Muhammad Mustafa Kamal

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/220306470
IT innovation adoption in the government sector: Identifying the

critical success factors
Article in Journal of Enterprise Information Management · March 2006

DOI: 10.1108/17410390610645085 · Source: DBLP
CITATIONS READS
211 5,243
1 author:
Muhammad Mustafa Kamal

Coventry University
55 PUBLICATIONS 1,499 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Using Big Data and Artificial Intelligence in Business to Impact Global Challenges View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Mustafa Kamal on 23 December 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Enterprise Information Management
IT innovation adoption in the government sector: identifying the critical success factors
M.M. Kamal
Article information:
To cite this document:
M.M. Kamal, (2006),"IT innovation adoption in the government sector: identifying the critical success
factors", Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 19 Iss 2 pp. 192 - 222
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410390610645085
Downloaded on: 23 December 2015, At: 02:25 (PT)
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 02:25 23 December 2015 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 90 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4566 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Chinyao Low, Yahsueh Chen, Mingchang Wu, (2011),"Understanding the determinants of cloud
computing adoption", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 111 Iss 7 pp. 1006-1023 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635571111161262
Kirsten M. Rosacker, David L. Olson, (2008),"Public sector information system critical success
factors", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 2 Iss 1 pp. 60-70 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506160810862955
Yazn Alshamaila, Savvas Papagiannidis, Feng Li, (2013),"Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the north
east of England: A multi-perspective framework", Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 26
Iss 3 pp. 250-275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410391311325225
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:328478 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0398.htm
JEIM
19,2 IT innovation adoption in the
government sector: identifying
the critical success factors
192
M.M. Kamal
Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University,
Uxbridge, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to acquire underlying knowledge of how IT is adopted in private sector
organisations and further explore what factors impact its adoption (optimistically and pessimistically).
Design/methodology/approach – An interpretive and qualitative multiple case study approach
was selected to test and validate the conceptual model empirically. The selection of the interpretivism
viewpoint in the context of this research is to understand how government organisations adopt new
technologies and support their decisions and actions. The interpretive research methodology is related
to data gathering and generating solid descriptions and interpretations and further allows theory
building. Through a multiple case study strategy, factors influencing EAI adoption in the government
sector are investigated. In doing so, various data collection methods such as interviews,
documentation, and observation are adopted.
Findings – The author identified 42 critical success factors (CSF) for IT innovation adoption. These
factors provide sufficient understanding of their importance when adopting an innovation
(technology). The author exploits these factors further when developing a conceptual EAI adoption
model and also presents a taxonomy of the IT innovation adoption process. This taxonomy is an
eight-stage adoption process based on studying 11 IT adoption models. Simply acquiring or adopting
a technology is not sufficient – in order to obtain the anticipated benefits, IT must be deployed and
used appropriately by the organisation and its intended users. However, this taxonomy would further
assist in identifying factors affecting IT innovation adoption at each stage of the adoption process.
Originality/value – The proposed conceptual IT innovation adoption model is a contribution to
theory. This model presents a detailed list of factors that impact IT adoption in government sector
organisations. The author conjectures that each factor within this model signifies its importance and
must be considered by organisations while adopting innovation (technology). The taxonomy of the IT
innovation adoption process is another contribution. This taxonomy is developed by studying 11 IT
adoption models as presented in this paper. This taxonomy identifies the pre-adoption and
post-adoption stages of an adoption process. Further in this taxonomy, the author identifies stages
where the organisation is impacted, i.e. the pre-adoption stage and post-adoption, where individual
adopters are impacted.
Keywords Communication technologies, Innovation, Critical success factors, Government
Paper type General review
Introduction
The post-Second World War era has witnessed dramatic expansion in governments’
social and economic responsibilities (Ahmad and Zink, 1998). Citizens have increased
Journal of Enterprise Information their demands for government-sponsored social and economic programs. The need for
Management expeditious responses to those demands has led to rapid expansion in the size and
Vol. 19 No. 2, 2006
pp. 192-222 number of government agencies and to an almost continual series of agency reforms
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited and reorganisations. Many reform initiatives have involved governments’ information
1741-0398
DOI 10.1108/17410390610645085 systems (IS) as organisations have tried to maintain reliable, high-quality, and
up-to-date information. To meet these challenges, government sector organisations in IT innovation
some countries (such as Singapore) have frequently been the early adopters of a wide adoption
variety of information technologies.
Indeed, one of the most visible phenomena of the information age is a direct result of
private organisations and government-developed innovations and applications of
information technology. Increased response to the citizenry has often been the avowed
goal of government sector organisations in the adoption of information technology. 193
The reality is that without the use of information technology and computing, the mere
administration of today’s large and complex social and economic programs would
simply not be possible. A considerable gap is seen between IT adoption in private
sector and government sector organisations, in provisions of early and successful IT
adoption, and in identifying its impact. Themistocleous et al. (2004) report in this
regard that government sector organisations introduce information and
communication technology (ICT) reactively as compared to private sector

organisations. The author supports that this may be attributed to the bureaucracy
and the culture that exists in many government sector organisations.
Conversely, Cardozo et al. (1993) report that innovation is generally considered to be
one of the key drivers of corporate success. However, the author states that apart from
being reactive rather than proactive, one of the other main issues several government
organisations face in this perspective is how to successfully adopt and implement their
innovations. In the past three decades, extensive research has been conducted to
identify various factors for the success and failure of innovative technologies (see, for
example, Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994). The focal point of this research
relevant to the government sector is that many new technologies are unsuccessful, and
this may be attributed to the lack of realisation of citizenry’s requirements, the absence
of a project champion, relative superiority over the existing alternatives, or lack of
ample acquaintance with the innovation. Thus, for government authorities to be
successful in introducing innovations, they need to have a thorough understanding of
their IT capacity, relative advantage, existing organisational operations, managerial
capabilities and other processes and factors influencing the government authority’s
decision to either adopt the innovation or not. In this respect, the research on the
adoption of innovation offers a significant contribution to government sector
organisations.
The objective of this paper is to identify various factors that influence
organisational decisions on IT innovation adoption. In essence, two types of
adoption streams can be identified within this perspective:
(1) the decision made by the government sector organisation as a whole to adopt
innovation; and
(2) the impact of innovation on the individual adopter of the innovation within the
organisation.
The author attempts to incorporate research findings and present a model that
encompasses factors from both streams. The model of innovation adoption derived
within this paper can serve as a framework of references and that the decision makers
within the government sector may use it for a specific information technology adoption
(e.g. adopting integration technology – or technologies – to incorporate their disparate
legacy information systems within their departments and with external entities for a
JEIM seamless flow of information and interaction with their stakeholders). However, to
19,2 explore the aforementioned research area in depth, the author commences by
describing innovation adoption process in the organisations. Furthermore, the author
investigates and analyses diverse IT adoption models and presents a classification of
IT adoption models. Besides this, based on the research findings, a taxonomy of the IT
innovation adoption process is presented. Moreover, the author discusses IT
194 innovation adoption in government organisations. Thereafter, the author illustrates the
impact of IT innovation adoption. Subsequently, the author attempts to describe a
comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence the organisational IT
innovation adoption decision. This is by integrating findings from diverse theories in
the normative literature. The author conjectures that coalescing different perspectives
on IT innovation adoption in the organisational context contributes to other studies
that have reviewed more specific areas within this domain. Following this discussion,
the author proposes an IT innovation adoption model for government sector

organisations and summarises the factors identified. The factors reported in this model
will support the author’s prime research objective, i.e. to identify key factors
influencing the adoption of integration technology such as enterprise application
integration (EAI) in integrating customer relationship management (CRM) applications
with legacy back office systems in an electronic government (e-government)
environment.
The IT innovation adoption process in organisations

The IT innovation adoption process concerns a sequence of stages that an organisation
passes through before initiating a new technology within the organisation. In this
respect, Rogers (1995) defines adoption as:
. . . the process through which an individual or other decision making association passes from
first knowledge of innovation, to forming an attitude towards innovation, to a decision to
adopt or reject, to implementation of new idea, and to confirmation of this decision.
With respect to organisational adoption, Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour (1997) state
two main distinguishable stages, i.e. the initiation and the implementation of the
innovation. Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour (1997) report that the actual adoption
decision occurs between the initiation and implementation phases. In the initiation
stage, the organisation becomes aware of the innovation, forms an attitude towards it
acceptance, and further evaluates the new technology or idea (Gopalakrishnan and
Damanpour, 1994); the initiation stage encompasses the awareness, consideration and
intention stages. In the implementation stage, the organisation decides to purchase and
make use of the innovation technology. However, this organisational adoption decision
merely marks the beginning of the actual implementation of an innovation. From this
point onwards in the adoption process, acceptance or assimilation within the
organisation becomes important. The innovation process can only be considered a
success to the extent that innovation is accepted and integrated into the organisation
(Rogers, 1995; Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour, 1997) and the target individual
adopters demonstrate commitment by continuing to use the technology over a period
of time (Bhattacherjee, 1998). Thus the full and actual adoption of (many) innovations
in an organisational context implies that adoption also occurs within the organisation,
at the individual adopter level. Bhattacherjee (1998) reports that this can be termed
intra-organisational acceptance of innovation. Rogers (1995) and Ram and Jung (1991) IT innovation
report a pessimistic viewpoint, where an instance where the utilisation of innovation at adoption
an individual level within an organisation becomes tentative and contingent upon a
former organisational adoption decision is referred to as a “contingent innovation
decision” or “forced adoption”. The different phases of innovation adoption are shown
in Figure 1.
195
Identifying and analysing IT adoption models
Research on IT innovation adoption and diffusion has long converged on a core set of
theoretical models that seek to explain target adopter attitudes and their
innovation-related behavior (Gallivan, 2001). The author identified manifold
information technology adoption models from the research conducted in the past.
These core models are diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 1983), the theory of reasoned
action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975), the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989), the
theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985), the IT innovation adoption research model
(Agarwal and Prasad, 1998), stages of innovation adoption (Becker and Whisler, 1967),
and innovation adoption and implementation (Gallivan, 2001). Others reported in the
normative literature have received widespread validation for many technological
innovations and also where individual autonomy is permitted to adopt or reject an
innovation.
Increasing evidence suggests that most of the traditional models neglect the realities
of implementing technology innovations within organisations, especially when
individual adoption decisions are made at the organisational, division, or workgroup
levels, rather than at the individual level (Fichman and Kemerer, 1997; Orlikowski,
1993). Under these conditions, which Zaltman et al. (1973) and Gallivan (2001) also
denoted “contingent authority innovation decisions”, organisations make the initial
decision to adopt and the targeted users have few alternatives but to adopt the
innovation and make the necessary adjustments for using it to perform their jobs.
Thus, rather than fitting the conditions under which traditional models of innovation
adoption and diffusion (Rogers, 1983) or technology acceptance (Davis, 1989) were
created, the reality of innovation adoption and implementation within organisational
settings may require modifications to these models. Joshi (1991) reports in this context
that successful implementation of modern innovative technologies and management
science is critical for enhancing the productivity and the competitive position of an
organisation. Karahanna et al. (1999) support this assertion and state that the process
Figure 1.
Innovation adoption
process
JEIM of information technology adoption and use is critical to deriving the benefits of
19,2 information technology. Karahanna et al. (1999) state that integration of innovation
with diverse aspects of the organisation including legacy systems in different
departments is a major concern for organisations, and also report an issue of
integration in the traditional proposed innovation adoption models. These models
provide extensive discussions on the process of innovation adoption, but no one model
196 discusses comprehensively the need for integration of these innovations in their
innovation adoption process. As mentioned perviously, this issue of integration in
government sector organisations is addressed as a prime objective in the author’s
research. Additional literature streams of organisational process research and further
stage research (Prescott and Conger, 1995) must be considered to develop suitable
models to understand the processes and outcomes relevant to individual, workgroup,
and company-wide innovation adoption and integration. In the following, the author
presents a framework of 11 IT adoption models, but given the constrains on time and
other resources, the author briefly describes four IT adoption models.
This section is further organised according to the models shown in Figure 2. The
author commences with Lewin’s model (Lewin, 1952). The technologically based
organisational innovation and adoption literature is based on the early social change
model presented by Lewin (1952). According to Lewin’s model, the process of change is
a sequence of three steps:
(1) unfreezing;
(2) moving (or change); and
(3) refreezing.
Dasgupta (1997) explains that these steps remain in dynamic social equilibrium
changing from one stage to another. Unfreezing prepares the system for change; in
moving the group or unit or system learns new behavior patterns and assimilates the
ramification of change. Refreezing refers to making these patterns of behavior a
permanent part of the system.
According to Pierce and Delbecq (1977) and Cooper and Zmud (1990) the
organisational innovation process consists of three stages:
(1) initiation;
(2) adoption; and
(3) implementation.
These authors define these stages as follows. Initiation is the pressure to change, and
gathering and evaluating the information regarding innovation; adoption involves the
decision to commit resources to it; and implementation refers to development of and
installation activities to ensure that expected benefits of innovation are realised. The
initiation stage of the innovation adoption process (see Figure 2) corresponds to the
unfreezing stage of Lewin’s change model, while adoption is only a part of the change
step of Lewin’s model. Adoption only involves the decision to commit resources to
innovation. Learning behavior patterns and assimilation of the ramification of change,
which are a part of the moving step and the whole refreezing step, are included in the
implementation stage of the organisational innovational model.
IT innovation
adoption
197
Figure 2.
IT innovation adoption
models and processes
The stages of innovation adoption presented by Becker and Whisler (1967) are based
on four stages of the innovation process. These four stages are:
(1) stimulus;
(2) conception;
(3) proposal; and
(4) adoption.
Becker and Whisler (1967) report that the stimulus to the organisation to take the lead
in the use of new idea is mediated through individual action. In the second stage, they
conceive a plan of action that the organisation should pursue. Again this is an
individual act and in highly innovative organisations is presumably exhibited by a
number of members simultaneously, each pursuing their own particular conception of
what is good for the organisation. In the third stage, a formal proposal is made for the
JEIM approval of others in the organisation. The final stage is that of adoption (or rejection).
19,2 This fourth stage is group process. Becker and Whisler (1967) noted that the factors
that may enhance the level of activity in the first three stages might discourage the rate
of adoption. The conceptual model adopted for research by Darmawan (2001) is based
on a variety of factors that may influence the outcome of adopting and implementing
IT in local governments.
198 These factors range from technological and institutional to personal, social and
economic factors. Past research in innovation highlights the importance of human
factors, organisational factors, technological factors, and the environmental factors for
successful adoption and implementation of an innovation (Tornatzky and Klein, 1990;
and Zaltman et al., 1973). By synthesizing various stages of innovation adoption
process proposed by previous authors, Darmawan (2001) presented a four phase
conceptual model of innovation adoption and implementation process. These
four-phase innovation adoption processes consist of initiation phase, adoption phase,

implementation phase, and evaluation phase. This four-phase innovation adoption
process can also be observed at several levels. Possible adopters of the technology are
organisations, organisational units, organisational sub units, and individuals. In
Darmawan’s (2001) study, two levels of adoption are considered. The first level of
adoption – organisational level adoption – starts when an organisation begins to
realise the need for strategic change and decides to incorporate IT. It ends with
acquisition of the technology. The second level of adoption – individual level adoption
– commences with the acquisition of the technology, and finishes when the technology
is utilised.
However, given the constraints on time and other resources, this research study
does not seek to examine all possible models. The author concluded from the models
shown in Figure 2 that most innovation theorists have terminated their innovation
analysis at the adoption stage. What must be done thereafter in terms of actually
changing the organisation is the integration of innovative technology with other legacy
systems in the organisation. All these models discuss the process of innovation
adoption and or diffusion in a broad spectrum and in diverse perspectives, but the
author asserts that these models fall short in explaining the post-adoption (technology
stance after adoption) viewpoint of the innovative technologies. The author suggests
further research from perspective. In the following section, the author presents a
taxonomy of the IT innovation adoption process.
A taxonomy of the IT innovation adoption process

IT is viewed as innovation when it is felt by potential adopters to be relatively new
(Rogers, 1995). Knol and Stroeken (2001) state that IT at a high aggregation level is a
new technology paradigm affecting the management and control of production and
service systems throughout the economy, based on an inter-connected set of radical
innovations in electronic computers, software engineering, control systems, integrated
circuits and telecommunications, which have drastically reduced the cost of storing,
processing, communication and disseminating information. Similarly, according to
Huff and Munro (1985), information technology refers to the broad range of
technologies involved in information processing and handling, such as computer
hardware, software, telecommunications and office automation, and includes such
technologies as new systems development methodologies. From a more pragmatic and
technological perspective IT is related to all technologies used to collect, store, process, IT innovation
graphically display and transport data, and therefore encompasses computer adoption
equipment and system programs, application programs and communication
facilities. The characteristic of IT is that it is a generic technology that can be
applied in many ways in diverse environments (Knol and Stroeken, 2001). In this
section, the author provides a detailed overview of the IT innovation adoption process.
The innovation adoption decision process leading to institutionalisation of usage 199
may be conceptualised as a temporal sequence of steps through which an individual
organisation passes from initial knowledge of an innovation, to forming a favourable
or unfavourable attitude towards it, to a decision to adopt or reject it, to putting the
innovation to use, and to finally seeking reinforcement of the adoption decision made
(Rogers, 1983). Rogers (1995) reports that innovation is an idea, practice or object that
is perceived as new by individual or other unit of adoption.
The author reports here that simply acquiring or adopting a technology is not
sufficient; in order to obtain the anticipated benefits, it must be deployed and used
appropriately by the organisation and its intended users. In the following model, the
author describes eight stages of the innovation adoption process. Theses stages are:
(1) motivation towards innovation;
(2) specific conception about innovation;
(3) a formal proposal to the rest of the organisation about innovation adoption;
(4) actual adoption decision stage;
(5) implementation of innovation in the organisation;
(6) confirmation of innovation idea;
(7) user acceptance of the technology, i.e. actual use of the innovative technology
within the organisation; and
(8) integrating innovative technology with other information system applications.
Motivation signifies the state when an organisation becomes aware of a specific

innovation and attempts to acquire knowledge about this innovation, and further leads
to motivating the organisation in ascertaining an attitude towards its adoption. This
state has been described as the initiation stage (Pierce and Delbecq, 1977; Darmawan,
2001; Agarwal and Prasad, 1998; Rogers, 1995; Frambach and Schillewaert, 2002).
Rogers (1983), in his innovation-decision process, terms this stage “knowledge”, and
states that knowledge occurs when an individual or (decision-making unit) is exposed
to an innovation’s existence and gains some understanding of how it functions.
Conception refers to a plan of action that the organisation should pursue. In highly
innovative organisations, this stage (conception) is presumably exhibited by a number
of organisational members creating an attitude towards innovation adoption. Agarwal
and Prasad (1998) and Davis (1989) refer to this stage as perception towards
innovation. Rogers (1983) refers to this stage as persuasion. Persuasion occurs when an
individual (or a decision-making unit) forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude
towards innovation adoption (Rogers, 1983).
Proposal refers to making a formal proposition for innovation adoption to the rest of
the organisation (Becker and Whisler, 1967). Proposing the innovative idea to the rest
of the organisation is very crucial in making innovation adoption decision. At this
JEIM stage, the departments making decisions to adopt a new technology or technologies
19,2 need to provide substantiated reasons for approval from the organisation. Besides this,
the departments need to analyse their requirements and assess their capabilities for
acquiring a specific technology. Analysing the fit of technology is an influential factor
for technology adoption (Dixon, 1999).
Adoption decision is the actual stage where organisations take the decision to adopt
200 a specific technology (Pierce and Delbecq, 1977; Darmawan, 2001; Agarwal and
Prasad, 1998; Rogers, 1995; Frambach and Schillewaert, 2002; Rogers, 1983; Becker and
Whisler, 1967).
Karahanna et al. (1999) describe the stages leading the adoption decision as
pre-adoption stages (where the target behaviour is adoption of innovation), and the
stages following the adoption decision collectively as post-adoption stages (where the
target behaviour is continuous usage of the innovation). In the following section, the
author discusses IT innovation adoption in government sector organisations. In doing

so, perceptions are provided from two streams, i.e. the private and government
domains.
The taxonomy of IT innovation adoption processes is shown in Figure 3.
IT innovation adoption in government sector organisations

Public and private sector organisations are striving to improve their productivity and
effectiveness by rethinking missions, re-engineering processes, and implementing
information technology solutions. The literature illustrates that IT offers substantial
benefits to organisations, but it also gives rise to new management and policy
challenges. Government practitioners face new challenges as priorities shift and
program goals and objectives change with the political, economic, and social
environment. The effective use of information technology tools is essential to meeting
Figure 3.
A novel taxonomy of IT
innovation adoption
processes
these shifting programmatic goals. Emerging innovative IT tools such as the IT innovation
worldwide web, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), data warehouses, and adoption
customer relationship management (CRM) applications are being used by government
organisations to support their objectives and to change the conventional way that
organisations communicate internally, and interact with citizens, and with private
sector, non-profit and other government organisations. The implementation of these
technologies raises new and different information management and policy challenges 201
and increases public expectations with respect to information access and services
delivery. New information policy issues generated by IT use also influence practices as
new legislation and regulations are developed that affect the way organisations collect,
use and disseminate information. As government is also a substantial market for the
IT industry, its requirements and uses of IT have an effect on the industry’s
development of new technologies and applications.
The arrival of the internet and the worldwide web (WWW) marked a watershed in
information technology usage. Information technology certainly has significantly
enhanced the process of doing business and fostering change. Shin (1999) reported that
with the utilisation of IT, organisations radically redesign their business processes,
and improve their business profitability and productivity. IT has been an underlying
constituent of the infrastructure supporting at all levels of the organisation, as there
has been a sharp focus on information technology and increased organisational
efficiency. These transformations in IT are encouraged by the ability of information
technology that enables better information processing, sharing and more rapid
responsiveness and thereby better coordination of the economic activities between
discrete divisions of an organisation, across the organisation and externally.
Conversely, the author also reports a pessimistic viewpoint from the literature that
the ongoing advances in information technology, along with increasing global
competition, are adding complexity and uncertainty of several orders of magnitude to
the organisational environment. As Bakos and Treacy (1986) report, changing
technology economics, the merging of formerly disparate technologies with different
managerial traditions, and the problems of managing each of the phases of IT
assimilation in different ways calls for a major reappraisal of the organisation
structures designed for yesteryears. Similarly, Johannessen (1994) reports that an
instant transformation of IT enhances the complexity of IT management in
organisations. These assertions uncover the fact that IT has a twofold impact on
organisations’ overall functional and operational activities in diverse disciplines.
The association between information technology and the organisation covers a wide
spectrum of issues ranging from adoption to innovation to organisational efficiency
and to the management of human resources. It is also an area of research that has
far-reaching implications for how to comprehend the adoption of information
technology in different government organisations and measure its impact and where to
envision organisations specifically heading in the future. The exceptional rate of
advances in information technology in recent times has made the collection, storage,
and remote retrieval of vast amount of personal information a routine and inexpensive
proposition (Caloyannides, 2003). This is due to organisations making substantial
investments in the information technology area. Apart from IT investments, according
to Dasgupta (1997), a number of external and internal factors influence the adoption of
information technology in organisations, such as government policies on trade and
JEIM investments, market forces such as competition and cost of technology, and the
19,2 existing national information infrastructure. Organisational culture is one major factor
that impacts IT adoption in organisations and the subsequent diffusion of information
technology in organisations. There are other factors like the organisation’s size, the
degree of centralisation (in decision making), and formalisation of work (Dasgupta,
1997) that play an important role in the adoption of innovative information technology
202 in organisations. The evidence presented in the literature provides a background for
issues related to IT adoption. Before delving into exploring potential factors, the author
initially endeavours in the next section to identify the impact of information technology
adoption on organisations.
Impact of information technology adoption

A number of theoretical and empirical studies have emerged in the past to address the
impact of information technology adoption in diverse disciplines and perspectives such
as the work by Le Grand (1997), Fisher and Wesolkowski (1998), Beaumaster (2002),
Sanchez et al. (2003), Chircu and Hae-Dong Lee (2003), Gunes et al. (2003), Anderson
et al. (2003), and Byrd and Davidson (2003). Such studies focused on the impact of
information technology on organisational performance, investments, structure, change,
culture, acquiring competitive advantage, productivity of employees and their work
environment, quality improvement, increase in profits, etc. To address these aspects, a
review of the normative literature was made to identify and examine theoretical and
empirical studies of information technology in organisations. The introduction of
innovation in an organisation is a pervasive factor and also has multidimensional
problems. Fisher and Wesolkowski (1998) suggest that these problems are addressed
through a number of specialised disciplines, including change management, project
management, business process re-engineering, process redesign, technical support and
direct user training. However, a key step any organisation needs to make is the proper
introduction of innovation, i.e. new information technology in the organisation and
assessment of who will be impacted directly or indirectly by this change. In doing so,
the author recognises the need and importance to first understand how to introduce a
new technology in the organisation, what the key factors are that influence the
introduction of innovation (i.e. new information technology) in the organisation, and
who is impacted by the introduction of information technology.
Fisher and Wesolkowski (1998) report that with the development of new
technologies, many organisations and businesses face the dilemma of determining how
to introduce an innovation into the organisation. From a historical perspective, this is a
highly unusual phenomenon which is characterised by an incessant drive to have the
best and most powerful technologies of the day as changes to the organisational
structure become more frequent. However, to address the questions mentioned above,
the author introduces a framework presented by Fisher and Wesolkowski (1998) for
introducing new technologies in the organisation in Figures 4 and 5.
Fisher and Wesolkowski (1998) report that the lack of a systematic framework for
planning and managing the introduction of new information technologies, coupled
with lack of a disciplined and structured approach, leaves the users of the technology
at a disadvantage and the organisation at risk. However, for organisations to take full
advantage of the innovation there is a need to provide information about change and
IT innovation
adoption
203
Figure 4.
Elements of adaptive
process redesign
Figure 5.
Who is impacted by the
introduction of
information technology
assistance to different groups in terms of understanding the changes they are facing
and how best to respond to them. The framework needs to include the following:
(1) Dividing the impacted group into four entities, i.e. project managers, direct
users, infrastructure groups and indirect users:
.
project managers – the people charged with planning for and managing the
introduction of the new innovation;
.
direct users – this is the group of users that is at or close to the point of
technology insertion;
.
infrastructure group – the functions supporting the introduction of new
technology and the direct users; and
.
indirect users – the users of data, information or processes that change as a
result of changes made to the environment of the direct users of the new
technology.
JEIM (2) Developing methodologies for educating the groups in charge of introducing a
19,2 new technology about how the technology works and how different groups will
be affected.
(3) Recognising that many users indirectly affected by the introduction of
innovation will themselves be responsible for identifying how the technology
will affect them, and their work processes, as well as making the required
204 modifications with relatively little outside support.
(4) Developing analytical tools to identify changes in skills requirements and
processes, and knowledge transfer tools to communicate those changes to
groups affected indirectly.
(5) Focusing on the information requirements of each of the participating groups of
the organisation as a means of matching methodologies used to introduce new
technologies to the specific needs of the user group.

(6) Aligning the existing methodologies and new communications, analytical and
knowledge transfer tools to the requirements of each of the impacted groups.
This assists in identifying different groups in an organisation that are influenced by

the introduction of an innovation. However, there are other aspects that are impacted
by the introduction and adoption of information technology. In an attempt to explore
them, the author begins with a discussion of the impact of IT on the overall
performance of organisations.
The advent of internet technologies has significantly impacted the way
organisations perform their business activities and collaborate with their customers
and partners. Chircu and Hae-Dong Lee (2003) report that while organisations in the
private sector have been at the forefront of the internet revolution, government
organisations are realising the benefits of leveraging internet technologies to improve
their internal processes as well as interactions with their constituencies. Sanchez et al.
(2003) support this argument and state that information technology has become one of
the core constituents in the improvement of organisational performance, as a
significant number of government organisations have embraced diverse information
technologies to improve their services to their citizenry. The significance of
information technology in improving organisational performance has been recognised
and extensively discussed by numerous researchers as well as practitioners (Bakos and
Treacy, 1986; Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993; Reich and Benbasat, 1996). While
most attention has been paid to IT in the private sector, citizens and public leaders are
increasingly aware of the potential of IT to improve government organisations. In
recent years, the use of IT has emerged as an instrument that can bring benefits to
government organisations such as cost savings, improved communications and
coordination, expanded citizen participation by government initiatives and increased
government accountability. According to Sanchez et al. (2003), citizens and policy
makers all agree that governments can improve their services and operations by more
effectively utilising IT at all levels.
However, there are different perceptions to this aspect. For example, Anderson et al.
(2003) correlate IT investment/spending with future organisational performance,
whereas Byrd and Davidson (2003) studied the impact of IT on the supply chain and its
effects on organisations’ performance, and Chircu and Hae-Dong Lee (2003) discussed
IT investments in the public sector. Critics contend that the strategic importance of IT IT innovation
is overplayed and that the financial performance of organisations rarely leads to adoption
superior results with IT spending (Carr, 2003). According to Anderson et al. (2003) this
criticism rests on evidence from research performed on contemporary relations
between organisations’ performance and IT investment. Barau et al. (1995),
Brynjolfsson (1993) and Chatterjee et al. (2001) assert that the impact of IT
investment may not immediately reflect on an organisation’s performance as 205
organisations take time to assimilate information technology and realise the benefits.
Investing in information technology may be aimed at changing the IT infrastructure,
effectively implementing new business processes, providing support for future
innovations, integrating legacy systems or managing the flow of information. The
ability to manage information flow is one of the critical factors in today’s leading-edge
organisations. Byrd and Davidson (2003) state that IT has the potential to manage the
flow of information and influence many other dimensions such as cost, quality,
delivery, flexibility, and ultimately, the profit earnings of the organisation.
Chircu and Hae-Dong Lee (2003) report that the justification of IT investment has
been studied extensively in private sector organisations, though the decision to invest
in IT in government organisations is very well understood as yet. Government
organisations are usually subject to more competing goals and have more legal and
staffing restrictions than private organisations. For example, Chircu and Hae-Dong Lee
(2003) state that private organisations can achieve operational efficiencies by investing
in IT that automates tasks and reduces headcount. However, government
organisations have limited discretion in firing or reassigning employees to attain
similar efficiencies from IT investment. Also, government organisations have more
incentives to share information and develop systems that will benefit external entities
and ensure public accountability and equal access to government services, thus
fulfilling their politically mandated mission. In contrast, Rocheleau and Wu (2002) state
that private organisations are usually more concerned with investing in IT systems
that will create competitive advantage. In the private sector, organisations making
investments in IT are also expected to appropriate the most economic benefits from the
investment.
Anderson et al. (2003) report that early research failed to achieve a positive impact
of IT investments on organisations’ performance, whereas Brynjolfsson (1993)
observed that there were a number of possible explanations for the failure to find a
positive impact of IT. Carr (2003) argues that IT has become a commodity and not a
strategic resource, implying that companies cannot expect to obtain sustainable
competitive benefits from IT. However, much of the contemporary research unearthed
sustained earning improvements from IT investments that had a positive impact on
organisational performance. Chatterjee et al. (2001) asserts that it does take time for
organisations to adapt to new technology and implement changes in business
activities: as a result, the performance impact of infrastructure may not be manifest
until two to three years after the IT investment occurred (Anderson et al., 2003).
In the next section, the author attempts to investigate and discuss numerous factors
presented in the normative literature that influence the adoption of innovative
information technology in organisations.
JEIM Factors influencing IT innovation adoption
19,2 There has been a rapid evolution of information technology and an increase in
investment in IT by organisations (Dasgupta, 1997) that are concerned about their
market competitiveness and overall organisational performance. Increasingly,
organisations demand and expect future growth and profitability attained from
productivity gains achieved through continuous investment in IT and similar
206 innovations. Gunes et al. (2003) report that measuring the impact of information
technology on organisational performance (a factor) is a complicated task. Since
organisational performance cannot be shaped only by IT applications, other factors
such as business strategies and organisational culture and others reported in the
normative literature should also be taken into consideration. Clegg et al. (1997) report in
their findings that 80-90 percent of IT investments do not meet their performance
objectives, and the reasons for this are rarely purely technical in origin. The context of
technical change means the way in which IT is adopted, developed and implemented, a
range of human and organisational factors, and the roles of managers and end-users
are identified as critical areas affecting overall organisational performance. Several
government organisations at various levels have adopted and made use of information
technology to manage public services, but the level of information technology capacity
varies tremendously across the government sector (Kim and Bretschneider, 2004).
Also, applying different newly developed information technologies in government
organisations has prompted ample research about the relationships between IT and
organisational and environmental factors on IT innovation adoption in organisations,
for example the effect of environmental and organisational factors on IT adoption, the
impact of IT on organisational structure, the economic impact of IT investment and the
effects of partnerships with private entities for IT innovation.
The author conjectures that successful IT innovation adoption can be interpreted in
several ways. For example, successful IT adoption can lead to user acceptance of the
innovation, improved inter-organisational information sharing, collaboration among
trading partners, higher investments in IT for enhancing business process
re-engineering, etc. However, there are other numerous factors that are related to
successful IT adoption, development and implementation, and measuring its impact on
private and government sector organisations that can be found in the normative
literature. The author attempts to explore these factors from the literature and examine
more closely their importance in influencing IT innovation adoption in the government
organisations. These factors are summarised in Table I.
Administrative authority
Tolbert and Zucker (1983) report that innovation of information technology would be
more likely when the political environment to which an organisation belongs has
norms favouring the change. Therefore, improving the IT facilities of government
organisations depends on whether support from administrative authorities, elected or
appointed top administrators, local governments and also central government is
available for IT managers who are in charge of implementing the IT adoption process
and its utilisation. Kim and Bretschneider (2004) report that even cases where IT
managers initiate the adoption of new technology, support from administrative
authorities may play a significant role in whether innovation efforts are frustrated or
completed. Support from administrative authorities can be expressed in several ways:
Referencesa
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Relative advantage U U
Compatibility U U U U U
Complexity U U U U
Functionality U
Potential for integration U
Reliability U
Usability U
Administrative authority U
Financial support U U
Managerial capacity U
Consultant
Vendor
Top management U
Customer support U U
External influence U U
Policy/legal framework U
Socio-economic status U
Community size U U U U
Competitors U U U U
Trading partners U U U
Market knowledge U U
Stakeholder participation U U
Inter-organisational trust U U
Critical mass U U U
User participation U
(continued)
IT innovation
influencing IT innovation
adoption
government sector
adoption in the
Proposed factors
207
Table I.
19,2
208
JEIM
Table I.
Referencesa
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Organisational performance U
Organisational culture U
Organisational size U U
Productivity U U
IT capability U U U U
Championship U U U
Financial capability U U
Management style U
Coordination U U U
Decision making U
Organisational structure U U
Social attitude U
Politics U U U U
Innovation capacity U
Time U
a
Notes: References are as follows. 1, Norris (1999); 2, Brudney and Seldon (1995); 3, Bingham (1976); 4, Brynjolfsson (1993); 5, Perry and Danzinger, 1980;
6, Newcomer and Caudle (1991); 7, Hart and Saunders (1997); 8, Iacovou et al. (1995); 9, Anderson et al. (2003); 10, Akbulut (2002); 11, Chwelos et al. (2001);
12, Chircu and Hae-Dong Lee (2003); 13, Clegg et al. (1997); 14, Dasgupta (1997); 15, Johannessen (1994); 16, Kim and Bretschneider (2004); 17, Seligman
(2000); 18, Sanchez et al. (2003); 19, Gunes et al. (2003); 20, Dawes (1996); 21, Premkumar and Ramamurthy (1995); 22, Ramamurthy et al. (1999); 23, Rogers
(1995); 24, Damanpour (1992)
(1) Top administrators’ innovativeness is important in mobilising resources. IT innovation
Adopting new information technologies requires a large amount of investment, adoption
and its effects are not realised in a short time. Miller (1983) reports that to
implement IT innovation, top administrators are expected to take the risk of the
failure or delay of IT adoption. Therefore, the top administrator has to have a
risk-taking tendency to support IT managers to design and implement an IT
adoption plan without worrying about the consequences (Kim and 209
Bretschneider, 2004).
(2) Top administrators’ knowledge of IT should be considered. Top administrators
who are knowledgeable about the potential of IT are more likely to have a more
positive attitude to IT innovation adoption and to endorse innovation initiatives
raised by IT managers.
(3) The legislative body (i.e. the local government) is as important as top
administrators, because budget allocation and other legislative supports are
finally authorised by local governments. Like top administrators, local
governments’ IT innovativeness and knowledge form a crucial part of support
from administrative authorities.
(4) Central government’s influence also needs to be considered. Central
governments make efforts towards state-wide technology diffusion, such as
providing information about innovations, financial support during
development, and procedural facilitation (Moon and Bretschneider, 1997).
However, all such evidence endorses the significance of “administrative
authority” in the government sector, and moreover assists in IT innovation
adoption in the government organisations.
Therefore:
P1. A high level of support from the administrative authorities can have a
positive impact on IT innovation adoption in government organisations.
Financial support
The availability of financial resources (i.e. investment) to enhance or build
organisational IT infrastructure is one of the strongest predictors of innovation
(Mohr, 1969). For organisational innovation, especially for adopting advanced IT,
financial support is indispensable for procuring and developing adequate levels of
hardware and software, and training end-users as needed. Ross and Beath (2002) and
Sambamurthy and Zmud (1999) assert that investments in information technology
may be aimed at changing the IT infrastructure to support future innovation.
Therefore, it can be expected that a large variation in IT innovation between private
and government sector organisations can be explained by the amount of budget
available to adopting new IT. However, as the size of the total budget differs from
organisation to organisation, the relative proportion of the IT budget in the budget
structure could be considered as the criteria to judge the level of financial support (Kim
and Bretschneider, 2004). Therefore:
P2. A high level of financial support can have a positive impact on IT innovation
adoption in government organisations.
JEIM Managerial capability
19,2 The availability of personnel who have ample competencies for producing new ideas is
one of the significant factors for IT innovation adoption (Mohr, 1969), and innovations
are likely to be proposed by personnel who have expertise in a particular discipline
(Daft, 1978). IT innovations tend to start from ingenious applications devised by
managers with a technical background (Kim and Bretschneider, 2004). Therefore, the
210 managerial capability of IT manager, which can be defined as their ability to identify
problems of the current information system and to develop and evaluate alternatives to
improve the IT capacity of the organisation, appears to be a decisive factor influencing
IT adoption. An IT manager’s managerial capability as a change agent can be thought
to be composed of knowledge of IT, innovativeness and motivation (Kim and
Bretschneider, 2004). As innovation capability is contingent on the skills level of the
personnel (Perry and Danzinger, 1980), without comprehensive expertise in IT, IT
managers may neither design a plan appropriate to obtaining IT capacity nor gain
trust from the top management, whose political support is essential for executing
innovation ideas. Therefore:
P3. A high level of managerial capabilities and support from within the
organisation can have a positive impact on IT innovation adoption in
government organisations.
Management style
The operational style of an organisation’s management can be effective in introducing
and adopting IT. Johannessen (1994) reports that if top management has the inclination
to be innovative there is little that other members of the organisation can do to generate
and encourage effective innovation policy. The author reports that successful
innovation can also be associated with an open management style, as Johannessen
(1994) states that this can be reinforced by means of communication-related IT. In a
study of large innovative organisations, Quinn (1986) revealed that IT innovation
would emerge continuously, because top management would appreciate innovation
and would contribute actively to keep up the value system and atmosphere of the
organisation in a manner that supports innovation. Therefore:
P4. A high level of effective management style can have a positive impact on IT
innovation adoption in the government organisations.
Complexity
The complexity of the technology refers to the systems required for effective
communication, and whether organisation’s personnel perceive information sharing
and information flow using those systems as being difficult to understand and use.
Akbulut (2002) reports that the complexity of a technology is a major factor that affects
adoption decisions, whereas Chwelos et al. (2001) report that complexity is a strong
inhibitor of intent to adopt innovation. Clegg et al. (1997) report that most respondents
stressed the need for IT, and the fact that it has become an essential aspect of most
businesses. The field of new technology has been seen as an area of uptake and
complexity. Besides this, Clegg et al. (1997) also state that technologies are becoming
more pervasive in organisations but at the same time more complex, as such
technologies are shaped by complex organisational processes and decisions and this IT innovation
adds to the complexity of the organisation. Therefore: adoption
P5. A high level of technological complexity can have a negative impact on IT
innovation adoption in government organisations.
P6. A high level of organisational complexity can have a negative impact on IT
innovation adoption in government organisations. 211
Compatibility
There are two aspects of compatibility: technological and organisational compatibility.
Technological compatibility refers to the perceived compatibility of the systems
required for effective communication and information sharing with the organisation’s
existing technologies. Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) state that fit of the available
technology with the organisation’s existing technologies plays an important role in the
technology adoption decision. Dasgupta (1997) reported compatibility as an innovation
factor besides complexity and relative advantage of the innovation. To achieve
integration of technologies, compatibility is one major concern for developers. Caudle
et al. (1991) found that integration of technologies was the most important issue of
concern among public sector managers. The author illustrates from the literature that
incompatibility of hardware, software and telecommunication networks negatively
impacts inter-organisational information sharing (Dawes, 1996; Landsbergen and
Wolken, 2001). However, compatibility of technology does play an important role in IT
innovation adoption. Therefore:
P7. A high level of technological compatibility can have a positive impact on IT
The other aspect is organisational compatibility, which that can be thought of as the
organisational fit of the system required for effective information sharing among
different departments. Premkumar and Ramamurthy (1995) reported in their research
that the incompatibility of new systems with existing work procedures decreases the
likelihood of adoption. Landsbergen and Wolken (2001) state that the lack of an
experience base, institutional memory and awareness of sharing opportunities is an
important organisational barrier to interoperable systems. Research shows that a
history of innovativeness leads to a positive organisational climate and facilitates the
adoption of technologies by government organisations (Damanpour, 1991; Newcomer
and Caudle, 1991; Norris, 1999). Akbulut (2002) reports that another important aspect
of compatibility is the compatibility of the systems with the existing needs of the
organisation. It was found that unless there was a real internal need, an organisation
would be unlikely to adopt a new innovation (Premkumar and Ramamurthy, 1995).
Therefore:
P8. Higher levels of organisational compatibility can have a positive impact IT

innovation adoption in the government organisations.
Market knowledge
It can be seen from the literature that the majority of successful innovations are
referred to the recognition of demands in the market (Rothwell, 1977). Lee and Treacy
JEIM (1998) reported in their research that an unstable environment generates increased
19,2 potential for IT innovation. This requires that organisations are intent on being up to
date and well informed about changes in the environment. Johannessen (1994) reports
that contact with the environment through the development of external information
systems, for example, can reduce insecurity for individual organisations. Therefore,
the need for IT innovation or major changes in organisational infrastructure generates
212 a demand for IT in order to ease the innovation processes (Lee and Treacy, 1998).
Therefore:
P9. Higher levels of knowledge of the market environment can have a positive
impact on IT innovation adoption in government organisations.
Size
Size can be considered as an environmental factor. Akbulut (2002) measures size in
terms of the size of the community served and the number of the services provided.
Bingham (1976) and Brudney and Seldon (1995) state that in central and local
government, size was found to positively affect the adoption of innovations in general
and IT in particular. Norris (1999) demonstrated that larger cities would adopt more
sophisticated and advanced information technologies compared to smaller cities
because larger cities have greater financial resources, are in more need of these
technologies, and have superior institutional ability (such as IT departments) to
support these technologies. Therefore:
P10. A higher level of community size can have a positive impact on IT innovation
Organisational size is an organisational factor. Rogers (1995) examined the factors
leading to organisational innovativeness (i.e. the process approach to innovation). But
his study was focused on organisational innovativeness rather the adoption of a
particular technology. Mohr (1969) argued that larger organisations, simply because
they are large, are unlikely to adopt innovation. Recognising that size and adoption are
often associated, Mohr (1969) stated that size itself is not related to innovativeness by
logical necessity; it becomes significant only when it implies or indicates the
conceptual variables that are important in themselves. Size may indeed have spurious
or indirect effects. However, it is also likely to lead directly to economies of scale, which
enhance the feasibility of innovation adoption. The author reports from the literature
that larger organisations input sufficient volume to justify the adoption of new
technology to accommodate variations in input even when variations occur
infrequently. Smaller organisations, however, experience many types of input
variations so infrequently that they could not reasonably expect to benefit from
making similar accommodations (Moch and Morse, 1977). While Mohr (1969) is likely
to be correct in believing that size has indirect effects on adoption, it is likely that,
conceived as input volume, size has a direct effect as well. The author asserts that as
organisational size intensifies, organisations tend to adopt more sophisticated
technologies to enhance their IT infrastructure. Damanpour (1992) also considered
organisational size as a driver for organisational innovativeness. Therefore:
P11. A higher organisational size can positively influence IT innovation adoption IT innovation
in government organisations. adoption
Coordination
The author asserts that increased knowledge will force a rapid development of
information technology and research and development technology. This
transformation will reduce the cultural differences and the psychological perceived 213
geographical distance between various information systems (Johannessen, 1994). This
means a more rapid innovation and improved coordination among systems and
departments. Rothwell (1977) claimed that communication and co-operation were the
factors for innovation. Therefore:
P12. A higher level of coordination and communication can positively impact IT
IT capability
The author illustrates from the literature that IT capabilities refer to the level of IT
resources, personnel IT knowledge and IT sophistication of an organisation (Akbulut,
2002). The ease of use and access of adequate equipment in the organisation is a major
determinant of the adoption of new technologies (Newcomer and Caudle, 1991).
Therefore:
P13. Higher levels of IT resources can positively impact IT innovation adoption in
The available skill set of the personnel is an important factor that constraints the
introduction of new technologies. Perry and Danzinger (1980) showed that one of the
most important factors in the adoption of computer applications by government
organisations was staff competence. Norris (1999) posited that government
organisations had argued that their employees were not very well trained in using
information technologies, and this inadequate training resulted in resistance to change,
resistance to use, and under-utilisation of computers. Therefore:
P14. Higher levels of personnel IT skills can positively impact IT innovation
Chwelos et al. (2001) identified another important factor, which may influence the
adoption of IT innovation – IT sophistication, which assesses the level of management
understanding of and support for using IT to achieve organisational objectives.
Therefore:
P15. Higher levels of IT sophistication can positively impact IT innovation

Championship
Championship refers to the existence of a single person within the organisation who is
committed to introducing the innovative IT initiative to the organisation. The literature
on strategic uses of information technology suggests that a very important antecedent
to a successful implementation of critical information systems is a “champion” for the
JEIM new system (Reich and Benbasat, 1996). According to Beath (1991) information
19,2 technology champions are managers who actively and vigorously promote their
personal vision for using information technology, pushing the project over or around
approval and implementation hurdles. Similarly, Garfield (2000) reported that in
inter-organisational information systems the presence of an internal sponsor in each
participating organisation is very important in providing the necessary leadership as
214 the existence of a system-wide sponsor is not always sufficient. Norris (1999) posits
that the existence of a champion was one of the most important facilitators in the
adoption of technologies by government organisations. Judging from the current
literature on strategic uses of information technology, it seems that IT champions may
be important to the implementation of information systems because of their skills in
bringing about organisational change. New information systems frequently require
significant upheavals in organisational structure and processes, which are often met
with some resistance. The successful implementation of mission-critical systems often

requires adjustments to reward schemes, changes in authority or responsibility
patterns, or shifting of power centers (Rockart, 1988). Champions, the innovation
literature says, have the organisational clout and savvy needed to overcome resistance
to such organisational changes (Rogers, 1983). Therefore, these evidences support the
fact that:
P16. The existence of a champion at the organisational level can positively impact
IT innovation adoption in government organisations.
External forces
Increased external competition often propels organisations to search for new ways to
increase their productivity and seek a competitive advantage (Themistocleous et al.,
2004). External forces or influences refers to the impact that external associations
exercise on the organisation, and according to Akbulut (2002) can vary from no
encouragement/pressure to recommendation, request or providing incentives or
exposure to penalties. Bingham (1976) reports that inter-governmental influence,
including grants, transfers, and technical assistance, has been found to be a significant
factor in the adoption of innovations in government organisations. Therefore:
P17. Higher levels of external forces/pressures can positively impact IT innovation
The author illustrates from the literature that although there were some ad hoc
information-sharing agreements among agencies, uniform contracts and federal law
and policy as well as economic and budgetary mechanisms were found to be necessary
to achieve interoperability (Landsbergen and Wolken, 2001). Therefore:
P18. The existence of a government-wide policy and legal framework can
positively impact IT innovation adoption in government organisations.
Bingham (1976) proposed that community socio-economic factors of cities are related to
the adoption of technological innovations. He stated that cities with low socio-economic
status are more likely to adopt innovations that are necessity-based (such as
innovations designed to correct some specific deficiency) rather than amenity-based,
whereas cities with higher socio-economic status are more prone to emphasize amenity
value than others. Therefore:
IT innovation
P19. Higher socio-economic status can positively impact IT innovation adoption in adoption
Collaboration factors
Collaboration refers to the inter-organisation factors that might influence the adoption
of IT innovation in organisations. The extent and effectiveness of the participation of
215
the stakeholders in the development process affect the success of the information
system. Moreover, one way to align stakeholder self-interests with other stakeholders’
interests is to include the key stakeholders in the system development process (Heeks,
1999). Therefore:
P20. A higher level of overall organisational participation in the planning and

development process can positively impact IT innovation adoption in
The literature identifies mutual inter-organisational trust as a precondition to sharing
information (Dawes, 1996; Landsbergen and Wolken, 2001). However, the author
asserts that due to the lack of mutual trust among organisations and departments
within organisations, each organisation ends up collecting its own information about
the same subject:
P21. A higher level of inter-organisational trust can positively impact IT
Research about “critical mass” has shown that central and local government
organisations are affected by the actions taken by the other central and local
government organisations in the adoption of innovations. Bingham (1976) found that
cities adopting innovations were located in close proximity to other
innovation-adopting cities. This showed that government organisations were
affected by the actions of other organisations that were similar to them in terms of
size, budgetary constraints, etc. Bouchard (1993) reported these actions as “critical
mass theory”. The benefit of having a critical mass of organisations adopting the same
technology is one aspect of inter-organisational relationships and technology adoption
(Chwelos et al., 2001). Another significant factor is enacted power (Chwelos et al., 2001),
such as when one organisation encourages or coerces its trading partner to adopt a
specific technology:
P22. A higher number of participants (and their identities) can positively impact IT
innovation adoption in organisations.
Proposed conceptual model for IT innovation adoption in government

organisations
Governmental organisations by their nature are very different to private sector
organisations. To begin with, the underlying demarcation, i.e. the extraordinarily
complex goal structure of government sector organisations has to be underlined. Self
(1977) reports that the most frequently discussed difference between government and
private sector organisations concerns underlying goals. Market signals and profits
JEIM guide the private sector. In contrast, Caudle et al. (1991) report that public sector
19,2 organisations have multiple, conflicting, and often intangible goals. They produce
public goods for problems that should be solved, even though these problems may
have no known feasible solutions; and they are heavily impacted by politics and
bureaucratic red tape, whereas the problems faced by the private sector are driven by
feasibility considerations. Secondly, private sector organisations often treat
216 information technology as proprietary, to be used as a competitive advantage in the
marketplace (King et al., 1988). In contrast, government sector organisations provide
“public goods” such as education, public health, public safety, and national security. In
providing services through the adoption and use of information technology, private
sector organisations are providing services to their specific customers, whereas
government organisations’ services are for the public at large. Another difference
between government and private organisations is in financial terms. Governmental
organisations are generally restricted to a very formal annual or bi-annual budgeting

process that imposes temporal and competitive restrictions on innovative technology
adoption, whereas private sector organisations do not face such restrictions. For
private organisations the driving force is undoubtedly financial, and companies
usually have the authority to choose not to adopt a technology if they deem it unviable.
However, on the other hand, statutes drive government organisations. For a detailed
description of the difference between government and private sector organisations, see
Rainey et al. (1976) and Caudle et al. (1991). As a result of this and other evidence
reported in the normative literature, some of the adoption factors might need to be
redefined for a governmental organisation. However, based on research findings
regarding organisational innovation adoption in private and government
organisations, the author identified a set of factors that have been found to be an
influence at two levels of the organisation – i.e. the adoption of innovation at the
organisational level and the acceptance and impact of IT innovation on the individual
adopter level within the organisation. Thus, the author incorporates all the factors as
summarised in Table I to propose a conceptual model that may be employed as a
decision making tool for IT innovation adoption in government sector organisation (see
Figure 6).
Conclusion
In recent decades, knowledge about the various potential factors impacting on
innovation has increased significantly. These factors have influenced decision makers
in organisations in adopting particular a technology or technologies. In the previous
section, the author attempted to integrate all such studies that addressed this research
and provided a comprehensive adoption model, comprising of direct interrelationships
of factors with the organisation. Based on this discussion, the author conjectures that
there is still a need for further refining and extensively testing these factors across
different government departments and their operational settings for innovation
adoption. Such comprehensive models substantially enhance our understanding of
organisational innovation adoption. By identifying the relevant factors, sub-factors
and their interrelationships, such models may also better serve and guide practitioners,
managers and those entities in direct contact with the organisational infrastructure
within government organisations in successfully and effectively initiating and
implementing innovations.
IT innovation
adoption
217
Figure 6.
Proposed model for IT
innovation adoption in the
government sector
References
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1998), “The antecedents and consequents of user perceptions in
information technology adoption”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Ahmad, A-A.A. and Zink, S.D. (1998), “Information technology adoption in Jordanian public
sector organizations”, Journal of Government Information, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 117-34.
Ajzen, I. (1985), “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior”, in Kuhl, J. and
Beckmann, J. (Eds), Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer Verlag,
New York, NY.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1975), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
JEIM Akbulut, A.Y. (2002), “An investigation of the factors that influence electronic information
sharing between state and local agencies”, Proceedings of 8th Americas Conference on
19,2 Information Systems, Dallas, Texas, USA, pp. 2454-60.
Anderson, M., Banker, R.D. and Hu, N. (2003), “The impact of information technology spending
on future performance”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
Systems, Seattle, Washington, pp. 563-75.
218 Bakos, J.Y. and Treacy, M.E. (1986), “Information technology and corporate strategy: a research
perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 107-19.
Barau, A., Kriebel, C. and Mukhopadhyay, T. (1995), “Information technologies and business
value: an analytic and empirical investigation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6,
pp. 3-23.
Beath, C.M. (1991), “Supporting the information technology champion”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 355-72.

Beaumaster, S. (2002), “Local government IT implementation issues: a challenge for public
administration”, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Big Island, HI, pp. 1725-1734.
Becker, S.N. and Whisler, T.L. (1967), “The innovative organisation: a selective view of current
theory and research”, The Journal of Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 462-9.
Bhattacherjee, A. (1998), “Managerial influences on intra-organisational information technology
use: a principal agent model”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 139-62.
Bingham, R.D. (1976), The Adoption of Innovation by Local Government, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
Bouchard, L. (1993), “Decision criteria in the adoption of EDI”, Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 365-76.
Brudney, J.L. and Seldon, S.C. (1995), “The adoption of innovation by smaller local governments:
the case of computer technology”, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 71-87.
Brynjolfsson, E. (1993), “The productivity paradox of information technology”, Communications
of the ACM, Vol. 36 No. 12, pp. 67-77.
Byrd, T.A. and Davidson, N.W. (2003), “Examining possible antecedents of IT impact on the
supply chain and its effect on firm performance”, Information & Management, Vol. 41
No. 2, pp. 243-55.
Caloyannides, M. (2003), “Privacy vs information technology”, Security & Privacy Magazine,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 100-3.
Cardozo, R., McLaughlin, K., Harmon, B., Reynolds, P. and Miller, B. (1993), “Product market
choices and growth of new businesses”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 10, pp. 331-40.
Carr, N. (2003), “IT doesn’t matter”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 41-9.
Caudle, S.L., Gorr, W.L. and Newcomer, K.E. (1991), “Key information management issues for the
public sector”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 171-88.
Chatterjee, D., Richardson, V. and Zmud, R. (2001), “Examining the shareholders’ wealth effects
of new CIO position announcements”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 43-70.
Chircu, A.M. and Hae-Dong Lee, D. (2003), “Understanding IT investment in the public sector:
the case of e-government”, Proceedings of the Ninth Americas Conference on Information
Systems, Tampa, Florida, USA, pp. 792-800.
Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (2001), “Research report: empirical test of an EDI IT innovation
adoption model”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 304-21.
Clegg, C., Axtell, C., Damodaran, L., Farbey, B., Hull, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., Nicholls, J., Sell, R. and
adoption
Tomlinson, C. (1997), “Information technology: a study of performance and the role of
human and organisational factors”, Ergonomics, Vol. 40 No. 9, pp. 851-71.
Cooper, R.B. and Zmud, R.W. (1990), “Information technology implementation research:
a technology diffusion approach”, Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 123-39. 219
Daft, R.L. (1978), “A dual-core model for organisational innovation”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 193-210.
Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organisational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-90.
Damanpour, F. (1992), “Organisational size and innovation”, Organisational Studies, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 375-402.
Darmawan, I.G.N. (2001), “Adoption and implementation of information technology in Bali’s
local government: a comparison between single level path analyses using PLSATH 3.01
and AMOS 4 and multilevel path analyses using MPLUS 2.01”, International Education
Journal, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 100-23.
Dasgupta, S. (1997), “The role of culture in information technology diffusion in organisations”,
Proceedings of Innovation in Technology Management – The Key to Global Leadership
(PICMET ’97), Portland, OR, pp. 353-6.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-40.
Dawes, S.S. (1996), “Interagency information sharing: expected benefits, manageable risks”,
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 377-94.
Dixon, R.D. (1999), “The behavioural side of information technology”, International Journal of
Medical Informatics, Vol. 56 Nos 1-3, pp. 117-23.
Fichman, R.G. and Kemerer, C.F. (1997), “The assimilation of software process innovations:
an organisational learning perspective”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 1345-63.
Fisher, W. and Wesolkowski, S. (1998), “How to determine who is impacted by the introduction of
new technology into an organisation”, Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Technology and Society, South Bend, IN, pp. 116-22.
Frambach, R.T. and Schillewaert, N. (2002), “Organisational innovation adoption: a multi-level
framework of determinants and opportunities for future research”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 163-76.
Gallivan, M.J. (2001), “Organisational adoption and assimilation of complex technological
innovations: development and application of a new framework”, The DATABASE for
Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 51-85.
Garfield, M. (2000), “Critical success factors for the state telemedicine policy”, Proceedings of the
6th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Long Beach, California, USA,
pp. 1573-8.
Gopalakrishnan, S. and Damanpour, F. (1994), “Patterns of generation and adoption of
innovations in organisations: contingency models of innovation attributes”, Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 11, pp. 95-116.
Gopalakrishnan, S. and Damanpour, F. (1997), “A review of innovation research in economics,
sociology and technology management”, Omega, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Gunes, F., Basoglu, A.N. and Kimiloglu, H. (2003), “Business and information technology
strategies and their impact on organisational performance”, Proceedings of the Portland
JEIM International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET ’03),
Portland, OR, pp. 208-16.
19,2
Hart, P. and Saunders, C. (1997), “Power and trust: critical factors in the adoption and use of
electronic data interchange”, Organisation Science, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Heeks, R. (1999), Reinventing Government in the Information Age: International Practice in
IT-Enabled Public Sector Reform, Routledge, New York, NY.
220 Henderson, J.C. and Venkatraman, H. (1993), “Strategic alignment: levering information
technology for transforming organizations”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 38 Nos 2/3,
pp. 472-84.
Huff, S.L. and Munro, M.C. (1985), “Information technology assessment and adoption: a field
study”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 327-40.
Iacovou, C., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A. (1995), “Electronic data interchange and small
organisations – adoption and impact of technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4,

pp. 465-85.
Johannessen, J.-A. (1994), “Information technology and innovation: identifying critical innovation
factors”, Information Management & Computer Security, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 4-9.
Joshi, K. (1991), “A model of users’ perspective on change: the case of information systems
technology implementation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 229-42.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W. and Chervany, N.L. (1999), “Information technology adoption across
time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 183-213.
Kim, H.J. and Bretschneider, S. (2004), “Local government information technology capacity:
an exploratory theory”, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, pp. 121-30.
King, W., Hufnagel, E. and Grover, V. (1988), “Using information technology for competitive
advantage”, in Earl, M. (Ed.), Information Management: The Strategic Advantage,
Clarendon Press, New York, NY.
Knol, W.H.C. and Stroeken, J.H.M. (2001), “The diffusion and adoption of information technology
in small- and medium-sized enterprises through IT scenarios”, Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 227-46.
Landsbergen, D. and Wolken, G. (2001), “Realising the promise: government information systems
and the fourth generation of information technology”, Public Administration Review,
Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 206-18.
Le Grand, C.H. (1997), “Impacts on information technology management”, Computer Audit
Update, Vol. 1997 No. 7, pp. 10-16.
Lee, S. and Treacy, M.E. (1998), “Information technology impacts on innovation”, R&D
Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 257-71.
Lewin, K. (1952), “Group decision and social change”, in Newcomb, T.M. and Hartley, E.L. (Eds),
Readings in Social Psychology, Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY.
Miller, D. (1983), “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms”, Management
Science, Vol. 29, pp. 770-91.
Moch, M.K. and Morse, E.V. (1977), “Size, centralisation, and organisational adoption of
innovations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 716-25.
Mohr, L.B. (1969), “Determinants of innovation in organizations”, The American Political Science
Review, Vol. 63, pp. 111-26.
Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and Calantone, R. (1994), “Determinants of new product performance: IT innovation
a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 5,
pp. 397-417. adoption
Moon, J. and Bretschneider, S. (1997), “Can state government action affect innovation and
diffusion?”, Technology Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 54, pp. 57-77.
Newcomer, K.E. and Caudle, S.L. (1991), “Evaluating public sector information systems: more
than meets the eye”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 377-84. 221
Norris, D.F. (1999), “Leading edge information technologies and their adoption: lessons from US
cities”, in Garosn, G.D.E. (Ed.), Information Technology and Computer Applications in
Public Administration: Issues and Trends, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1993), “CASE tools as organisational change: investigating incremental and
radical changes in systems development”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 309-40.
Perry, J.L. and Danzinger, J.N. (1980), “The adoptability of innovation: an empirical assessment of
computer applications in local governments”, Administration and Society, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 461-92.
Pierce, J.L. and Delbecq, A.L. (1977), “Organisation structure, individual attributes and
innovation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 27-37.
Premkumar, G. and Ramamurthy, K. (1995), “The role of inter-organisational and organisational
factors on the decision mode for adoption of inter-organisational systems”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 303-36.
Prescott, M.B. and Conger, S.A. (1995), “Information technology innovations: a classification by
IT locus of impact and research approach”, The DATABASE for Advances in Information
Systems, Vol. 26 Nos 2/3, pp. 20-41.
Quinn, J.B. (1986), “Managing the innovation: controlled chaos”, Harvard Business Review,
May/June, pp. 73-84.
Rainey, H., Backoff, R. and Levine, C. (1976), “Comparing public and private organisations”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 233-44.
Ram, S. and Jung, H.S. (1991), “Forced adoption of innovation in organisations: consequences and
implications”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 8, pp. 117-26.
Ramamurthy, K., Premkumar, G. and Crum, M.R. (1999), Journal of Organizational Computing
and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 253-85.
Reich, R.H. and Benbasat, I. (1996), “Measuring the linkage between business and information
technology objectives”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 55-81.
Rocheleau, B. and Wu, L. (2002), “Public vs private information systems: do they differ in
important ways? A review and empirical test”, American Review of Public Administration,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 379-97.
Rockart, J.F. (1988), “The line takes the leadership”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 57-64.
Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Ross, J. and Beath, C. (2002), “Beyond the business case: new approaches to IT investment”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 43, pp. 51-9.
Rothwell, R. (1977), “The characteristics of successful innovators and technically progressive
firms (with some comments on innovation research)”, R&D Management, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 191-206.
JEIM Sambamurthy, R. and Zmud, R. (1999), “Arrangements for information technology governance:
a theory for multiple contingencies”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 261-90.
19,2 Sanchez, A.D., Koh, C.E., Kappelman, L.A. and Prybutok, V.R. (2003), “The relationship between
IT for communication and e-government barriers”, Proceedings of the 9th Americas
Conference on Information Systems, Tampa, FL, pp. 835-44.
Self, P. (1977), Administrative Theory and Politics, Allen & Unwin, London.
222 Seligman, L. (2000), “Adoption as sensemaking: toward an adopter-centered process model of IT
adoption”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, pp. 361-70.
Shin, N. (1999), “Does information technology improve coordination?: an empirical analysis”,
Logistics Information Management, Vol. 12 Nos 1/2, pp. 138-44.
Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z. and Kuljis, J. (2004), “Extending the information system lifecycle
through enterprise application integration: a case study experience”, Proceedings of the

37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’04) – Track 8,
Big Island, Hawaii, pp. 1-8.
Tolbert, P.S. and Zucker, L.G. (1983), “Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of
organisations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 22-39.
Tornatzky, L. and Fleischer, M. (1990), The Process of Technological Innovation, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Tornatzky, L. and Klein, M. (1990), The Process of Technological Innovation, Lexington e-Books,
Lexington, MA.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbeck, J. (1973), Innovations and Organisations, Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Koen Arts, Antonio A.R. Ioris, Christopher J.A. Macleod, Xiwu Han, Somayajulu G. Sripada, João R.Z.
Braga, René van der Wal. 2016. Environmental communication in the Information Age: Institutional
barriers and opportunities in the provision of river data to the general public. Environmental Science &
Policy 55, 47-53. [CrossRef]
2. Johann Höchtl, Peter Parycek, Ralph Schöllhammer. 2015. Big Data in the Policy Cycle: Policy Decision
Making in the Digital Era. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce . [CrossRef]
3. Chuanshen Qin, Bo Fan. 2015. Factors that influence information sharing, collaboration, and coordination
across administrative agencies at a Chinese university. Information Systems and e-Business Management .
[CrossRef]
4. Carlos Galán-Díaz, Peter Edwards, John D. Nelson, René van der Wal. 2015. Digital innovation through
partnership between nature conservation organisations and academia: A qualitative impact assessment.
Ambio 44, 538-549. [CrossRef]

5. Koen Arts, René van der Wal, William M. Adams. 2015. Digital technology and the conservation of
nature. Ambio 44, 661-673. [CrossRef]
6. Koen Arts, Antonio A.R. Ioris, Christopher J.A. MacLeod, Xiwu Han, Somayajulu Sripada, João R.Z.
Braga, René Van der Wal. 2015. Supply of Online Environmental Information to Unknown Demand: The
Importance of Interpretation and Liability Related to a National Network of River Level Data. Scottish
Geographical Journal 131, 245-252. [CrossRef]
7. Hart Okorie Awa, Nsobiari Festus Awara, Eeba Dumka Lebari. 2015. Critical factors inhibiting Electronic
Commerce (EC) adoption in Nigeria. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 6:2, 143-164.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Omar Ali, Jeffrey Soar, Jianming Yong, Hoda McClymont, Daniel AngusCollaborative cloud computing
adoption in Australian regional municipal government: An exploratory study 540-548. [CrossRef]
9. Muhammad Mustafa Kamal, Ali Ziaee Bigdeli, Marinos Themistocleous, Vincenzo Morabito. 2015.
Investigating factors influencing local government decision makers while adopting integration technologies
(IntTech). Information & Management 52, 135-150. [CrossRef]
10. Adel Ismail Al-Alawi, Faisal M. Al-Ali. 2015. Factors Affecting e-Commerce Adoption in SMEs in the
GCC: An Empirical study of Kuwait. Research Journal of Information Technology 7, 1-21. [CrossRef]
11. Sedigheh Moghavvemi, Noor Akma Mohd Salleh. 2014. Effect of precipitating events on information
system adoption and use behaviour. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 27:5, 599-622.
12. Khaled Saleh Al Omoush, Ibrahim Mahmoud Al Ali. 2014. The Adoption of Web-Based Supply
Chain Management Applications. International Journal of E-Adoption 4:10.4018/IJEA.20120701, 48-70.
[CrossRef]
13. Pei-Fang Hsu, Soumya Ray, Yu-Yu Li-Hsieh. 2014. Examining cloud computing adoption intention,
pricing mechanism, and deployment model. International Journal of Information Management 34, 474-488.
[CrossRef]
14. Lúcio Camara E. Silva, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa. 2014. IT Project Investments: An Analysis Based
on a Sort and Rank Problem. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 13,
699-719. [CrossRef]
15. Gabriel Puron-Cid. 2014. Factors for a successful adoption of budgetary transparency innovations: A
questionnaire report of an open government initiative in Mexico. Government Information Quarterly 31,
S49-S62. [CrossRef]
16. Sedigheh Moghavvemi, Noor Akma Mohd salleh. 2014. Malaysian entrepreneurs propensity to use IT
innovation. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 27:2, 139-157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Benjamin T. Hazen, LeeAnn Kung, Casey G. Cegielski, L. Allison Jones-Farmer. 2014. Performance
expectancy and use of enterprise architecture: training as an intervention. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management 27:2, 180-196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Gustavo Henrique Maultasch Oliveira, Eric W. Welch. 2013. Social media use in local government:
Linkage of technology, task, and organizational context. Government Information Quarterly 30, 397-405.
[CrossRef]
19. Alsanossi M Ahmed, Robert Moreton, Qasim H Mehdi, Adel ElmaghrabyE-government services
challenges and opportunities for developing countries: The case of Libya 133-137. [CrossRef]
20. Gökhan İskender, Sevgi Özkan. 2013. E‐government transformation success. Transforming Government:
People, Process and Policy 7:3, 364-392. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Konstantinos Koumaditis, Marinos Themistocleous, Paulo Rupino Da Cunha. 2013. SOA implementation
critical success factors in healthcare. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 26:4, 343-362.
22. Alinaghi Ziaee Bigdeli, Muhammad Kamal, Sergio de Cesare. 2013. Information sharing through inter‐
organisational systems in local government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 7:2,
148-176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Yazn Alshamaila, Savvas Papagiannidis, Feng Li. 2013. Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the north
east of England. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 26:3, 250-275. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
24. Muhammad Mustafa Kamal, Ray Hackney, Maged Ali. 2013. Facilitating enterprise application
integration adoption: An empirical analysis of UK local government authorities. International Journal of
Information Management 33, 61-75. [CrossRef]
25. Esther Suter, Joanne Goldman, Tina Martimianakis, Carole Chatalalsingh, Dale J. DeMatteo, Scott
Reeves. 2013. The use of systems and organizational theories in the interprofessional field: Findings from
a scoping review. Journal of Interprofessional Care 27, 57-64. [CrossRef]
26. Stanislav Kreuzer, Andreas Eckhardt, Steffen Bernius, Julia KronungA Unified View of Electronic
Invoicing Adoption: Developing a Meta-Model on the Governmental Level 1943-1952. [CrossRef]
27. Mohd Fairuz Iskandar Othman, Taizan ChanBarriers to Formal IT Governance Practice -- Insights from
a Qualitative Study 4415-4424. [CrossRef]
28. Goparaju Purna Sudhakar. 2012. A model of critical success factors for software projects. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management 25:6, 537-558. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Shahron Williams van Rooij. 2012. Higher Education and FOSS for e-Learning. International Journal of
Open Source Software and Processes 2:10.4018/ijossp.20100101, 15-31. [CrossRef]
30. Hamid Tohidi, Seyed Mohsen Seyedaliakbar, Maryam Mandegari. 2012. Organizational learning
measurement and the effect on firm innovation. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 25:3,
219-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Vic Matta, David Koonce, Anand Jeyaraj. 2012. Initiation, Experimentation, Implementation of
innovations: The case for Radio Frequency Identification Systems. International Journal of Information
Management 32, 164-174. [CrossRef]
32. Rakhi Tripathi, M.P. Gupta, Jaijit Bhattacharya. 2012. Interoperability adoption among government and
corporate portals in India: a study. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 25:2, 98-122. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
33. Joshua R. Vest, Nir Menachemi, Eric W. Ford. 2012. Governanceʼs Role in Local Health Departmentsʼ
Information System and Technology Usage. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 18,
160-168. [CrossRef]
34. Mark Borman, Marijn JanssenCritical Success Factors for Shared Services: Results from Two Case Studies
2511-2520. [CrossRef]
35. Md. Dulal Hossain, Junghoon Moon, Jin Ki Kim, Young Chan Choe. 2011. Impacts of organizational
assimilation of e-government systems on business value creation: A structuration theory approach.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 10, 576-594. [CrossRef]

36. Indrit Troshani, Cate Jerram, Sally Rao Hill. 2011. Exploring the public sector adoption of HRIS.
Industrial Management & Data Systems 111:3, 470-488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Daniel J Veit, Nils P Parasie, Jan C HuntgeburthE-Procurement Adoption at the Municipal Level:
Influence of Organizational, Technological and Environmental Factors 1-10. [CrossRef]
38. S Anwar, R MohsinERP Project Management in Public Sector - Key Issues and Strategies 1-10.
[CrossRef]
39. Cagla Ozen Seneler, Nuri Basoglu, Tugrul U. Daim. 2010. An empirical analysis of the antecedents of
adoption of online services. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 23:4, 417-438. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
40. Dimitris Assimakopoulos, Herman Wu. 2010. Diffusion of VoIP in Chinese large enterprises: the cases
of Air China and Harvest Fund. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China 2:1, 7-24. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
41. Chonyacha Suebsin, Nathasit GerdsriKey factors driving the success of technology adoption: Case
examples of ERP adoption 2638-2643. [CrossRef]
42. Muhammad Mustafa Kamal, Mohamed Alsudairi. 2009. Investigating the importance of factors
influencing integration technologies adoption in local government authorities. Transforming Government:
People, Process and Policy 3:3, 302-331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Frank Lin, C.E. Tapie Rohm. 2009. Managers' and end‐users' concerns on innovation implementation.
Business Process Management Journal 15:4, 527-547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Kathleen M. Boyer-Wright, Jeffrey E. Kottemann. 2009. An Empirical Assessment of Common
Fundamentals In National E-Readiness Frameworks. Journal of Global Information Technology
Management 12, 55-74. [CrossRef]
45. Muhammad Mustafa Kamal, Marinos Themistocleous. 2009. Investigating EAI adoption in the local
government authorities. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 3:2, 190-212. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
46. Justifying the Decisions for EAI Adoption in LGAs: A Validated Proposition of Factors, Adoption
Lifecycle Phases, Mapping and Prioritisation of Factors 1-10. [CrossRef]
47. Cagla Ozen Seneler, Nuri Basoglu, Tugrul U. DaimA taxonomy for technology adoption: A human
computer interaction perspective 2208-2219. [CrossRef]
48. Kathleen M. Boyer Wright, Jeffrey E. Kottemann. 2008. High-level factors affecting availability of online
government services worldwide. Electronic Government, an International Journal 5, 375. [CrossRef]
49. Kathleen M. Boyer-Wright, Jeffrey E. KottemannHigh-Level Factors Affecting Global Availability of
Online Government Services 199-199. [CrossRef]
50. Rene Riedl, Friedrich Roithmayr, Bernhard SchenkenfelderUsing the Structured-case Approach to Build
Theory in E-Government 93-93. [CrossRef]
51. Mark LiptrottE-Democracy Postponed 447-466. [CrossRef]
52. Muhammad M. KamalIntegrating IT Infrastructures in the Public Domain 349-371. [CrossRef]
53. Mohd Hisham Mohd Sharif, Indrit Troshani, Robyn DavidsonAdoption of Social Media Services:
287-303. [CrossRef]
54. Muhammad Mustafa KamalA Multiple Case Study on Integrating IT Infrastructures in the Public
Domain 182-200. [CrossRef]
55. Konstantinos Koumaditis, Marinos ThemistocleousSOA Governance Considerations for Successful

Project Management 245-264. [CrossRef]
56. Shahron Williams van RooijHigher Education and FOSS for E-Learning 55-74. [CrossRef]
900-916. [CrossRef]
1697-1713. [CrossRef]
771-787. [CrossRef]
View publication stats

Muhammad Mustafa Kamal - IT Innovation Adoption in The Government Sector PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Muhammad Mustafa Kamal - IT Innovation Adoption in The Government Sector PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

IT innovation adoption in the government sector: Identifying the

Article in Journal of Enterprise Information Management · March 2006

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

References: this document contains references to 90 other documents.

communication technology (ICT) reactively as compared to private sector

the author proposes an IT innovation adoption model for government sector

The IT innovation adoption process in organisations

four-phase innovation adoption processes consist of initiation phase, adoption phase,

A taxonomy of the IT innovation adoption process

Motivation signifies the state when an organisation becomes aware of a specific

author discusses IT innovation adoption in government sector organisations. In doing

IT innovation adoption in government sector organisations

Impact of information technology adoption

technologies to the specific needs of the user group.

This assists in identifying different groups in an organisation that are influenced by

P8. Higher levels of organisational compatibility can have a positive impact IT

innovation adoption in government organisations.

P15. Higher levels of IT sophistication can positively impact IT innovation

with some resistance. The successful implementation of mission-critical systems often

P20. A higher level of overall organisational participation in the planning and

Proposed conceptual model for IT innovation adoption in government

organisations are generally restricted to a very formal annual or bi-annual budgeting

No. 3, pp. 355-72.

organisations – adoption and impact of technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4,

through enterprise application integration: a case study experience”, Proceedings of the

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Ambio 44, 538-549. [CrossRef]

Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 10, 576-594. [CrossRef]

55. Konstantinos Koumaditis, Marinos ThemistocleousSOA Governance Considerations for Successful

View publication stats

You might also like