Abstract
Real-world cases have highlighted the need for better understanding of the process by which risk-averse organizations introduce new enterprise systems. There is a particular need to focus on the “business case document” which comprehensively outlines the pros and cons of adopting the new system. This chapter describes the complex innovation and diffusion process of enterprise systems as not described before. It asks questions about how information on a new system is communicated to potential stakeholders. Taking the specific case of a large public sector university, it examines all the processes involved in evaluating whether a new system is right for an organization and convincing both end-users and upper management to approve the change. Accordingly, any document that drives this change must be as credible as possible. And so, this paper looks at the possible sources of credibility for both the document and the sponsor who writes it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The exploration and exploitation phases of the innovation process in turn consist of several stages, namely, knowledge (agenda-setting), persuasion (matchmaking), decision, adoption, and confirmation (feedback and assessments process). See Rogers ([1962] 2003) for detailed descriptions of these stages.
- 2.
One conception of diffusion is diffusion as a special message or as the special characters in the message (Rogers ([1962] 2003). The message of the diffusion constitutes other conceptions such as diffusion as uncertainty or unexpected undesirable consequences (Borge 2001; Burrell and Morgan 2005; Dettmer 2003; Green 2004; Larsen and Myers 1999; Trompenaars and Prud’homme 2004); diffusion as creating awareness and/or mitigation of risks (e.g., Katz 2004; Leifer et al. 2004); diffusion as reaching a mutual understanding among the participants of the diffusion-innovation process (e.g., vision and expected consequences; Katz 2004; Polak 1973; Rogers [1962] 2003); diffusion as potent trigger of the innovation process; diffusion as expected consequences of selling an innovation with an emphasis on benefits, costs, risks, and controls; diffusion as a deliberate process of selling something new to the target audience; and diffusion as the source’s (e.g., executive sponsor’s) intention that the target audience (e.g., upper management) will be responsive to the message and will make a favorable adoption decision (Katz 2004; Polak 1973; Rogers [1962] 2003).
- 3.
Using the parlance of Diffusion of Innovations theory, a second conception is that of the business case as diffusion. This communication to the upper management conveys the executive sponsor’s agenda (the innovation), clarifies how it will yield benefits to the organization, and justifies why they should support it (e.g., “Building a business case” 2008; Clarke 2007; Dimick et al. 2006; Fang et al. 2004; Karat et al. 2005; King and Sapnas 2007; Maklan et al. 2005; McLaughlin 2004; Salzmann et al. 2005; State Services Commission 2007; State Services Commission and the Treasury 2001; Wheeler and Sillanpaa 1998; Willard 2005; Unerman and O’Dwyer 2007).
- 4.
- 5.
In the first round, the search of each database used the term “business case.” In the second round, “diffusion” was added to the first term to narrow down the list. However, the search generated noise. One of the two papers from ScienceDirect expressed that “[m]ore research is needed to examine the quality of care associated with these models and to establish the business case for managers faced with small female patient caseloads” (Yano et al. 2006). More noise came from a paper by Amesse and Cohendet (2001) about the “diffusion of technology,” in which they refer to knowledge transfer and knowledge management. There was similar noise in the ProQuest. A paper revealed an absence of the “business case” construct for the diffusion and adoption of innovations, in the context of chronic care (Siu et al. 2009). Emerald missed half a mark since its paper lacked the DoI lens. However, it is the only paper that concerns winning project approval and writing a convincing business case for project funding (McLaughlin 2004).
- 6.
In explanation, the story must be (a) correct, (b) adequate, and (c) intelligible (Passmore 1962), its elements arranged like a chain of events (i.e., a process) or a chain of reasoning. A fourth criterion is (d) completeness from the point of view of a philosopher (Hume 2004; Scarre 1998) or relevance from the perspective of a layman (Hart and Honoré 1985).
- 7.
Sir Thomas More (7 February 1478–6 July 1535) coined the word “utopia” for this fictional perfect island nation.
- 8.
Karl Heinrich Marx (5 May 1818–14 March 1883) and Friedrich Engels (28 November 1820–5 August 1895) were German philosophers who collaborated on The Communist Manifesto published in 1848.
- 9.
The important constructs, identified by Tarde (1903), include: the innovation; the innovator (or the stranger); the location (space) where the innovator emigrated to; the opinion leader (the early adopter); his or her networks of friends and acquaintances (the social systems); the receptiveness of these friends and acquaintances; their beliefs, desires, and motives; the later adopters; the time it takes them to adopt the innovation; the adoption rate in the S-shape curve; and the imitative rays.
- 10.
The theoretical assumptions were thoroughly articulated, examined, and discussed with peers, to avoid rigidity and inconsistencies. The first is that the deployment (or the replacement) of enterprise systems is a problem-solving intervention (Thull 2005) with expected consequences. It embodies hard realities that consist of physical evidence and documentations as well as soft realities, such as interactions, shared meanings, and defensive reasoning (Argyris 2004; Bryman 2001; Burrell and Morgan 2005; Gilbert 2006; Heidegger 1962; Kant 1934; Weber 2004). Second, unexpected consequences are always in perpetual motion and change (Ormerod 2005; Rogers, [1962] 2003), and a large unexpected consequence may have very small causes (Ormerod 2005). Third, the purpose of technological innovations is seamless alignment that comes with a value orientation (strategic vision). This expected consequence concerns (a) value proposition and performance, (b) information availability, (c) value chain or network linkages, and (d) transactional efficiencies. The gatekeepers configure the enterprise systems, align business processes, and extend the value chain toward a strategic vision (Canals 2000). Fourth, understanding how to solve problems, make decisions, and act under conditions of incomplete information is the highest and most urgent human pursuit (Taleb 2007). Fifth, because of the possible presence of defensive reasoning and behaviors, rational behavior may be irrational behavior in disguise (Argyris 2004; Luhmann 2006).
- 11.
Alignment of theory and practice can never be perfect because the evidence is generally incomplete and not necessarily the source of truth. Although many sources may be drawn from all at once (Stake 2005), what constitutes knowledge depends on the thorough understanding of the researchers and the participants and on the nature of the empirical evidence and reasoning required. Thus, a single piece of information can be as meaningful as a lot of data. The merit of the evidence relies on how it forms part of a chain of evidence, how it functions in the context, and how it is reflected in the social-emotional systems.
- 12.
The “inextricably and unavoidably…contextually…boundedness [in interviewing] refutes the whole tradition of the interview…” (Fontana and Frey 2005, p. 695). The executive sponsor and the opinion leader (the financial analyst) were heavily involved in the deployment of the new enterprise systems. Along with being interviewed, they want to be updated with the research. Spradley (1979) encountered a similar situation where he discussed what he learned with the interviewee. In the traditional sense, this approach is unthinkable (Fontana and Frey 2005). But, it is acceptable to frame the interview as part of an active emergent process (Fontana and Frey 2005), something which fosters an understanding of the language and culture. It can also aid the creation of “sharedness of meanings” among specific referents, between both the interviewer and the respondent (Fontana and Frey 2005, p. 713).
- 13.
The first-level protocol was developed to guide the interviews during the four stages of the research. The first stage was to determine the focus of the study; the second, to ask questions about the phenomenon, its states, and properties; the third, to integrate all data into a coherent theoretical storyline; and the last, to ask for details and get further clarification. In the first two stages, the theoretical questions attempt to justify why a particular theory is appropriate to the case study, clarifying the beliefs explicit and implicit in both the theory and the phenomenon itself. They also identify and examine other relevant constructs and concepts. In the final stages, the issues (practice) are explored as well as the constructs and the concepts (theory), in order to create a model that illustrates their relationships with each other.
- 14.
The researcher developed empirical questions at the initial level. What is going on? What is the problem? What are the issues? Explain why the innovation and adoption provide the appropriate context as opposed to analyzing the case as an organizational buying decision?
- 15.
As the data gathering continued, second-level empirical questions reflected the inevitable situational changes over time. When does the phenomenon happen? How does it happen? Who are the actors who are more powerful than expected, and who hold back the adoption or even lead to the system’s failure? How do the actors define their situations? What does it mean to them and to others? What are its consequences? What are the implications of these consequences?
- 16.
A third-level protocol used guiding questions. For example, the executive sponsor was asked: What is your greatest challenge at this stage? Describe it (look out for the vendor resourcing issue). What is your priority now? What is your greatest concern now? If you have to do the implementation all over again, how would it be? Who are your top three internal customers whom you want to be happy? How will you satisfy them? What lessons have you learned that are valuable to you? Are there documents that are important for me to read?
- 17.
In the first stage of research, the structural questions were: What broad resource will be required? Which concepts are well developed? Which are not? How do I gather the concepts? What permission is needed? How long will it take? In the second and subsequent stages, other structural questions were: What must be done next to gather the data for my evolving theory? What further data do I need? How logical is my theory? Where are the breaks in logic? Have I reached the saturation point?
- 18.
The first measure is to ensure the methodology’s concurrency with the validity and reliability tests. The second is the nature of the case study (process), which is iterative, reflective, adaptive, contextual, and integrated with the big picture. The third is the presence of knowledgeable researchers to conduct many of the discussions, which resolved those inherent and unavoidable biases.
- 19.
The approach to asking theoretical, empirical, structural, and guiding questions mitigated this third threat. Moreover, the study was always kept abreast of contemporary events and news. The knowledge of current events and the awareness of this threat helped to mitigate its influence.
- 20.
The context-rich data are the root of both the strengths and the weaknesses of the case study. Several measures mitigated this fourth threat: an extensive literature review including concepts which overlap with the Diffusion of Innovations theory; a systematic development of the model (e.g., the evolution of the conceptual framework); meticulous derivation of research questions; and the use of argumentation approach. These measures also extended the study toward interdisciplinary research.
- 21.
External validity is not a threat in a case study. Optimizing and understanding the case does not involve generalizing it as well. Yet a lack of generalization does not mean a lack of theorizing, bearing in mind Llewelyn’s (2003) five types of theory and Weber’s (2003) 21 approaches to generating theory.
- 22.
The construct validity compels the breaking down of the complex phenomenon into components. This systematic thinking about the whole, its parts, and its boundary, is interpretative and emergent (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). Item 2 of the CSA is to articulate thoroughly the case and its boundary (e.g., the issues and research questions). The boundary helps to set the scope and delineate the multiple sources and methods for gathering pieces of evidence, to establish the chain of evidence, and to verify or falsify the theory. The third and fourth items in the CSA checklist state the use of pieces of evidence gathered from multiple sources and methods and the establishment of the chain of reasoning on the basis of the evidence gathered and the literature reviewed. To assess internal validity, Items 5 and 6 of the CSA compel the alignment of philosophical assumptions with the theoretical paradigm and the clarification of the chosen paradigm and personal biases. The next five items concern dependability. Item 7 demands the development of protocols (e.g., three-level protocols) that are amenable to change as the research progresses. Furthermore, the data gathered from questions based on the protocol should reflect congruence between the issues and the theory (Item 8), congruence between the issues and the research design (Item 9), and consistency of meaning across the sources of pieces of evidence gathered. Furthermore, the modes of analysis must facilitate the establishment of labels for coding and analysis (Item 11) and of the pattern using the ATLAS.ti (Item 12).
Abbreviations
- BCDoI:
-
Business Case, Diffusion of Innovations
References
Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 819–841.
Ahuja, M. K., & Thatcher, J. B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: Effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information use. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 427–459.
Amesse, F., & Cohendet, P. (2001). Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy, 30(9), 1459–1478.
Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations: The limits to organizational knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Avery, J. (1997). Progress, poverty and population: Re-reading Condorcet, Godwin and Malthus. Portland, OR: Frank Cass Publishers.
Baskerville, R. L., & Pries-Heje, J. (2001). A multiple-theory analysis of a diffusion of information technology case. Information Systems Journal, 11(3), 181–212.
Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215–227.
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 493–524.
Bell, W., et al. (1996). An overview of future studies. In The knowledge base of future studies (Foundations, Vol. 1, pp. 26–56). Hawthorne: DDM Media Group.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (2002). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. In M. D. Myers & D. Avison (Eds.), Qualitative research in information systems: A reader (pp. 79–99). London: Sage Publications.
Bhaskar, R. (2002). From science to emancipation: alienation and the actuality of enlightenment. Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.
Borge, D. (2001). The book of risk. New York: Wiley.
Bottomore, T., & Nisbet, R. (Eds.). (1978). A history of sociological analysis. New York: Basic Books.
Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2003). Bringing non-adopters along: The challenge facing the PC industry. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 76–80.
Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 399–426.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Kemerer, C. F. (1996). Network externalities in microcomputer software: An econometric analysis of the spreadsheet market. Management Science, 42(12), 1627.
Building a business case. (2008). Retrieved Oct. 25, 2008 from http://www.shortcourses.auckland.ac.nz/courses/37/1812/.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (2005). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Ardershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Caldwell, B. (1998 July). Andersen sued on R/3. InformationWeek.
Canals, J. (2000). Managing corporate growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, S. P. (2007). Making the business case for nursing: Justifying investments in nurse staffing and high-quality practice environments. Nurse Leader, 5(4), 34–38.
Coleman, J., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1957). The diffusion of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry, 20, 253–270.
Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123–139.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–21.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.
Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 193–210.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organisational innovations: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.
Damanpour, F. (1992). Organisation size and innovation. Organization Studies, 13, 375–402.
Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: Combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Information Systems Journal, 8(4), 273–289.
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dettmer, H. W. (2003). Strategic navigation: A systems approach to business strategy. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Dimick, J. B., Weeks, W. B., Karia, R. J., Das, S., & Campbell, J. D. A. (2006). Who pays for poor surgical quality? Building a business case for quality improvement. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 202(6), 933–937.
Durkheim, E. (1938). The rules of sociological method. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Durlabhji, S. (1993). The influence of Confucianism and Zen on the Japanese organization. In S. Durlabhji, N. E. Marks, & S. Roach (Eds.), Japanese business: Cultural perspectives (pp. 57–75). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Easterbrook, S. M., Yu, E., Aranda, J., Fan, Y., Horkoff, J., Leica, M., et al. (2005 Aug 29–Sept 2). Do viewpoints lead to better conceptual models? An exploratory case study. Paper presented at the 13th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, Paris, France.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Eom, S. B. (Ed.). (2005). Inter-organizational information systems in the internet age. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
Ettlie, J. E. (1980). Adequacy of stage models for decision on adoption of innovation. Psychological Reports, 46, 991–995.
Fang, J. S., Ford, D. M., & Mannan, M. S. (2004). Making the business case for process safety using value-at-risk concepts. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 115(1–3), 17–26.
Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1986). Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncement, and predation. American Economic Review, 76(5), 940–956.
Ferrier, A. (2004 Oct 7). Address by Andrew Ferrier CEO Fonterra to the Annual Meeting of Shareholders. Retrieved Nov 24, 2008 from http://www.fonterra.com/wps/wcm/connect/55711700452c52a4bbc2ff873d7e2c80/AGM04_Andrew_Presentation.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219–245.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 695–727). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Inc.
Funk, K. (2003). Sustainability and performance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(2), 65.
Gattiker, T. F., & Goodhue, D. L. (2005). What happens after ERP implementation: Understanding the impact of interdependence and differentiation on plant-level outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 559–585.
Giddens, A. (1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gilbert, D. (2006). Stumbling on happiness. New York: Random House, Inc.
Granados, A., Johnson, E., Banta, H. D., Bero, L., Bonair, A., Cochet, C., et al. (1997). EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on dissemination and impact. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 13(2), 220–286.
Green, S. (2004). Manager’s guide to Sarbanes–Oxley act: Improving internal controls to prevent fraud. New York: Wiley.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). New York: Sage Publications.
State Services Commission and the Treasury. (2001). Guidelines for Managing and Monitoring Major IT Projects. http://www.ssc.govt.nz/publications-and-resources/1066/all-pages.
State Services Commission. (2007). Guidelines for preparing E-government business cases. http://www.e.govt.nz/plone/archive/policy/governance/business-case-07.1.html.
Hart, H. L. A., & Honoré, T. (1985). Causation in the law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (trans: Macquarrie, J., & Robinson, E.). New York: Harper.
Heidegger, M. ([1954]2010). The question concerning technology. In C. Hanks (Ed.), Technology and values: Essential readings (pp. 99–113). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Howell, B., Corbett, L., Mishra, V., & Ryan, L. (2004 Feb 10). Information and Communications Technologies in New Zealand: Nine Case Studies. Retrieved Nov 24, 2008 from http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/2492/05-fonterra.pdf.
Hume, D. (2004). An enquiry concerning human understanding: A critical edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hurt, H. T., & Hubbard, R. (1987). The systematic measurement of the perceived characteristics of information technologies: Microcomputers as innovations. Paper presented at the ICA annual conference, Montreal, Quebec.
Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of science and technologies studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Jongseok, L., Jeho, L., & Habin, L. (2003). Exploration and exploitation in the presence of network externalities. Management Science, 49(4), 553.
Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.
Kant, I. (1934). The critique of pure reason (trans: Meiklejohn, J.M.D.). London: J.M. Dent.
Karat, C.-M., Randolph, G. B., & Deborah, J. M. (2005). A business case approach to usability cost justification for the web. In Cost-justifying usability (2nd ed., pp. 103–141). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. American Economic Review, 75, 424–440.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1986). Technological adoption in the presence of network externalities. Journal of Political Economics, 94, 822–841.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1994). Systems competition and network effects. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 93–115.
Katz, R. (2004). Managing technological innovation in organization. In R. Katz (Ed.), The human side of managing technological innovation: A collection of readings (2nd ed., pp. 685–700). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
King, C. A., & Sapnas, K. G. (2007). Building a business case for the advanced practice registered nurse. Perioperative Nursing Clinics, 2(1), 75–79.
Kinnunen, J. (1996). Gabriel Tarde as a founding father of innovation diffusion research. Acta Sociologica, 39(4), 431–442.
Kwon, T. H., & Zmud, R. W. (1987). Unifying the fragmented models information systems implementation. In R. J. Boland Jr. & R. J. Hirschheim (Eds.), Critical issues in information systems research (pp. 227–251). New York: Wiley.
Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 461–491.
Larsen, M. E., & Myers, M. D. (1999). When success turns into failure: A package-driven business process re-engineering project in the financial services industry. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 8, 395–417.
Latour, B. (2004). The social as association. In N. Gane (Ed.), The future of social theory (pp. 77–90). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Menzel, H. (1963). Mass media and personal influence. New York: Basic Books.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1949). Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action. In W. Schramm (Ed.), Mass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Leifer, R., O’Connor, G. C., & Rice, M. P. (2004). Implementing radical innovation in mature firms. In R. Katz (Ed.), The human side of managing technological innovation: A collection of readings (2nd ed., pp. 464–477). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1985). Experts as negative opinion leaders in the diffusion of a technological innovation. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 914–926.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1988). Implementation and mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17(5), 1–17.
Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Management Science, 34, 1252–1265.
Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (n.d.). Network externalities (effects). Retrieved August 1 2008 from http://www.utdallas.edu/∼liebowit/palgrave/network.html.
Llewelyn, S. (2003). What counts as “theory” in qualitative management and accounting research? Introducing five levels of theorizing. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(4), 662–708.
Luftman, J., & Koeller, C. T. (2003). Assessing the value of IT. In J. N. Luftman (Ed.), Competing in the information age: Align in the sand (2nd ed., pp. 77–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2006). System as difference. Organization, 13(1), 37–57.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (1999). The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Mahajan, V., & Peterson, R. A. (1985). Models for innovation diffusion. London: Sage Publications.
Maklan, S., Knox, S., & Ryals, L. (2005). Using real options to help build the business case for CRM investment. Long Range Planning, 38(4), 393–410.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1973). Karl Marx: On society and social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McLaughlin, J. (2004). Winning project approval: Writing a convincing business case for project funding. Journal of Facilities Management, 2(4), 330–337.
Meyer, A. D., & Goes, J. B. (1988). Organizational assimilation of innovations: A multilevel contextual analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 897–923.
Meyers, P. W., Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (1999). Implementation of industrial process innovations: Factors, effects, and marketing implications. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(3), 295–311.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorêt, A. (1976). The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 21, 246–275.
Mohr, L. B. (1987). Innovation theory. In J. M. Pennings & A. Buitendam (Eds.), New technology as organizational innovation. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Moir, L., Kennerley, M., & Ferguson, D. (2007). Measuring the business case: Linking stakeholder and shareholder value. Corporate Governance, 7(4), 388–400.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
More, T. (2003). Utopia. London: Penguin.
O’Leary, D. E. (2000). Enterprise resource planning systems: Systems, life cycle, electronic commerce, and risk. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ogburn, W. F. (2007). Social changes in 1931. Evanston, IL: Adams Press.
Ogburn, W. F. (Ed.). (1964). On culture and social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Olavson, T., & Fry, C. (2006). Understanding the dynamics of value-driven variety management. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(1), 63.
Ormerod, P. (2005). Why most things fail: Evolution, extinction and economics. London: Faber and Faber Limited.
Passmore, J. (1962). Explanation in everyday life, in science and in history. History and Theory, 2, 105–123.
Pennings, J. M., & Buitendam, A. (Eds.). (1987). New technology as organizational innovation: The development and diffusion of microelectonics. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Perry, C., Alizadeb, Y., & Riege, A. M. (1997 September). Qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research. Paper presented at the annual conference of the small enterprise association of Australia and New Zealand, Coffs Harbour (pp. 21–23).
Polak, F. L. (1973). The image of the future. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Riege, A. M. (2003). Validity and realiability tests in case study: A literature review with “hands-on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 75–86.
Roberts, E. B. (2007). Managing invention and innovation. Research-Technology Management, 50(1), 35–54.
Roberts, S., & Daker, I. (2004). Using information and innovation to reduce costs and enable better solutions. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 6(3), 227–236.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. ([1962]2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press/Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15–24.
Salzmann, O., Ionescu-somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27–36.
SAP and Deloitte Sued by FoxMeyer. (Aug 27 1998). The New York Times. Retrieved Feb 17, 2007 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res = 9A05E7D7123CF934A1575BC0A96E958260.
Scarre, G. (1998). Mill on induction and scientific method. In J. Skorupski (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Mill (pp. 112–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seidel, J. V. (1998). Qualitative data analysis. Retrieved Dec 1 2005 from www.qualisresearch.com.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text, and interactions (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Silverman, D. (Ed.). (1997). Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice. London: Sage.
Siu, A. L., Spragens, L. H., Inouye, S. K., Morrison, R. S., & Leff, B. (2009). The ironic business case for chronic care in the acute care setting. Health Affairs, 28(1), 113.
Smaling, A. (1987). Methodological objectivity and qualitative research.. the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Smith, A. ([1776] 2009). The wealth of nations: Book I–III, complete and unabridged. New York: Classic House Books.
Smith, M. L. (2006). Overcoming theory-practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research. Information and Organization, 16, 191–211.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinhart & Winston.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stein, T. (Aug 31 1998). SAP sued over R/3. InformationWeek.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Surry, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 2(1), 24–36.
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. London: Penguine Books Ltd.
Tarde, G. (1903). The Laws of Imitation (trans: Parsons, E.C.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thull, J. (2005). The prime solution. Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing.
Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Bantam Books.
Tönnies, F. (2001). Tönnies: Community and civil society (trans: Hollis, M.). Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleishcher, M. (1990). The process of technological innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29, 28–45.
Trompenaars, F., & Prud’homme, P. (2004). Managing change across corporate cultures. Chichester: Capstone.
Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2007). The business case for regulation of corporate social responsibility and accountability. Accounting Forum, 31(4), 332–353.
Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks, 18, 69–89.
Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.
Waterson, P. (2005). Sociotechnical design of work systems. In J. R. Wilson & E. N. Corlett (Eds.), Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology (3rd ed., pp. 769–792). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Weber, R. (2003). Editor’s comments: Theoretically speaking. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), iii–xii.
Weber, R. (2004). The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: A personal view. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii–xii.
Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297–326.
Wheeler, D., & Sillanpaa, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 201–210.
Willard, R. G. (2005). Drivers of corporate commitment to sustainability and inhibiters to overcome: The importance of a compelling business case.: Unpublished PhD, University of Toronto (Canada), Canada.
Williams, M. D., Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., & Schwartz, A. (2009). Contemporary trends and issues in IT adoption and diffusion research. Journal of Information Technology, 24(1), 1–10.
Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405–431.
Yano, E. M., Goldzweig, C., Canelo, I., & Washington, D. L. (2006). Diffusion of innovation in women’s health care delivery: The department of veterans affairs’ adoption of women’s health clinics. Women’s Health Issues, 16(5), 226–235.
Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.
Zmud, R. W. (1984). An examination of “push-pull” theory applied to process innovation in knowledge work. Management Science, 30, 727–738.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cua, F.C. (2012). Applying “Business Case” Construct Using the “Diffusion of Innovations” Theory Framework: Empirical Case Study in the Higher Education. In: Dwivedi, Y., Wade, M., Schneberger, S. (eds) Information Systems Theory. Integrated Series in Information Systems, vol 28. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-6107-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-6108-2
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)