Information System Process Innovation Life
Cycle Model
Erja Mustonen-Ollila, Lappeenranta
University of Technology, Finland
ABSTRACT:
This study examines the history and evolution of information system process innovation (ISPI) processes (adoption, adaptation, and unlearning) within the information system development (ISD) work in an internal IS department and in two IS software house organisations in Finland over a 43-year time-period. Since this study focuses on innovation-development and learning processes it is inherently longitudinal. In this study the main theoretical contribution to the IS science is the new discovered theory. The term theory should be understood as a new conceptual framework of ISPI processes, new ISPI concepts, and the relationships between the ISPI concepts inside the ISPI processes. We call the new theory as an ISPI life cycle model.
Keywords: Information system
development, Information system process innovation, Life-cycle model
1. Introduction
We shall define information system process innovation (ISPI) as any new way
of developing, implementing, and maintaining information systems in an organisational context (Swanson, 1994)..
An ISPI can embrace changes in the technologies that offer new computing
functionality or novel non-functional features (like portability, security) for
the delivered IS. Typical technological innovations include adoptions of
programming languages or operating systems. ISPIs can
also include administrative innovations, such as the deployment of project
management methods, the introduction of participative approaches to guiding
development interactions, or the contracting of development work outside. In
Swanson’s terminology, ISPIs thus cover both
technological (
Due to the reason that our ISPI definition is relatively broad it therefore covers a wide range of innovative activities within IS development (ISD) which is a change process aiming at improving and changing a present information system (IS) or implementing a new information system. Van de Ven (1992) argues that a change process takes a historical development perspective, and focuses on the stages. The need for changes in IS may result from environmental changes, emergence of new technologies, organisational changes, or changes in business. ISPIs play a major role in changing the ISPI processes in organisations which affect the ISD processes. Therefore the study of ISPI processes can provide a useful framework to understand the complex nature of ISD.
There is a need to better understand the process change that underlies information systems behaviour (Venkatesh and Vitalari, 1991), and the first step towards studying a process activity is to define the meaning of the process, which according to Van de Ven (1992) is used in three different ways in the literature: 1) a logic used to explain a causal relationship between independent and dependent variables in a variance theory, 2) a category of concepts that refer to actions of individuals or organisations, and 3) a sequence of events that describe how things change over time.
Upon defining the meaning of process, the type of process model theory is
important. In the literature there exist several process theories such as the life cycle process theory, and evolution
process theory, which are viewed as abstract types of change process theories
(Van de Ven, 1992). Some of the main issues of these
theories are as follows.
A life cycle process theory assumes
that change is present. A life cycle theory often operates on the basis of
institutional rules or programs that require developmental activities to
progress in a prescribed sequence (Van de Ven,
1992). An evolution process theory
explains change as a recurrent, cumulative, and probabilistic progression of
variation, selection, and retention (Van de Ven,
1992). These two theories are having
three components: a set of starting conditions, a functional end-point, and an
emergent process of change. Life cycle is predictive, and evolution theory
provides rich explanations of emergent processes being explanatory (Van
de Ven, 1992).
In this study, we have several organisational environments, which we call development units. Development units are generally: “regions involved as part of the setting of interaction, having definite boundaries, which help to concentrate interaction in one way or another” (Giddens, 1984, p. 375). Our definition is purposefully loose in that a development unit may comprise of a single formal organisational unit, or several units; or a half of a unit, if such a unit is the target of the development behaviour. A focal point in distinguishing a development unit is the assumed scope within which people are expected to adopt, adapt, and unlearn an ISPI, or know about it. We denote development units as locales.
In our study, the meaning of a process is defined as causal relationships between independent and dependent variables in a variance theory, a category of concepts of organisations, and a sequence of events that describe how things change over time. This is in line with Van de Ven’s (1992) definition of process. While constructing our life-cycle model over time we adapt both the life cycle process theory, and evolution process theory. ISPI life cycle model consists of various stages were ISPIs are transformed from there present stage to the future stage through different ISPI processes. In the context of ISD the ISPI life cycle model includes an adoption process, an adaptation process (implementation, localisation, and use), and an unlearning process, and the connections between the processes over time where an ISPI is at first found out and chosen, and after some transformations can be abandoned. ISPI processes conceptualise the ISD work, and the conceptualisation occurs among the actors who are involved in the IS projects and working together doing ISD. Without conceptualisation no learning occurs, and previous experience, being tacit or practical knowledge is not shared among the actors. We model the ISPI processes and concepts with the conceptual framework which is refined to reflect the findings of the field study over time. In this study each of the aspects of the ISPI life cycle model are investigated in detail. The conceptual framework of the life cycle model is studied dynamically across different time generations according to Friedman and Cornford (1989), and it depicts the main relationship between the concepts and ISPI processes of interest. In our study longitudinal research perspective turns our attention to one aspect in ISPI evolution, which is the dynamics in the development practices, i.e. how the set of ISPI processes used changed over time in locales (Friedman and Cornford, 1989).
2. Previous Life Cycle
Studies
To
understand better the concept of life cycle the models defining the stages of
innovation have been developed. Stages
are defined by one or more decisions and related behaviour
that are connected in some logical fashion (Tornatzky
and Fleischer, 1990). Decision making is a nonlinear process that is rich in
feedback loops and highly sensitive to information as Mintzberg
et al. (1976a, 1976b) propose in their unstructured decision making model. March
and Simon (1958) in their bounded rational model argue for the decision
maker’s rationality which is bounded by their intellectual capabilities
to process information, as well as their tendency to short-circuit an
exhaustive search procedure. If the people are not able to make decisions about
the innovation the evolutions stops (March and Simon, 1958). Another model of
making sense out of any given innovation decision process is the rational model
by Allison (1971) in which the decision making is the result of a comprehensive
search and analysis process that results in a decision designed to bring
maximum benefit to the organisation. Political model by Allison (1971) and
Pettigrew (1973) describes a world in which individuals and groups compete to
maximise their own individual or group benefit, and a garbage can model by
Cohen et al. (1972) explains decision making to appearing to be a chaotic mix
of problems, solutions, and people.
Diffusion process is evolutionary in
its nature consisting of five stages: the initiation, becoming interested in,
evaluation, trials, and adoption/rejection (Rogers, 1995; Jones and Laffey, 2000: Tornatzsky and
Fleischer, 1990; Venkatesh and Vitalari,
1991). Wolfe (1994) argues that process
theory research of organisational innovation
investigates the nature of the innovation process, how and why innovations
emerge, develop, grow and terminate.
New innovations and processes
tend to follow closely related life cycles, and change is a feature of organisational life (Ettlie and
Reza, 1992). Examples of life cycle models are Van de Ven
and
The need for an ISPI life cycle model to study changes in IS literature has
been recognised in the past, but the difficulties and
time consuming research of to study life cycle processes have prohibited new
research in the area (Ettlie and Reza, 1992; Van de Ven and Poole, 1988; Piaget, 1954; Desouza
et al., 2004, 2007; Haekel, 1995, 1999; Dove, 2001,
Turk at al., 2005; Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan,
2001; Abernathy and Utterback, 1978; Anderson and Tushman, 1991). Furthermore, there may be cycles upon cycles
in several directions at once, and technology can push the process. The life
cycle models to study changes in ISPI processes, however, have been neglected
in the literature. Thus, we develop an ISPI life cycle model to shed some light
to the ISPI processes over time, because empirical research on how the ISPIs are adopted, used, searched, transferred and
unlearned is lacking. In our study the ISPI processes and concepts in the
framework are based on innovation diffusion theory (
3. Research Methodology And Developed ISPI Life Cycle
Process behaviour is an important concept to understand how the processes work and minimise the likelihood of missing important process. Longitudinal research studies events and behaviour of the processes across multiple time periods, and the researchers often employ multiple methods to gather different types of data. Longitudinal and especially retrospective and historical research does not only describe the sequences, but it identifies the patterns and searches for underlying mechanisms that shape the patterning (Venkatesh and Vitalari, 1991). The time impacts upon the processes and impact of the historical events and past processes is important to understand the life cycle of ISPI processes.
Since this study focuses on innovation-development and learning processes it
is inherently longitudinal. This study examines the history and evolution of
information system process innovation (ISPI) processes (adoption, adaptation,
and unlearning) within the ISD work in an internal IS department and in two IS
software house organisations in
According to Markus and Robey (1988) theories are established by using a process or a variance theory. In this study the new theory is presented by viewing both the variance theory and the process theory. The emergent theory, which is a conceptual framework, the various concepts, and their relationships with each other, offers a new type of theoretical constructs for understanding the studied phenomena in different perspectives. It can be argued that the discovered theory reflects the phenomena in the multiple organisational contexts better than the earlier fragmented theories in the literature.
The focus on this paper is on theory, and due to the lack of existing frameworks to guide our investigation and due to the novel nature of the phenomena being examined we chose a qualitative case study (Laudon, 1989; Johnson, 1975; Curtis et al., 1988; Benbasat et al. 1987) with a multi-site study approach, where we investigated three organisational environments, known here as companies A, B, and C, respectively. Company A is a big paper manufacturer, whereas company B and C are specialised in designing, implementing, and maintaining information systems for paper and pulp sector. Our study forms a descriptive case study (Yin, 1993): it embodies time, history and context, and it focuses on change process and therefore it can be accordingly described as a longitudinal case study, which involves multiple time points (Pettigrew, 1985, 1989, 1990).
Research approach followed Friedman’s and Cornford’s (1989) study, which involved several time points. Because the bulk of the gathered data was qualitative, consisting of interviews and archival material, we adopted largely historical research methods (Copeland and McKenney, 1988; Mason et al., 1997a, 1997b). Among the rich array of qualitative methodologies available, we chose to approach the research questions using a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The aim of grounded theory is to allow the theory to emerge, rather than impose an existing theoretical frame of reference (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
Our definitions of ISPI processes formed the basis for interviews and collection of archival material. Empirical data contained tape-recorded semi-structured interviews dealing with the experiences from developing and using ISPI processes. Interviews covered project managers, IS department managers, and systems analysts who had worked at the companies at that time. We also explored archival files and collected system handbooks, system documentation and minutes of meetings. The archival data encompassed a period between 1960 and 1997 serving as primary and secondary source of data (Järvenpää, 1991). We thus used triangulation to verify veracity of data by using multiple data sources.
The obtained data set included descriptions of all ISPI events, ISPI processes, participating companies, their organisational structures, technological platforms, and changes in their business organisation, or strategy. These events were arranged into chronological order in a manuscript which was corrected for multiple mistakes and omissions. Because the analysis had several important omissions more data was gathered and the new manuscript was again corrected for omissions and mistakes.
Using the validated information retrieved from the manuscript, a conceptual framework, the ISPI life cycle was developed for each of the ISPI processes. While “reconstructing” the historical evidence, we assumed that the ISPI processes were “influential” when they had supportive data. Thus, we found 263 identified ISPI adoptions, 59 ISPI adaptation decisions, and 227 unlearning decisions where they were present over four decades.
Our main research goal was to develop an ISPI life cycle model based on empirical data and past theories, and literature. We must note that this life cycle model is only one possible view and is based on our data analysis. The model we propose in this paper is a conceptual framework called an ISPI life-cycle model (see Figure 1). It explicates the types of ISPI processes discovered during the research process. While we will discuss a straightforward and linear progression between the various ISPI processes, there can be variations. We cannot cover these in any dept, but we will like to allude to them, and point out that future research is needed to investigate them in more detail. These feedback loops should be studied later, too. Our investigation is crucial for ascertaining how the ISPI life cycle model was created from the data.
In Figure 1,
information system development (ISD) is conceptualised
with the ISPI processes (adoption, adaptation, and unlearning) shown as
ellipses. The dashed lines describe the relationships between the ISPI
processes defined as follows. ISPI adoption is a decision to use an ISPI within
a given organisational context (Sauer and Lau, 1997).
ISPI adaptation occurs after an ISPI adoption decision is made. ISPI adaptation
consists of implementation, use, and localisation
processes. In implementation, the organisation makes
the changes intended by the adoption decision (DePietro
et al., 1990; Newell et al., 2000). The use describes the situation in which
the innovation has become a routine (Nelson and Winter, 1982). In localisation, an ISPI is internalised
in an organisation (Tolvanen,
1998). ISPI unlearning is the disappearance of an ISPI (Kwon and Zmud, 1987).
Organisations experience over time the stream of ISPI processes. These ISPI processes take place in a locale which is the empirical environment consisting of ISD, ISPI processes, internal learning, and ISPIs. Main external drivers affecting locale and theoretical discourse (solid arrows in Figure 1) that lead to changes include technological changes in hardware and software, business changes, and organisational changes. These drivers affect the locale, ISD, the ISPI processes, and the theoretical discourse (presented as a box) where the academic community and consultants exchange views on what ISPIs are etc. The fourth external driver (solid arrow) affecting the theoretical discourse is the feedback from the locale. In the locale the specific actors learn over time 1) to know about ISPIs, 2) to make adoption decisions about their use, 3) to adapt, implement, and localise ISPIs, and 4) to unlearn the previous ISPIs.
In the early phases of the general ISPI diffusion, external knowledge is the only means by which most organisations learn the ISPI because internal experience is unavailable. External knowledge may be acquired by modelling other organisations (vicarious learning), by importing knowledge components directly (grafting), or by depending on intermediaries (Attewell, 1992; Fleck, 1994; Huber, 1991). The external information distribution mechanisms, shown as a solid arrow act at the interface of the knowledge producers and users, lowering the knowledge barrier. Consultants have economic or other interests in pushing new ISPI knowledge (Newell et al., 2000). The organisations can have close relationships with the consultants, the IS software houses etc. in certain areas, or they ask for help from outside actors, and external peer networks, who they rely on even if working in competing organisations. Professional associations are an important external source of networks that boundary-spanners use in a knowledge acquisition.
Internal innovation is the development of ISPI related knowledge and skills that are not dependent on or originating from external sources and that are primarily controlled by the adopting organisation. In this sense, internal ISPIs combine and transform unique internal knowledge and skills garnered from a company’s own experience. Internal learning offers superior capabilities since such ISPI use may be hard for other companies to imitate. Mechanisms of internal learning can range from informal communications among individuals to formal analyses of experience, experience factories and post-mortem audits of system projects (Attewell, 1992). Internal learning has an impact both on adoption and adaptation processes.
Figure 1: A Conceptual Framework Of The Life Cycle Model Of ISPIs.
Even though Figure 1 explains the diverse issues of ISPI processes over time, it does not try to present a complete model to explain all of them. First, the feedback loops between the ISPI processes were not investigated. Second, the conceptual framework was difficult to develop, because it consisted of different concepts, local practice, and drivers, being internal or external. Thirdly, the division into the ISPI processes, adoption, unlearning, and adaptation may not have been adequate, and hidden internal processes may have existed that influenced the ISPIs. Theoretical discourse would have needed more investigation, because of the lack of studies on the impact of theoretical discourse over ISPIs.
Due to the complex nature
of ISPI processes, one theoretical research domain is not adequate to explain
the diverse and multiple issues of ISPI processes in the conceptual framework.
Therefore, several others research domains are chosen which could explain the
different aspects of ISPI processes. The theories used to explain ISPI concepts
and ISPI processes as follows. The ISPI concepts can be explained with the
literature of technological and administrative innovations (Swanson, 1994), and
with the historical evolution of ISD (Friedman and Cornford,
1989). The diffusion of innovations theory (
In ISPI innovation research a large number of studies have been conducted that contribute to the understanding of ISPI innovation and ISPI processes Each of the research areas, however, has a relatively narrow scope, and addresses only a small set of issues instead of covering the whole ISPI life cycle, which consists of an ISPI search and information distribution, the ISPI adoption process, the ISPI adaptation process, and the ISPI unlearning process. In this study a conceptual framework is developed that ties these fragmented research areas together. The conceptual framework recognises the complexity of system design with ISPI processes as a whole, and connects the different concepts together.
4. Discussion And Conclusions
Before discussing on conclusions, we must acknowledge the limitations of the work. First, the above life cycle model (Figure 1) is one possible explanation to the ISPI processes, which are adoption, adaptation, and unlearning. It is by no means the only one, variations can and will exist. Second, we have not discussed the concept of repeated feedback loops here. Changes in processes are not a straightforward linear process. Rather, it is one of cycling between the stages and through repeated feedback. Third, we have been limited in presenting our findings for examination of practices in three organisations. We understand and acknowledge the issues associated with generalising our findings. We are also limited in the generalisation of our findings about ISPI processes. Fourth, we view the work presented here as on-going and not completed. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the only life cycle study of ISPI processes in the IS literature.
The present study has implications for practitioners, and significant research implications. The contextual and environmental changes, the changes in organisational structures, and the economical situations, the technological changes in hardware and software have all had an impact on ISPI processes (adoption, adaptation, and unlearning), knowledge acquisition and information distribution.
Within the literature of organisational studies a variety of approaches to knowledge can be identified, and a whole lifecycle of knowledge (knowledge creation, use, storing, and demolishing) and the interaction of knowledge processes are discussed. The demolishing process means processes like e.g. eliminating outdated information or unlearning outmoded working skills (Hedberg, 1981).
One of the most general and common distinctions of research methods is the classification between qualitative and quantitative research methods. When discovering the new theory by developing the conceptual framework and the relationships between the categories and variables, theory-creating approach includes both qualitative and quantitative methods, which is also the case in this study. A multiple case study approach was applied to this study by aiming to develop a new theory. The final product of creating a theory from the case studies may be concepts, a conceptual framework, or propositions or possible mid-range theory (Eisenhardt, 1989).
The dependent variables were ISPI, and locale. The independent variables were associated with changes in the value of the dependent variables. The conceptual framework tried to explain the changes in the values of these concepts over time. According toYin (1993) the main weaknesses of a case study are that there may be a lack of rigor in the study, the studies may provide little basis for scientific generalisation, and they can often take too long and result in massive, unreadable documents. The key principle to be followed to increase realibility of the information presented in a case study is the maintenance of a logical chain of evidence. Multiple viewpoints of the data will give rise to a more complete evaluation than a single source. Triangulation is seen as a powerful mean to increase the realibility. Theory creating should combine both multiple data collection methods. The triangulation made possible by multiple data collection techniques provides stronger substantiation of constructs and hypotheses. Collecting different types of data by different methods from different sources produces a wider scope of coverage and may result in a fuller picture of the phenomena under study. Especially Eisenhard (1989) suggests that both quantitative and qualitative data should be used in any study.
In this study both the grounded theory approach, and descriptive case study approach embodying time, history and context were used. Being a longitudinal study it involved multiple time periods. Owing to the data being qualitative and consisting of interviews and archival material, historical research methods were adopted. The conceptual framework in Figure 1 was thus developed to model the phenomena of the ISPI processes (adoption, adaptation, and unlearning).
Triangulation was used by checking simultaneously different data sources improving the reliability and validity of the data. In this study the term triangulation was used for multiple meanings: 1) data triangulation or the use of a variety of data sources, 2) theory triangulation where multiple perspectives were used to interpret a single set of data, and 3) methodological triangulation where multiple methods have employed in the research problem (Denzin, 1978).
In this study the main theoretical contribution to the IS science is the new discovered theory. The term theory should be understood as 1) a new conceptual framework of ISPI processes, which are called adoption (a decision to use an ISPI), adaptation (ISPI implementation, use, and localisation), and unlearning (disappearance of an ISPI) (see Figure 1), and 2) new ISPI concepts, and the relationships between the ISPI concepts inside the ISPI processes. In the future a further subject of study could be the task of describing the variation in ISPI processes over time.
5. References
Abernathy, W.J., Utterback, J.M. (1978), Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, June/July, pp. 40-47.
Allison, G.T. (1971), Essence of
decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Anderson, P., Tushman, M.L. (1991), Managing through cycles of technological change. Research Technology Management, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 26-31.
Attewell, P. (1992), Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning: The Case of Business Computing. Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Benbasat,
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., and Olsen, J.P. (1972), A garbage-can model or organizational choice. Administrative Science Quaterly, Vol. 17, pp. 1-25.
Copeland, D.G., McKenney, J.L. (1988), Airline Reservations Systems: Lessons from History, MIS Quarterly, September, pp. 353-370.
Curtis, B., Krasner, H., Iscoe, N. (1988), A Field Study of the software design process for large systems, Communications of the ACM, November, Vol. 31, No. 11, pp.1268-1287.
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm,
Prentice-Hall:
Damanpour, F., Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001), The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 45-65.
Denzin, N.K. (1978), The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods, 2nd
edition,
DePietro, R., Wiarde,
E., and Fleischer, M. (1990), The Context of Change:
Organization, Technology, and Environment in The Processes of Technological
Innovation, Tornatzky, L. G., and Fleischer, M.
(eds.),
Desouza, K.C, Awazu, Y., Ramaprasad, A. (2004), Modifications and innovations to technology artifacts, November. Paper presentation at Diffusion Interest Group in Information Technology- DIGIT 2004 (Washington D.C),
Desouza, K.C., Awazu, Y., and Ramaprasad, A. (2007), Modifications and Innovations to Technology Artifacts. Technovation, Vol. 27, pp. 204-220.
Diaper, D. (2001), Task Analysis for knowledge descriptions (TAKD): a requiem for a method. Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 199-212.
Dove, R. (2001), Response
Ability- The Language, Structure, and Culture of the Agile
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from
case study research.
Ettlie, J.E., Reza, E.M. (1992), Organizational
integration and process innovation.
Fleck, J. (1994), Learning by Trying: The Implementation of Configurational Technology, Research Policy, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 637-652.
Friedman, A., Cornford D. (1989), Computer Systems Development: History,
Organization and Implementation, John Wiley & sons, Information Systems
Series,
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Polity Press.
Glaser, B.G., and A.L. Strauss (1967), The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research.
Gustavsson, B. (1999), Three
cases and some ideas on individual and organizational re- and unlearning. Presentation at the EIASM conference in
Haeckel, SH. (1995), Adaptive enterprise design: the sense-and-respond model. Planning Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 6-42.
Haeckel. SH. (1999), Adaptive
Hedberg, B. (1981), How Organizations learn and
unlearn, in Nyström, P.C. and Starbuck. W.H. Handbook of
Organizational Design, Vol. 1, pp. 3-27,
Hirschman, A. (1970), Exit,
Voice and Loyalty.
Huber, G.P. (1991), Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and The Literatures. Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, February, pp. 88-115.
Johnson, J. M. (1975), Doing field research, The Free Press,
Jones, N., Laffey, J. (2000), The diffusion of collaborative technologies into a college classroom using DocuShare 1.5. Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 29-46.
Järvenpää, S. (1991), Panning for Gold in Information Systems Research: ‘Second-hand’ data, Information Systems research Arena in the 90’s (1991): Information Systems research: contemporary approaches and emergent traditions, Proceedings of the IFIP TC/WG 8.2 Working Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 14-16 December, pp. 63-80.
Kwon, T.H. and Zmud, R.W. (1987), Unifying the Fragmented Models Information Systems Implementation. Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, pp. 227-251. John Wiley & Sons.
Laudon, K. C. (1989), Design Guidelines for
Choices Involving Time in Qualitative Research,
March, J.G., and
Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations.
Markus, K.L., Robey,
D. (1988), Information technology and organisational
change: causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 5,
pp.583-598.
Mason, R.O.,
Mason, R.O., McKenney, J.L., Copeland, D.G. (1997b), Developing a Historical Tradition in MIS Research, MIS Quaterly, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 307-320.
Mintzberg, H.D., Raisignhani,
D., and Theoret, A. (1976a), The structuring of organizations.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., and A. Theoret (1976b) The structure of unstructured decision processes. Administrative science quaterly, Vol. 21, pp. 246-275.
Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory
of Economic Change,
Newell, S., Swan, J.A., Galliers, R.D. (2000), A Knowledge-focused perspective on the diffusion and adoption of complex information technologies: the BPR example, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3.
Orlikowski, W. (1991), Integrated Information Environment or Matrix of Control? The Contradictory Implications of Information Technology, Accounting, Management, and Information Technologies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 9-42.
Piaget, J. (1954), The construction of reality in the child.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1973), The politics of
organizational decision-making.
Pettigrew, A. (1985), The Wakening Giant, Continuity and Change in ICI.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1989), Issues of Time and Site Selection in Longitudinal Research
on Change,
Pettigrew A.M. (1990), Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice, Organization Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 267-292.
Pfeffer, J. (1981), Power in organizations.
Rogers, E. M. (1995), Diffusion of
Innovations, Fourth Edition, The Free Press,
Sauer, C., Lau, C. (1997), Trying to adapt systems development methodologies- a case-based exploration of business users’ interests, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 255-275.
Swanson, E. B., (1994), Information Systems Innovation Among Organizations. Management Science, Vol. 40, No. 9, pp. 1069-1088.
Terreberry, S. (1968), The evolution of organisational environments. Administrative Science Quaterly, Vol. 12, pp. 590-613.
Tolvanen, J-P. (1998), Incremental Method Engineering with Modeling Tools:
Theoretical Principles and Empirical Evidence. Jyväskylä
studies in Computer Science, Economics and Statistics 47,
Tornatzky, L. G., Fleischer, M.
(1990), The processes of
technological innovation.
Venkatesh, A., Vitalari, N.P. (1991), Longitudinal Surveys in Information Systems Research: An
Examination of Issues, Methods, and Applications Originally appeared as a chapter in Ken Kramer (ed.), The Information Systems Challenge: Survey Research Methods, Harvard University Press, pp. 115-144.
Van de Ven, A.H., and M.S. Poole (1988),
Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change, In Paradox and Transformation: Toward a
theory of change in organization and management. R.E. Quinn and K.S.
Cameron (eds.),
Van de Ven, A.H. (1992), Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 169-188.
Wolfe, R.A. (1994), Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique and
Suggested Research Directions,
Yin, R.W. (1979), Changing Urban
Bureaucracies: how new practices become routinized.
Yin, R.Y. (1993), Applications of Case Study Research. Applied Social Research Methods series, Vol. 34, SAGE publications.
Contact the Author:
Erja Mustonen-Ollila, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Faculty of Management and Technology, Department of Information Technology, P.O. Box 20, FIN-53851 LAPPEENRANTA, FINLAND. Email: erja.mustonen-ollila@lut.fi; Tel. +358 5 621 2857; Fax: +358 5 621 2899