IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v12y2001i2p117-135.html

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

   My bibliography  Save this article

The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Russell L. Purvis

    (Department of Management, College of Business and Public Affairs, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 32816)

  • V. Sambamurthy

    (Decision and Information Technologies, The Robert H. Smith School of Business, The University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742-1814)

  • Robert W. Zmud

    (The Michael F. Price College of Business, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-4006)

Abstract

The ability to integrate dispersed pockets of expertise and institute an organizational repository of knowledge is considered to be vital for sustained effectiveness in contemporary business environments. Information technologies provide cost-effective functionalities for building knowledge platforms through systematic acquisition, storage, and dissemination of organizational knowledge. However, in order to gain the value-adding potential of organizational knowledge, it is not sufficient to simply adopt and deploy IT-enabled knowledge platforms. These platforms must be assimilated into the ongoing work processes in organizations. Yet, theories of technology innovation and use suggest that a variety of institutional, social, and political factors blend together in influencing the extent to which complex information technologies are actually assimilated into organizational practice. Therefore, this research addresses a significant question: What forces influence the assimilation of knowledge platforms in organization? Given the significant gap between the adoption and actual assimilation of complex technologies into organizations, this is an important question. Empirical evidence is generated by examining the forces influencing the assimilation of CASE technologies in systems development projects in organizations. CASE is considered to be one of the most mature knowledge platforms in contemporary organizations. The empirical evidence sheds light on the role of institutional forces that influence the rate of assimilation of the technology. The findings have significant implications for further research and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Russell L. Purvis & V. Sambamurthy & Robert W. Zmud, 2001. "The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 117-135, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:12:y:2001:i:2:p:117-135
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.12.2.117.10115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.117.10115
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.12.2.117.10115?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    2. Gersick, Connie J. G. & Hackman, J. Richard, 1990. "Habitual routines in task-performing groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 65-97, October.
    3. Orlikowski, Wanda J. (Wanda Janina), 1993. "CASE tools as organizational change : investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development," Working papers WP 3579-93., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Robert W. Zmud, 1984. "An Examination of "Push-Pull" Theory Applied to Process Innovation in Knowledge Work," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 727-738, June.
    5. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    6. Cynthia Mathis Beath & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1994. "The Contradictory Structure of Systems Development Methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-User Relationship in Information Engineering," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 350-377, December.
    7. Paul Attewell, 1992. "Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning: The Case of Business Computing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, February.
    8. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    9. Robert M. Grant, 1996. "Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 375-387, August.
    10. Arun Rai & Geoffry S. Howard, 1993. "An Organizational Context for CASE Innovation," Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), IGI Global, vol. 6(3), pages 21-35, July.
    11. Dorothy Leonard-Barton & Isabelle Deschamps, 1988. "Managerial Influence in the Implementation of New Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(10), pages 1252-1265, October.
    12. James C. Anderson, 1987. "An Approach for Confirmatory Measurement and Structural Equation Modeling of Organizational Properties," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 525-541, April.
    13. Van de Ven, Andrew R., 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Agricultural Research Policy Seminar 139708, University of Minnesota Extension.
    14. Ledyard Tucker & Charles Lewis, 1973. "A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(1), pages 1-10, March.
    15. Marcie J. Tyre & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1994. "Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technological Adaptation in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 98-118, February.
    16. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    17. Robert G. Fichman & Chris F. Kemerer, 1997. "The Assimilation of Software Process Innovations: An Organizational Learning Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(10), pages 1345-1363, October.
    18. Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 590-607, May.
    19. Gerardine DeSanctis & Marshall Scott Poole, 1994. "Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 121-147, May.
    20. Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates & Kazuo Okamura & Masayo Fujimoto, 1995. "Shaping Electronic Communication: The Metastructuring of Technology in the Context of Use," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 423-444, August.
    21. Michael J. Ginzberg, 1981. "Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure: Promising Results and Unanswered Questions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 459-478, April.
    22. Randolph B. Cooper & Robert W. Zmud, 1990. "Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 123-139, February.
    23. Leonard-Barton, Dorothy, 1988. "Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 251-267, October.
    24. Kenneth A. Bollen & Robert A. Stine, 1992. "Bootstrapping Goodness-of-Fit Measures in Structural Equation Models," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 21(2), pages 205-229, November.
    25. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1992. "The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 398-427, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert G. Fichman, 2004. "Real Options and IT Platform Adoption: Implications for Theory and Practice," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 132-154, June.
    2. Peng, Zeyu & Sun, Yongqiang & Guo, Xitong, 2018. "Antecedents of employees’ extended use of enterprise systems: An integrative view of person, environment, and technology," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 104-120.
    3. Jeffrey Cummings, 2003. "Knowledge Sharing : A Review of the Literature," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 19060, December.
    4. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    5. Andrew Hargadon & Angelo Fanelli, 2002. "Action and Possibility: Reconciling Dual Perspectives of Knowledge in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 290-302, June.
    6. John W. Boudreau, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Organizational Behavior, Strategy, Performance, and Design in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1463-1476, November.
    7. Onexy Quintana-Martinez & Antonio-Rafael Ramos-Rodriguez, 2016. "Changes in the Axes of Convergence of Innovation Management Research," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(5), pages 1-96, April.
    8. Sven Heidenreich & Katrin Talke, 2020. "Consequences of mandated usage of innovations in organizations: developing an innovation decision model of symbolic and forced adoption," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 10(3), pages 279-298, December.
    9. Cuellar, Michael J. & Gallivan, Michael J., 2006. "A framework for ex ante project risk assessment based on absorptive capacity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(3), pages 1123-1138, September.
    10. Abhay Nath Mishra & Ritu Agarwal, 2010. "Technological Frames, Organizational Capabilities, and IT Use: An Empirical Investigation of Electronic Procurement," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 249-270, June.
    11. Do Giang Nguyen & Minh-Tri Ha, 2022. "What Makes Users Continue to Want to Use the Digital Platform? Evidence From the Ride-Hailing Service Platform in Vietnam," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440211, January.
    12. Kim, Sanghyun & Garrison, Gary, 2010. "Understanding users’ behaviors regarding supply chain technology: Determinants impacting the adoption and implementation of RFID technology in South Korea," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 388-398.
    13. Wanda J. Orlikowski & C. Suzanne Iacono, 2001. "Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 121-134, June.
    14. Brion, Sébastien & Mothe, Caroline & Sabatier, Mareva, 2007. "What impacts more on innovation : Organizational context or individual competences ?," MPRA Paper 10595, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Da Mota de Pina E Cunha, A.M., 1998. "Determinants of Product Innovation in Organizations : Practices and Performance in the Portugese Financial Sector," Other publications TiSEM e6e4e56e-b72a-4392-8d79-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. McDowell, William C. & Peake, Whitney O. & Coder, LeAnne & Harris, Michael L., 2018. "Building small firm performance through intellectual capital development: Exploring innovation as the “black box”," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 321-327.
    17. Turner, Karynne L. & Monti, Alberto & Annosi, Maria Carmela, 2021. "Disentangling the effects of organizational controls on innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 57-69.
    18. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Burgers, J. Henri & Jansen, Justin J.P. & Van den Bosch, Frans A.J. & Volberda, Henk W., 2009. "Structural differentiation and corporate venturing: The moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 206-220, May.
    20. Kummitha, Rama Krishna Reddy, 2020. "Why distance matters: The relatedness between technology development and its appropriation in smart cities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:12:y:2001:i:2:p:117-135. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.