results

4.1 Technology context Perceived benefits-obstacles trade-off. To trial and observe the benefits and potential obstacles, users were able to trial the innovation tool prior to organisation-wide adoption. Interviewees consistently pointed out the benefits, including efficiency, productivity and communication consistency, that the innovation tool offered in fulfilling innovation requirements: “It improves accessibility and consistency of communication as everyone is using the same words and language.” (Interviewee_TTO#9)

Additionally, the reporting capabilities of the innovation tool were found to be useful for all actors but were particularly stressed in relation to university management, strategic planning and monitoring efforts (Interviewees_TTO#9–16). The innovation tool has undergone many modifications before arriving at its current version with some earlier versions exhibiting deficiencies which were rectified in subsequent upgrades. These upgrades mainly concerned navigability, layout and version control features concerning innovation documentation. While progression through the various versions was considered by developers as a normal iterative evolution of the tool, users perceived it as unstable which was seen as an adoption obstacle. Overall, however, evidence collected suggests that the benefits-obstacles trade-off is largely skewed towards the benefits as the innovation tool generally helps in fulfilling innovation objectives effectively and efficiently. Organisational fit reflects the extent of congruence between the innovation tool and organisational goals, values, processes and structure, and was consistently deemed extremely important by all interviewees. The innovation tool was developed by the TTO. Thus, organisational fit at the TTO was perceived to be strong: “Ultimately, the [innovation tool] software at the moment supports the current structure and process. And in that regard, the software can be deemed a success.” (Interviewee _TTO#13)

However, there was a perceived lack of fit between the innovation tool and the university as an adopting innovation partner in three ways, namely: 1

innovation outcomes

2

innovation processes

3

organisational policies.

With innovation outcomes, the commercialisation function of the innovation tool runs counter to, thereby exhibiting misfit, the general cultural inertia that the university in question exhibits towards innovation commercialisation: “There is a real cultural inertia at this point that is a barrier to commercializing … A fundamental shift needs to occur from the University asking ‘how much would it cost’ to ‘how much would it pay’.” (Interviewee_researcher#4)

With innovation processes, lack of fit was found to exist between the manner in which the university manages intellectual property (IP) and the manner in which the tool prescribes it. University interviewees found that the tool provides a standard “one-size

10

I. Troshani et al.

fits all” (Interviewee_researcher#3) approach towards IP management, while a fluid process-based approach is typically undertaken at the university. Furthermore, organisational policies in the university, which are not uncommon in many others in Australia, can be rigid due to union agreements (Interviewee_researcher#4). These are perceived to create barriers that “make it particularly difficult” (Interviewee_researcher#3) to motivate researchers to adopt the innovation tool as “… full time academics are on a full load and can’t work extra [innovation related work] due to union agreements” (Interviewee_researcher#4).

4.2 Organisational context Technology competency. Employees in adopting organisations are generally well-trained with technical skills and have experience in using various types of technology as part of their routine jobs. Universities, in particular, provide an excellent pool of skills and capabilities, with academics trained for engaging in research, educational and administrative roles. Although deemed an important contributor to adoption, technology competency was, thus, taken as a given in the adopting organisations. Nevertheless, emphasis was placed on the need for ongoing training for the preservation and renewal of technology competency as an uptake factor, particularly in universities. Research students and doctoral fellows play a significant role in innovation, while generally maintaining a transient commitment with universities. Thus, due to high turnover, there is a significant need for ongoing training for innovation development functions including R&D, commercialisation, and IP, and the manner in which these can be fulfilled using the innovation tool (Interviewees_TTO#8-11). Management commitment was considered to have cascading effects and encourage organisation-wide involvement and commitment which positively affects adoption (Interviewee_researcher#4). In fact, a general consensus emerged relating to the need for management commitment if the adoption of the innovation tool was to succeed: “Within the university, I think it is going to be important to have the buy-in of Heads of Faculty and Heads of Schools. The fact that the Vice-Chancellor sent out an email is probably a good thing. Because you want people to know that the powers-that-be think [that] this [innovation tool] is a good thing.” (Interviewee_TTO#9)

Interviewees confirmed the need for adequate organisational resources to be available on an ongoing basis for successful organisation-wide adoption (Interviewee_TTO#16). For instance, the TTO underscored that the lack of financial resources constitutes a major constraint concerning future upgrades of the innovation tools and its successful marketing across partner organisations: “One of the barriers at the moment for us promoting it and encouraging other organizations’ uptake of it is just our lack of funding to progress it.” (Interviewee_TTO#14)

Interviewees also highlighted the challenges faced by researchers at the university in relation to their availability to engage in innovation development. At least partially, funding models used in universities are based on teaching income. Thus, time constraints for engaging in innovation development and commercialisation are common in an academic context because, generally, the researchers’ time is allocated to many different


11

types of duties that include innovation research, teaching, and administration, which constitute an adoption barrier (Interviewee_TTO#10). Organisation size was considered to be an important driver (or inhibitor) for adoption. Relatively small size was considered to positively impact adoption due to relatively higher organisational agility: “We have the advantage that we are half or quarter of the size of [other Universities] so we ought to have a couple less layers of administration. There is a risk in that but the organizational agility and speed of adaption, again looking at the example of not having to do signoffs of particular kinds of research where someone is willing to pay us for specific research, let’s do it, realise the research income and move on to the next opportunity. That’s the kind of thing that is harder for a larger university to capitalize on.” (Interviewee _researcher#3)

4.3 Environmental context Innovation partners’ influence. In universities innovation commonly requires partnerships between researchers and businesses or government departments (Plewa, 2005; Rampersad, 2008). Interviewees consistently highlighted the strong relevance of partners in innovation development and commercialisation. Ideal adoption outcomes constitute the same innovation tool being adopted by all partners (Interviewee_TTO#10). And, because TTO staff work closely with both university researchers and administrators, the positive drive of university management to adopt the innovation tool also had a positive impact on TTO staff in both improving their attitudes towards it and enhancing their willingness to incorporate it into TTO workflows: “At the start, I was very sceptical about [the innovation tool]. But then you see that the Heads of School really like it, which is a benefit. Once they [the university] signed on behind us, it has been wonderful.” (Interviewee_TTO#10)

In the university domain, competitive pressure has taken the shape of increasing competition for research funding and public and private research customers concerning the development of research into innovations that can be valuable to industry (Möller and Rajala, 2007; Srivastava and Franza, 2009). Interviewees confirmed that the adoption of the innovation tool supports the adopters’ drive for both enhancing their competitiveness and innovation development and commercialisation capabilities and advantages over non-adopters while also being perceived as a means to elevate their reputation for attracting new innovation partners: “There is a publicity spin [this University] has put on this [innovation tool]. That is, ‘we are the only university here that is taking this task seriously. We have software that does it, we have a dedicated office’.” (Interviewee_TTO#9)

Regulatory compliance pressures from government were identified as drivers for the adoption of innovation tool in two ways. Firstly, given its benefits, the tool was seen by interviewees as a way of facilitating accountability, transparency and communication concerning the manner in which public funds are used in achieving innovation outcomes (Interviewees_TTO#9, 12, 16). Some interviewees raised the possibility that government agencies might also be inclined to adopt the innovation tool in order to monitor usage of research funds which would create ‘bandwagon’ adoption pressures (Interviewee_TTO#9).

12

I. Troshani et al.

Secondly, ongoing government commitment to innovation has created a positive atmosphere for developing and adopting the innovation tool. For instance, an initiative from the Australian Federal Government, Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) is new research quality framework that requires the systematic collection of research and innovation data. The innovation tool was seen as a means to, at least partially, assist universities in fulfilling their ERA requirements: “Under the current ERA data collection for government funding…. I do know that there is a requirement to collect information on commercial activity. And so I think this [using the innovation tool] would be an easy way of doing it.” (Interviewee_TTO#14)

5

Discussion

This study contributes to an enhanced understanding of the organisational adoption of e-business solutions by applying the TOE framework to the innovation domain (Chau and Hui, 2001; Liljander et al., 2006) which is an under-researched area. Specifically, we investigated the organisational adoption of an innovation tool which is a web-based e-business application that supports the interface between R&D, marketing and administration to improve innovation development and commercialisation. Thus, this study adds to extant innovation literature (Akgun et al., 2008) and to organisational adoption (Yen et al., 2008) and wider technological adoption literatures (Lee and Kozar, 2008). This study also contributes by offering insightful managerial implications. Specifically, findings may be of interest to managers, professionals, administrators and senior executives of organisations that design, implement, and manage innovation tools. Furthermore, this study may be useful to a range of organisations including businesses, public administration and research organisations involved in innovation development and commercialisation and interested in adopting tools that enhance innovation processes. This research uncovers adoption factors which can be important in the formulation of managerial policies, strategies and adoption activities. Specifically, managerial implications can be offered concerning technology, organisational and environmental considerations. First, management should stress the value of innovation tools in adoption efforts. They can demonstrate how the benefits including improved efficiency, communication, accessibility, and accountability might outweigh obstacles encountered during adoption. Such obstacles may include transient instability with which users are typically confronted as novel innovation management tools evolve and become sophisticated. Furthermore, organisations should evaluate the extent to which innovation tools fit with existing systems, processes, and practices. Second, top management support is essential for ensuring that adequate organisational resources are allocated to support adoption efforts including training. Inhibitive policies and even cultural inertia may undermine overall adoption success, suggesting that adequate policy changes may be necessary to improve adoption effectiveness. Third, broader environmental considerations may impact on the adoption of innovation tools. For instance, usage of these tools by existing or potential research partners, collaborating and even competing organisations, and funding government agencies may also encourage inter-organisational adoption. In fact, adopting such tools in


13

networks of organisations can maximise network externalities and innovation development and commercialisation effectiveness and efficiency.

6

Future research

While this study contributes to the literature and offers managerial implications, it also has several limitations which can be addressed in future research. First, as the study was based on the particular context of university innovation and commercialisation, respondents included university and TTO informants. While insights captured can be transferable to similar e-business settings, the innovation tool may also be used by other types of organisations including government funding agencies, research organisations and businesses. Thus, future research could target these organisations. Second, as adoption of the innovation tool spreads, quantitative research can be undertaken to both strengthen and extend the preliminary exploratory and qualitative findings of this study. Quantitative studies may also facilitate cross-group comparisons of adoption among R&D, marketing and administration users so that promotion and support can be tailored accordingly. Third, further research could investigate inter-organisational adoption of innovation tools. Innovation processes are increasingly taking place in organisational networks (Cavaye, 1995). While extant research focuses predominantly on one level of analysis, namely, the individual (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003) or the organisation (Chau and Hui, 2001; Kuan and Chau, 2001), future research could adopt a multi-level approach including individual, organisational, and inter-organisational foci. The investigation of innovation tools is a dynamic arena: certainly a reflection of the very innovations which it supports. While adding to extant literature and offering managerial implications, this preliminary study opens up an important avenue for further research in this area.

References Abrahamson, E. (1991) ‘Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and rejection of innovations’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.586–612. Akgun, A.E., Dayan, M. and Di Benedetto, A. (2008) ‘New product development team intelligence: antecedents and consequences’, Information & Management, Vol. 45, pp.221–226. Attewell, P. (1992) ‘Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing’, Organizational Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.1–19. Basu, V., Hartono, E., Lederer, A.L. and Sethi, V. (2002) ‘The impact of organisational commitment, senior management involvement and team involvement on strategic information systems planning’, Information & Management, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp.513–524. Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K. and Mead, M. (1987) ‘The case study research strategy in studies of information systems’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.369–386. Bendoly, E., Citrus, A. and Benn, K. (2007) ‘Internal infrastructural impacts on RFID perceptions and commitment: knowledge, operational procedures and information-processing standards’, Decision Sciences, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.423–449. Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Gronhaug, K. and Perry, C. (2001) Qualitative Research in Marketing, Sage, London.

14

I. Troshani et al.

Cavaye, A.L.M. (1995) ‘The sponsor-adopter gap – differences between promoters and potential users of information systems that link organizations’, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.85–96. Chau, P.Y.K. and Hui, K.L. (2001) ‘Determinants of small business EDI adoption: an empirical investigation’, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.229–252. Chau, P.Y.K. and Tam, K.Y. (1997) ‘Factors affecting the adoption of open systems: an exploratory study’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.1–24. Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (2001) ‘Research report: empirical test of an EDI adoption model’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.304–321. Damsgaard, J. and Lyytinen, K. (2001) ‘The role of intermediating institutions in the diffusion of electronic data interchange (EDI): how industry associations intervened in Denmark, Finland and Hong Kong’, The Information Society, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.195–210. Davis, F.D. (1989) ‘Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance in information technology’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.319–339. Doolin, B. and Troshani, I. (2007) ‘Organizational adoption of XBRL’, Electronic Markets: The International Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.199–209. Fern, E.F. (1982) ‘The use of focus groups for idea generation: the effects of groups size, acquaintanceship and moderator on response quantity and quality’, Journal of Marketing Research, February, Vol. 14, pp.1–13. Fillis, I., Johannson, U. and Wagner, B. (2004) ‘Factors impacting on e-business adoption and development in the smaller firm’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.178–191. Flanagin, A.J. (2000) ‘Social pressures on organisational website adoption’, Human Communication Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.618–646. Flanagin, A.J., Monge, P.R. and Fulk, J. (2001) ‘The value of formative investment in organizational federations’, Human Communication Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.69–93. Freeman, C. and Hagedoorn, J. (1994) ‘Catching-up or falling behind: Patterns in international interfirm technology partnering’, World Development, Vol. 22, pp.771–780. Galliers, R.D. (1990) ‘Choosing appropriate information systems research approaches: a revised taxonomy’, in H-E. Nissen, H.K. Klein and R. Hirscheheim (Eds.): The Information Systems Research Arena of the 90’s, Perceptions and Alternative Approaches, Copenhagen, pp.155–173. Gilbert, D., Balestrini, P. and Littleboy, D. (2004) ‘Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-government’, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.286–301. Gupta, A.K., Raj, S.P. and Wilemon, D. (1986) ‘A model for studying R&D-marketing interface in the product innovation process’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp.7–17. Hagedoorn, J. (1996) ‘Trends and patterns in strategic technology partnering since the early seventies’, Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 11, pp.601–616. Hart, P.J. and Sauders, C.S. (1998) ‘Emerging electronic partnerships: antecedents and dimensions of EDI use from supplier’s perspective’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.87–112. Henriksen, H.Z. (2006) ‘Motivators for IOS adoption in Denmark’, Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.25–39. Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E. and Ireland, R.D. (1990) ‘Mergers and acquisitions and managerial commitment to innovation in M-form firms’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp.29–47. Hong, W. and Zhu, K. (2006) ‘Migrating to internet-based e-commerce: factors affecting e-commerce adoption and migration at the firm level’, Information & Management, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp.204–221.


15

Iacovou, C., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A. (1995) ‘Electronic data interchange and small organizations: adoption and impact of technology’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.465–485. Kinnear, T.C., Taylor, J.R., Johnson, L. and Armstrong, R. (1996) Australian Marketing Research, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Kuan, K.K.Y. and Chau, P.Y.K. (2001) ‘A perception-model for EDI adoption in small business using a technology-organization-environment framework’, Information & Management, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp.507–512. Kumar, K. and Van Dissel, H.G. (1996) ‘Sustainable collaboration: managing conflict and cooperation in interorganizational systems’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.279–300. Kwon, T.H. and Zmud, R.W. (1987) ‘Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation’, in R.J. Boland and R.A. Hirschheim (Eds.): Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, pp.227–251, John Wiley, New York. Lai, V. and Guynes, J. (1997) ‘An assessment of the influence of organizational characteristics on information technology adoption decision: a discriminative approach’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 44, pp.146–157. Lai, V. and Wong, B. (2003) ‘The moderating effect of local environment on a foreign affiliate’s global IS strategy-effectiveness relationship’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp.352–361. Lai, V.S. (2008) ‘The information system strategies of MNC affiliates: a technology-organizationenvironment analysis’, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.74–96. Lawson, R., Alcock, C., Cooper, J. and Burgess, L. (2003) ‘Factors affecting adoption of electronic commerce technologies by SMEs: an Australian Study’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.265–276. Lee, G. and Xia, W. (2006) ‘Organizational size and IT innovation adoption: a meta analysis’, Information & Management, Vol. 43, No. 8, pp.975–985. Lee, Y. and Kozar, K.A. (2008) ‘An empirical investigation of anti-spyware software adoption: a multitheoretical perspective’, Information & Management, Vol. 45, pp.109–119. Liljander, V., Gillberg, F., Gummerus, J. and Riel, A.V. (2006) ‘Technology readiness and the evaluation and adoption of self-service technologies’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 13, pp.177–191. Lin, C.Y. and Ho, Y.H. (2007) ‘Technological innovation for China’s logistics industry’, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.1–19. Lin, H-F. (2006) ‘Interorganizational and organizational determinants of planning effectiveness for internet-based interorganizational systems’, Information & Management, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.423–433. Liu, C., Sia, C-L. and Wei, K-K. (2008) ‘Adopting organizational virtualization in B2B firms: an empirical study in Singapore’, Information & Management, Vol. 45, No. 7, pp.429–437. Lu, X-H., Huang, L-H. and Heng, M.S.H. (2006) ‘Critical success factors of inter-organizational information systems – a case study of Cisco and Xiao Tong in China’, Information & Management, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp.395–408. Lyytinen, K. and King, J.L. (2006) ‘Standard making: a critical research frontier for information systems research’, MIS Quarterly, Special Issue, Vol. 30, pp.405–411. Markus, M.L. and Robey, D. (1988) ‘Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research’, Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.583–598. Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1989) Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, London. Marshall, P. and Mckay, J. (2002) ‘An emergent framework to support visioning and strategy formulation for electronic commerce’, INFOR, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp.3–22. Mehrtens, J., Cragg, P. and Mills, A. (2001) ‘A model of Internet adoption by SMEs’, Information & Management, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp.165–176.

16

I. Troshani et al.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Thousands Oaks. Molla, A. and Licker, P.S. (2005) ‘eCommerce adoption in developing countries: a model and instrument’, Information & Management, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp.877–899. Möller, K.K. and Rajala, A. (2007) ‘Rise of strategic nets – new modes of value creation’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp.895–908. Möller, K.K. and Svahn, S. (2009) ‘How to influence the birth of new business fields – network perspective’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp.450–458. Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M. (1992) ‘Designing organizations that have good fit: a framework for understanding new architectures’, in D.A. Nadler, M.S. Gerstein and R.B. Shaw (Eds.): Organizational Architecture: Designs for Changing Organizations, pp.39–56, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Pan, M-J. and Jang, W-Y. (2008) ‘Determinants of the adoption of enterprise resource planning within the technology-organization-environment framework: Taiwan’s communications industry’, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp.94–102. Patterson, K.A., Grimm, C.M. and Crosi, T.M. (2003) ‘Adopting new technologies for supply chain management’, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.95–121. Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London. Plewa, C. (2005) ‘Key drivers of university-industry relationships and the impact of organisational culture differences: a dyadic study’, PhD thesis, University of Adelaide Business School, Adelaide. Porter, M. and Millar, V. (1985) ‘How information gives you competitive advantage’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp.149–160. Powell, A., Piccoli, G. and Ives, B. (2004) ‘Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research’, Database for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.6–36. Premkumar, G. and Ramamurthy, K. (1995) ‘The role of interorganizational and organizational factors on the decision mode for adoption of interorganizational systems’, Decision Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.303–336. Rampersad, G. (2008) ‘Management of innovation networks in technology transfer’, PhD thesis, University of Adelaide Business School, Adelaide. Rampersad, G.C., Quester, P. and Troshani, I. (in-press) ‘Managing innovation networks: exploratory evidence from ICT, biotechnology and nanotechnology networks’, Industrial Marketing Management. Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY. Schläpfer, A. (2009) ‘Hidden biases in Australian energy policy’, Renewable Energy, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.456–460. Shanks, G., Rouse, A. and Arnott, D. (1993) ‘A review of approaches to research and scholarship in information systems’, Proceedings of the Fourth Australian Conference in Information Systems, Brisbane, Queensland. Sia, C-L., Teo, H-H., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K-K. (2004) ‘Effects of environmental uncertainty on organizational intention to adopt distributed work arrangements’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp.253–267. Simatupang, T.M., Wright, A.C. and Sridharan, R. (2002) ‘The knowledge of coordination for supply chain integration’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.289–308. Simpson, M. and Docherty, A.J. (2004) ‘E-commerce adoption support and advice for UK SMEs’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.315–328. Song, M. and Thieme, R.J. (2006) ‘A cross-national investigation of the R&D-marketing in the product innovation process’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.308–322.


17

Srivastava, R. and Franza, R.M. (2009) ‘Editorial’, International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, Vol. 8, Nos. 2/3, pp.117–120. Suh, T. (2005) ‘Exploring a global pattern of e-business activities and strategic orientation’, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.309–314. Swatman, P.M.C. and Swatman, P.A. (1992) ‘EDI system integration: a definition and literature survey’, The Information Society, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.169–205. Tan, J., Tyler, K. and Manica, A. (2007) ‘Business-to-business adoption of eCommerce in China’, Information & Management, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp.332–351. Taylor, M. and Murphy, A. (2004) ‘SMEs and e-business’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.280–289. Teo, T.S.H. and Ranganathan, C. (2004) ‘Adopters and non-adopters of business-to-business electronic commerce in Singapore’, Information & Management, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.89–102. Thavasi, V. and Ramakrishna, S. (2009) ‘Asia energy mixes from socio-economic and environmental perspectives’, Energy Policy, Vol. 37, No. 11, pp.4240–4250. Thong, J.Y.L. (1999) ‘An integrated model of information systems adoption in small business’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.187–214. Ticehurst, C.G. and Veal, T.R. (2000) Business Research Methods: A Managerial Approach, Pearson Education Pty Ltd, Sydney. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2001) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. Tornatzky, L.G. and Fleischer, M. (1990) Processes of Technological Innovation, Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts. Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982) ‘Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption implementation: a meta-analysis of findings’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. EM-29, No. 1, pp.28–45. Troshani, I. and Doolin, B. (2005) ‘Drivers and inhibitors impacting technology adoption: a qualitative investigation into the Australian experience with XBRL’, in D.R. Vogel, P. Walden, J. Gricar and G. Lenart (Eds.): 18th Bled eCommerce Conference: eIntegration in Action, Moderna Organizacija, Bled, Slovenia, 6–8 June. Troshani, I. and Doolin, B. (2007) ‘Innovation diffusion: a stakeholder and social network view’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.176–200. Tsai, Y., Yifu, J. and Kurekova, L. (2009) ‘Innovative R&D and optimal investment under uncertainty in high-tech industries: an implication for emerging economies’, Research Policy, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp.1388–1395. USMBA (1997) ‘Electronic commerce/electronic data interachange’, US Small Business Administration, pp.1–9. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003) ‘User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.425–478. Warren, M. (2004) ‘Farmers online: drivers and impediments in adoption of internet in UK agricultural businesses’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.371–381. Williamson, O.E. (1983) ‘Organizational innovation: the transaction cost approach’, in J. Ronen (Ed.): Entrepreneurship, pp.101–133, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Wolfe, R.A. (1994) ‘Organisational innovation: review, critique and suggested research directions’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.405–431. Yen, H.R., Li, E.Y. and Niehoff, B.P. (2008) ‘Do organizational citizenship behaviors lead to information system success? Testing the mediation effects of integration climate and project management’, Information & Management, Vol. 45, pp.394–402. Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Beverley Hills.

18

I. Troshani et al.

Zhu, K. and Kraemer, K.L. (2005) ‘Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: cross-country evidence from the retail industry’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.61–84. Zhu, K., Kraemer, K.L. and Xu, S. (2003) ‘Electronic business adoption by European firms: a cross country assessment of facilitators and inhibitors’, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.251–268. Zhu, K., Kraemer, K.L., Xu, S. and Dedrick, J. (2004) ‘Information technology payoff in e-business environments: an international perspective on value creation of e-business in the financial services industry’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.17–54.