Yet Another Adoption Model

Reference: Dong, L., Neufeld, D.J., and Higgins, C. (2008). Testing Klein and Sorra's innovation implementation model: An empirical examination, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 25(4), 237-255.

Despite its title, this article is about the adoption of new information systems, not innovation (except to the extent that new systems can be called innovation). I had previously been unaware of Klein and Sorra’s model (Klein, K.J., Sorra, J.S., 1996, Academy of Management Review), which on its face seems similar to, but not as robust as the UTAUT (Venkatesh et al, 2003, MISQ). The main model finds “implementation effectiveness” to be dependent on “user affective commitment” and “implementation climate.” Implementation climate is, in turn, composed of skills, incentives, and the absence of obstacles. User affective commitment is dependent only on “innovation-values fit.”

To motivate their study, the authors cite the oft-reported research that documents how few companies complete their implementations on time, within budget, and with the promised features and functions. Unfortunately, their model does not address many of the common causes of these failures, such as poor estimates of development costs and time, lack of communication between developers and users, inexperience with the technologies employed, etc. Furthermore, their dependent variable, termed implementation effectiveness, is really just a measure of intention to adopt, as it includes five items that address only the following only the following components: 1) Avoidance, “If I can avoid using the system, I do”; and 2) Endorsement, “I think the system is a waste of time and money for our organization (reverse coded)”.

Contributions of the study include scales to measure implementation climate (5 components, 17 items), innovation values fit (3 components, 13 items), skills (6 items), incentives (2 items), absence of obstacles (3 items), and commitment (4 items). Some of these scales are adaptations from other sources. It is worth noting that the variable “innovation values fit” is similar to the construct of “perceived usefulness” in the TAM and TAM2 models, and to elements of “performance expectancy” and “effort expectancy” in the UTAUT model. It’s components are Fit re Quality, such as “The system maintains data I need to carry out my task,” Fit re Locatibility, such as “The system helps me locate corporate or department data very easily,” and Fit re Flexibility and Cooperation, such as “The system supports the repetitive and predictable work processes.”

The study concludes that “when implementation climate is strong and innovation-values fit is present, an implementation was more likely to succeed than when either climate or fit were weak”.