Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Carlos Ferro, Carmen Padin, Göran Svensson, Janice Payan, (2016),"Trust and commitment as mediators between economic
and non-economic satisfaction in manufacturer-supplier relationships", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31
Iss 1 pp. 13-23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2013-0154
Elten Briggs, Timothy D. Landry, Patricia J. Daugherty, (2016),"A framework of satisfaction for continually delivered
business services", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 112-122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JBIM-06-2014-0125
Jing Zhang, Yanxin Jiang, Rizwan Shabbir, Miao Zhu, (2016),"How brand orientation impacts B2B service brand equity?
An empirical study among Chinese firms", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 83-98 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2014-0041
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:365403 []
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.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to develop and propose a comprehensive framework that identifies the factors that influence a company’s
decision to adopt business to business (B2B) technologies.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors review the literature regarding technology adoption from multiple disciplines including: Supply
Chain Management, Logistics, Sociology, Information Systems, Marketing and Economics. A synthesis of the review provides the foundation for
developing a comprehensive model of inter-firm technology adoption.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:27 27 February 2016 (PT)
Findings – The review and synthesis finds inconsistencies in the theoretical models and constructs used in previous studies of inter-firm technology
adoption. The comprehensive framework presented identifies four major categories of antecedents to technology adoption: characteristics of a
technology, organizational factors, external factors and relationships. The presented model focuses attention on the inclusion of relational factors
that affect the adoption of B2B technology.
Research limitations/implications – An important area that has been ignored in the inter-firm adoption literature is the impact of inter-firm
relationships on technology adoption. This paper emphasizes the importance of inter-firm relationships and identifies power, trust and justice as
important relationships that influence the adoption of inter-firm technologies.
Originality/value – The expanded framework identifies the antecedents of B2B technology adoption, which can be used as a guiding framework
by both academics and practitioners. The paper also offers directions for future work in the form of propositions.
Keywords Technology adoption, Business to business technology, Inter-firm technology
Paper type Conceptual paper
1
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang Volume 31 · Number 1 · 2016 · 1–12
Although the value of B2B technologies has been widely Literature review
accepted in supply chains (Xie and Johnston, 2004),
Individual technology adoption models
companies are struggling to get their supply chain partners to
A preponderance of the technology adoption models found in
adopt these technologies, and large numbers of these complex
the academic literature is used to explain technology adoption
and expensive systems have failed. For example, while 95 per by individuals and not by organizations. However, the existing
cent of Fortune 1000 firms implemented EDI (a popular B2B inter-firm technology adoption models usually borrow from
technology), only 2 per cent of the remaining US businesses these individual-level models and incorporate them into
did so even though the largest firms had been aggressively inter-firm adoption contexts. The two most commonly used
encouraging the adoption of EDI (Chwelos et al., 2001). Even models to explain the adoption of technology by individuals
among those companies that have adopted B2B technologies, are the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Attributes
very few of them are satisfied with the state of their inter-firm of Innovation Model.
systems, suggesting that substantial barriers exist regarding
the adoption and performance of their supply chain Technology acceptance model
technologies (Patterson et al., 2003). TAM is one of the most widely used models to explain
While there is extensive literature on technology adoption, technology user acceptance behavior (Hernandez et al., 2010;
relatively little of it focuses on supply chain or inter-firm Ma and Liu, 2004) by individuals. The model was introduced
adoption (Xie and Johnston, 2004). The majority of to help identify a small number of fundamental variables that
technology adoption studies focus on technology adoption by determine computer acceptance and usage (Davis et al.,
1989). TAM posits that “perceived usefulness” and
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:27 27 February 2016 (PT)
2
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang Volume 31 · Number 1 · 2016 · 1–12
use in an organization could result in the employees having perception as to how voluntary the decision to adopt the
low job satisfaction, low loyalty and negative feelings toward innovation is. Tornatzky and Klein (1982) conducted a
their supervisors and organization. Mandating technology use meta-analysis of innovation characteristics and found about
could also lead to increased sabotage, unfaithful appropriation 30 different characteristics. They identified ten characteristics
of technology, delay or obstruction to implementation and low that had an effect on technology adoption including Roger’s
productivity. They recommend that in mandatory settings, five characteristics and an additional five characteristics; cost,
organizations should engender positive attitudes toward the communicability, divisibility, profitability and social approval.
technology to avoid potentially disruptive attitudes and Despite these efforts to modify or improve the five attributes of
behaviors. innovations, most researchers still focus mostly on Roger’s
Although TAM is a classic model widely used to explain (1983) five original attributes since they have been well
technology adoption, it has primarily been used to explain researched and proven time and again to have a strong
individual user adoption of simple technologies in voluntary correlation with the decision to adopt an innovation by an
situations. In intra- and inter-firm environments where individual.
technology adoption is sometimes mandated and usually Just as in the case of the TAM model, a major criticism of
involves complex technologies, other models and theories, the attributes of innovation literature is that it focuses too
including the attributes of innovation model, have more much on innovations for individual adopters and not enough
commonly been used to explain technology adoption in more on innovations by organizations or the larger social system.
complex environments. Tornatzky and Klein (1982) suggest that future studies should
emphasize the adoption of innovations in organizations.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:27 27 February 2016 (PT)
Attributes of an innovation
Researchers of both individual and organizational technology Inter-firm technology adoption
adoption have extensively used the attributes of an innovation Although TAM and the attributes of innovation model explain
model and have found that these attributes usually account for a a large amount of the variance in individual technology
large amount of variance in organizational adoption of adoption, they explain a lot less in organizational and
innovations (Russell and Hoag, 2004). Borrowing from decades inter-firm environments since decision making in these
of diffusion research, Rogers (1983) identified five main environments is a lot more complex and also introduce a lot
attributes of innovation: relative advantage, compatibility, more variables than in individual technology adoption
complexity, trialability and observability. environments (Damanpour, 1991). Efforts have therefore
Relative Advantage is the degree to which an innovation is been made by inter-firm technology adoption researchers to
perceived as being better than the existing idea that is being create new models that explain the more complex
replaced (O’Callaghan et al., 1992). Past research almost organizational environment while still including some
universally finds a positive relationship between relative elements from the individual adoption models.
advantage and rate of adoption, and researchers find relative O’Callaghan et al. (1992), in their study of EDI in an
advantage to be one of the strongest predictors of adoption inter-firm environment, identify three main factors that influence
(Rogers, 2003). Complexity refers to the degree to which an technology adoption: relative advantage, compatibility and
innovation is believed to be difficult to understand, use or external influences. Relative advantage and compatibility were
implement (Rogers, 2003). Complexity has been widely found borrowed from the attributes of innovation model. The construct
to have a negative influence on adoption and it is believed that “external influence” is made up of three sub constructs: the
the more complex an innovation, the less likely for it to be source firm, previous adopters and industry promotion. The
adopted (Sia et al., 2004). Compatibility refers to the degree to authors found a positive relationship between relative advantage
which an innovation is perceived to be consistent with the and the decision to adopt EDI. They however did not find a
adopter’s internal culture, business processes, management significant relationship between external influences and EDI
practices and communication protocols (O’Callaghan et al., adoption.
1992). Greater compatibility is usually more preferable Another inter-firm adoption model was developed by
because it presents the adopter with less uncertainty and Grover (1993) to identify factors that facilitate the adoption of
allows the interpretation of the innovation in a more familiar customer-based interorganizational systems (CIOS). The
context (Sia et al., 2004). Trialability refers to the degree to initial model identified organizational factors, support factors,
which an innovation can be experienced on a limited basis policy factors, environmental factors and interorganizational
before adoption (Rogers, 2003) and is believed to be positively systems (IOS) factors as the major determinants of an
associated with adoption since it helps to reduce uncertainty in organization’s decision to adopt a CIOS. After empirically
the adoption process (Al-Gahatani, 2003). Observability testing the initial model, the author developed a new model
refers to the degree to which the results of an innovation can based on the constructs that he was able to find strong support
be easily observed (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and is usually for. The new model identified internal push, competitive
positively related to its adoption. need, market assessment, proactive technical orientation and
Other researchers have modified Rogers’ perceived industry adoptions as the key factors that positively affect the
attributes of innovation model. Prominent among them are adoption of a CIOS. Grover (1993) also identified
Moore and Benbasat (1991) who identified two further information intensity, complexity and incompatibility as
constructs – image and voluntariness. Image refers to the impediments to the adoption of a CIOS.
ability for an innovation to enhance the adopter’s social status Premkumar and Ramamurthy (1995) studied the role of
in a social system, and voluntariness refers to the adopter’s interorganizational and organizational factors on an
3
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang Volume 31 · Number 1 · 2016 · 1–12
organization’s decision to adopt IOS. They identified four Proposed TASC framework
interorganizational factors that were based on a
The authors propose a framework that identifies the
socio-political framework borrowed from the marketing antecedents of TASC. TASC identifies four key determinants
literature. These factors were competitive pressure, of the adoption of inter-firm technologies (Figure 1):
transaction climate, exercised power and dependence. They 1 characteristics of technology;
also identified five organizational factors that were based on IS 2 organizational factors;
research including top management support, internal need, IS 3 external factors; and
infrastructure, organizational compatibility and the presence 4 inter-firm relationships.
of an internal champion. Their study found support for two
organizational variables, top management and internal need, Characteristics of technology
and also two interorganizational variables, exercised power The characteristics of the technology being adopted usually
and competitive pressure. Premkumar and Ramamurthy account for a large amount of variance in inter-firm
(1995) also examined the difference between reactive and technology adoption (Russell and Hoag, 2004). The TASC
proactive firms on three implementation outcomes. Proactive Model borrows from the attributes of innovation literature and
firms were found to have more external connectivity with their identifies five key attributes of an innovation that influence its
trading partners, greater extent of adaptation and better adoption in a supply chain. They are Relative Advantage,
integration of EDI information in their own internal systems. Complexity, Compatibility, Trialability and Observability.
Hart and Saunders (1997) are one of the few researchers The model also adds cost, which is a construct that is not
commonly used in the literature to explain inter-firm
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:27 27 February 2016 (PT)
4
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang Volume 31 · Number 1 · 2016 · 1–12
past research for the large part finds a positive relationship P3a. Organizational compatibility is positively associated
between relative advantage and rate of adoption and with an organization’s intention to adopt B2B
researchers find relative advantage to be one of the strongest technologies.
predictors of adoption (Rogers, 2003), we propose that:
P3b. Systems compatibility is positively associated with an
P1. The perceived relative advantage of the technology organization’s intention to adopt B2B technologies.
being adopted is positively associated with the intention Trialability
to adopt B2B technologies. This refers to the degree to which an innovation can be
experienced on a limited basis before adoption (Rogers,
Complexity 2003). Trials can help the adopter understand how to use the
The technology adoption literature identifies three different innovation, thus making it less complex and easier to
dimensions of complexity: complexity to understand; understand when they later adopt it (Al-Gahatani, 2003).
complexity to use; and complexity to implement. However, They also enable the adopter to find and solve major problems
inter-firm technology adoption researchers rarely use all before rolling out the solution over a larger portion of the
dimensions in their definition of complexity. For example, Sia company. Before fully adopting RFID, The Campbell Soup
et al. (2004) focus on complexity to implement while Karahanna Company conducted a pilot test in its Texas facility by tagging
et al. (1999) only emphasize complexity of use. Our definition of over 1,000 cases and 90 pallets, while Unilever North America
complexity encompasses all three dimensions, and in line with conducted an RFID trial to gain operational insights into its
Rogers (2003) we define complexity as the degree to which an business case (Clark, 2004). Trialability is positively
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:27 27 February 2016 (PT)
innovation is difficult to implement, use and understand. associated with adoption (Al-Gahatani, 2003), and so we
Highly complex technologies are usually seen as a barrier to propose that:
technology adoption (Lin and Ho, 2009) since they are usually
P4. Trialability of the technology being adopted is
difficult to implement, can lead to costly and widespread
positively associated with an organization’s intention to
disruptions and in general discourage decision makers in an adopt B2B technologies.
organization from adopting and implementing a technology.
Complexity has been widely found to have a negative Observability
influence on adoption (Sia et al., 2004), and so we propose This construct has been defined differently by different
that: authors. While some authors emphasize the demonstrability of
the results of the innovation (Al-Gahatani, 2003; Sonnenwald
P2. The complexity of the technology being adopted is et al., 2001), others define it in terms of the visibility of the
negatively associated with the intention to adopt B2B innovation itself (Moore and Benbasat, 1991). Although the
technologies. visibility of the technology itself is important in individual
technology adoption contexts, it is less important in inter-firm
Compatibility environments since companies adopt technology because of
In the individual adoption literature, the compatibility of a what it can do for them and not because of its visibility. What
technology is usually determined by how compatible the is more important to the company is whether the results of the
technology is with elements of the individual’s social system technology being adopted can be easily demonstrated or
(Rogers, 2003). Inter-firm technologies however present a quantified. If the innovation can be directly tied to economic
unique compatibility problem because not only does the indicators like increased sales, profitability or return on
technology have to be compatible with the organization investment, it is more likely to be adopted than if it is tied to
(organizational compatibility), but it also has to be compatible indicators that are more difficult to demonstrate. Since
observability is usually positively related to adoption, we
with the existing technology systems that it is going to
propose that:
interface with (systems compatibility). Systems compatibility
is very important in technology adoption and refers to P5. The observability of the results of the technology being
compatibility between the technology and the organization’s adopted is positively associated with an organization’s
existing software, hardware, back office computer systems and intention to adopt B2B technologies.
other technology systems and resources (Lin and Ho, 2009).
Cost of innovation
Organizational compatibility, on the other hand, refers to
The cost of an innovation is one of the most important factors
compatibility between the innovation and the adopter’s
that affect a firm’s decision to adopt B2B technologies, and the
internal culture, business processes and management practices cost of RFID, for example, is one of the major factors limiting
(O’Callaghan et al., 1992). Too often, organizational that technology’s adoption (Frost and Sullivan, 2005; Growe,
compatibility is ignored during a technology adoption process, 2004). Two main types of costs are associated with the
leading to disastrous consequences for the adoption process. adoption of an innovation: direct and indirect costs. Direct
Following O’Callaghan et al. (1992), we classify compatibility costs refer to those costs associated with acquiring the
into two separate categories, organizational and system technology, while indirect costs are the costs associated with
compatibilities, enabling us to cover both very important using, implementing and maintaining the technology.
dimensions of compatibility. Since compatibility is positively Although the cost of an innovation is an important
related to technology adoption (Premkumar and determinant of whether a technology should be adopted, the
Ramamurthy, 1995; Sia et al., 2004), we propose that: construct is quite often ignored in the technology adoption
5
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang Volume 31 · Number 1 · 2016 · 1–12
literature, and when it appears in the literature, it is usually P8. The level of centralization of an organization is
discussed under relative advantage. Tornatzky and Klein negatively associated with an organization’s intention to
(1982) suggest that cost should be considered separately from adopt B2B technologies.
relative advantage and in line with their recommendation we
Organizational size
consider cost as a separate construct. Since the cost of a
Size is one of the most commonly used measures of an
product is negatively associated with adoption (Wejnert, organization’s innovativeness and has been both positively and
2002), we propose that: negatively associated with a firm’s decision to adopt a
technology. While large organizations usually have more
P6. The cost of a product is negatively associated with an
resources that they can use to adopt technologies, they are also
organization’s intention to adopt B2B technologies.
less flexible and unable to adapt quickly (Damanpour, 1996).
In spite of the different associations, the positive relationship
Organizational factors between size and organizational innovativeness holds across a
The TASC model identifies organizational factors as large number of investigations (Damanpour, 1996; Patterson
important determinants of inter-firm technology adoption, et al., 2003; Rogers, 2003). Since the positive relationship
and the following are some of the organizational between size and organizational adoption of technologies
characteristics that TASC identifies as important antecedents holds across a large number of investigations, we propose that:
of technology adoption.
P9. Organizational size is positively associated with an
Management support organization’s intention to adopt B2B technologies.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:27 27 February 2016 (PT)
6
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang Volume 31 · Number 1 · 2016 · 1–12
motivated to adopt innovative technologies to maintain their Venkatraman, 1995), and yet, surprisingly, most of the
customers and strategic flexibility (Huang et al., 2008) research into TASC does not include the influence of
Companies also adopt technologies that their trading partners inter-firm relationships as predictors or influences of the
request them to for fear that if they are slow to respond to such adoption decision (O’Callaghan et al., 1992; Russell and
requests, they could lose some or all of their business to those Hoag, 2004; Williams et al., 1998). Since the adoption of
competitors that readily adopt the technology (Kamaruddin technology in supply chains is usually initiated by a lead
and Udin, 2009). Technology adoption studies have company who needs to convince the other members to adopt
consistently found a positive relationship between competitive a complex and expensive system (O’Callaghan et al., 1992),
pressure and adoption (Grover, 1993) so we propose that: inter-firm relationships are absolutely important in any effort
to adopt an inter-firm technology (Grossman, 2004). The
P11. Competitive pressure is positively associated with an authors identify power, trust and justice as important
organization’s intention to adopt B2B technologies. relationships that influence the adoption of inter-firm
Environmental uncertainty technologies.
Uncertain environments make companies feel vulnerable and
more willing to adopt technologies that they believe could help Power
them perform better (Grover and Goslar, 1993). These Power is defined as the ability of a firm to exert influence on
another firm (Frazier, 1983). Since inter-firm technology
vulnerable companies continuously scan the environment,
looking for technologies that could help them perform better. adoption usually involves one company trying to influence the
According to Patterson et al. (2003), during uncertain other to adopt the technology, the amount of power that the
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:27 27 February 2016 (PT)
7
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang Volume 31 · Number 1 · 2016 · 1–12
exchange partner is credible and/or benevolent (Geyskens For fear of the consequences of not adopting the technology,
et al., 1999). These definitions lay stress on two dimensions of the target companies may only partially adopt the technology or
trust – credibility and benevolence. Credibility includes two even buy the technology at the request of their trading partner
dimensions: competence-based credibility and honesty-based but not implement it (Suzuki and Williams, 1998). Some
credibility. Competence-based credibility arises from the companies will use alternative and less-efficient methods in their
trustor’s confidence in the trustee’s ability, knowledge and back-end systems while making their larger partners believe that
skill related to a specific task (Cook and Wall, 1980; Mayer they are using the newly adopted innovation. Because the
et al., 1995) or influence within a specific domain (Sitkin and companies might not be using the new technology, the trading
Roth, 1993). The second component of credibility is partner will in the long run, not get the efficiencies that they
Honesty-based trust (or integrity), which is the belief that thought they had planned for. Because companies are being
one’s exchange partner is reliable, stands by its word, fulfills forced to adopt technologies that they do not find particularly
role obligations and is sincere (Anderson and Narus, 1990; beneficial to them, issues of fairness and justice are important in
Dwyer et al., 1987). inter-firm technology adoption. Researchers have identified three
Benevolence-based trust is the belief that the exchange distinct dimensions to justice – distributive, procedural and
partner is genuinely interested in one’s interests or welfare and interactional (Colquitt, 2001; Sindhav, 2001).
is motivated to seek joint gains. A benevolent partner Distributive justice. This refers to the perceived justice of
subordinates immediate self-interest for long-range group gain resources received in social exchanges (Brashear et al., 2004).
(Anderson et al., 1987) and will not take unexpected actions The literature identifies three categories of distributive justice:
that will have a negative impact on the firm (Anderson and equity, equality and need. Equity is a very important part of
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:27 27 February 2016 (PT)
8
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang Volume 31 · Number 1 · 2016 · 1–12
allocations. Thibaut and Walker (1975) observed that By developing a comprehensive framework that identifies
disputants in legal procedures viewed the outcome as fair if the antecedents of successful TASC, this paper will help both
they believed that the procedures that had produced them academics and practitioners learn more about the factors that
were fair. Applying procedural justice to an inter-firm can lead to the success of technology adoption initiatives in
technology adoption context, we propose that: supply chains. This paper will also enable practitioners to
learn more about the things that they can do to improve the
P17. Firms who consider requests to adopt inter-firm success rates of their inter-firm technology adoption
technology to be equitable are more likely to adopt the initiatives, thus making them more competitive.
technology than those who think it is not.
9
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang Volume 31 · Number 1 · 2016 · 1–12
innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 132-146.
models”, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 693-716. Huang, Z., Janz, B.D. and Frolick, M.N. (2008), “A
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User comprehensive examination of internet-EDI adoption”,
acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two Information Systems Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 273-286.
pp. 982-1004. Iacovou, C.L., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (1995),
Deutsch, M. (1975), “Equity, equality, and need: what “Electronic data interchange and small organizations:
determines which value will be used as the basis for adoption and impact technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19,
distributive justice”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 465-485.
pp. 137-149. Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation:
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Marketing,
buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 Vol. 57, pp. 53-70.
No. 2, pp. 11-27. Kamaruddin, N.K. and Udin, Z.M. (2009), “Supply chain
Frazier, G.L. (1983), “On the measurement of interfirm technology adoption in Malaysian automotive suppliers”,
power in channels of distribution”, Journal of Marketing Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 20
Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 158-167. No. 3, pp. 385-403.
Fries, J.L., Turri, A.M., Bello, D.C. and Smith, R.J. (2010), Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W. and Chervany, N.L. (1999),
“Factors that influence the implementation of collaborative “Information technology adoption across time: a
RFiD programs”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and
Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 590-595. post-adoption beliefs”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, June,
Frost and Sullivan (2005), Analysis of RFID Adoption and pp. 183-213.
Workforce Issues in North America, Computer Technology Kirca, A.H., Jayachandran, S. and Bearden, W.O. (2005),
Industry Association, available at: www.comptia.org/ “Market orientation: a meta-analytic review and assessment
(accessed 5 December 2005). of its antecedents and impact on performance”, Journal of
Gaski, J.F. and Nevin, J.R. (1985), “The differential effects of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 24-41.
exercised and unexercised power sources in a marketing Kwon, I.K., Whan, G. and Suh, T. (2004), “Factors affecting
channel”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, the level of trust and commitment in supply relationships”,
pp. 130-142. Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 40 No. 1,
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Kumar, N. (1999), pp. 4-14.
“A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing channel Lee, J.L. and Qualls, W.J. (2010), “A dynamic process of
relationships”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, buyer-seller technology adoption”, Journal of Business &
pp. 223-238. Industrial Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 220-228.
Gilliland, D.I. and Manning, K.C. (2002), “When do firms Lin, C. and Ho, Y. (2009), “RFID technology adoption and
conform to regulatory control? The effect of control supply chain performance: an empirical study in China’s
processes on compliance and opportunism”, Journal of logistics industry”, Supply Chain Management: An
Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 319-331. International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 369-378.
Greenberg, J. and Bies, R.J. (1992), “Establishing the role of Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of
empirical studies of organizational justice in philosophical Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
inquiries into business ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, Ma, Q. and Liu, L. (2004), “The technology acceptance
Vol. 11 Nos 5/6, pp. 433-444. model: a meta-analysis of empirical findings”, Journal of
10
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang Volume 31 · Number 1 · 2016 · 1–12
Organizational and End User Computing, Vol. 16 No. 1, Sonnenwald, D.H., Maglaughlin, K.H. and Whitton, M.C.
pp. 59-72. (2001), “Using innovation diffusion theory to guide
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An collaboration technology evaluation”, IEEE 10th
integration model of organizational trust”, The Academy of International Workshop on Enabling Technologies:
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734. Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, Cambridge,
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an MA, 20-22 June, pp. 114-119.
instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an Sowinsky, L.L. (2004), “World trade manufacturer of the year
information technology innovation”, Information Systems in global logistics”, World Trade Magazine, available at:
Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 192-222. www.worldtrademag.com (accessed 5 December 2005).
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment- Suzuki, Y. and Williams, L.R. (1998), “Analysis of EDI
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of resistance behavior”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4,
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38. pp. 36-44.
Mouzakitis, S. and Askounis, D. (2010), “A knowledge-based Svensson, G. (2002), “The theoretical foundation of supply
framework for measuring organizational readiness for the chain management: a functionalist theory of marketing”,
adoption of b2b integration systems”, Information Systems International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 253-266. Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 734-743.
O’Callaghan, R., Kaufmann, P.J. and Konsynski, B.R. Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A
(1992), “Adoption correlates and share effects of electronic
Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
data interchange systems in marketing channels”, Journal of
Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982), “Innovation
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:27 27 February 2016 (PT)
11
B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Anthony K. Asare, Thomas G. Brashear-Alejandro and Jun Kang Volume 31 · Number 1 · 2016 · 1–12
Giannakis, M. (2004), “Toward the development of a supply of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 33
chain management paradigm: a conceptual framework”, No. 8, pp. 701-719.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, Ring, P.S. and van de Ven, A.H. (1992), “Structuring
pp. 27-37. cooperative relationships between organizations”, Strategic
Holmes, T.L. and Srivastava, R. (1999), “Effects of Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 483-498.
relationalism and readiness on EDI collaboration and Zhang, C. and Dhaliwal, J. (2009), “An investigation of
outcomes”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, resource-based and institutional theoretic factors in
Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 390-402. technology adoption for operations and supply chain
Homburg, C., Fassnacht, M. and Guenther, C. (2003), “The management”, International Journal of Production Economics,
role of soft factors in implementing a service-oriented Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 252-269.
strategy in industrial marketing companies”, Journal of
Business to Business Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 23-38.
Kemppainen, K. and Vepsalainen, A.P.J. (2003), “Trends in
Corresponding author
industrial supply chain and networks”, International Journal Jun Kang can be contacted at: junkang@hnu.edu.cn
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:27 27 February 2016 (PT)
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
12