An Analysis of Intranet Infusion Levels

Abstract

When Internet technology is used within the bounds of an organization, the network is referred to as an intranet. Using intranets to connect heterogeneous systems enables information sharing between existing information systems without major changes to existing applications. This study examined organizational, contextual, and technical variables that are associated with intranet infusion in organizations. A survey was mailed to 1,000 senior-level computer executives in the United States. Six independent variables were examined using an ordered probit analysis to explain the likelihood of occurrence for different levels of intranet infusion. Results indicate that top management support, IT infrastructure, and competition positively influence high levels of intranet infusion. Organizational size is negatively associated with high levels of intranet infusion. Implications and areas for further research are discussed.

Theorizing HR Intranets

“…For public companies, the environment is less competitive but most of them are now players in an international environment. This is consistent with Eder et al (2000) survey showing that competition is correlated with Intranet development.…”

“…Such pre-involvement is essential because it conditions the level of Intranet technological infusion. The survey also shows that HR departments carrying these projects act as change agents and, for this reason, promotes the use of optimal applications diffused by Fundamental assumptions that we propose to test, are based on Eder et al (2000), Lay and Mahapatra (1998), Lepack and Snell (1998). We propose that perceived or noticed Intranet performances reinforce the degree of HR Intranet infusion technological.…”

Factors Influencing the Infusion of Information Systems: A Literature Review

“…Formalization of structure indicated positive significant (Winston and Dologite, 1999) and non-significant (Pao-Long and Lung, 2002) relationships from two previous studies. Organizational size showed negative significant (Eder et al, 2000) and non-significant (Eder and Igbaria, 2001) results from prior studies (See Table 3). Notes: +1 (significant): means statistically positive significant relationship at p< .05 in quantitative studies or strong evidence to support the relationship in qualitative studies.…”

“…The literature review revealed common theoretical lenses in the IS infusion research at the individual, group and organizational levels. Most of the identified studies in this review examined individual IS infusion and a few studies studied organizational IS infusion (Cooper and Zmud, 1990;Eder and Igbaria, 2001;Eder et al, 2000;Lee, Han and Park, 2000;Winston and Dologite, 1999;Zmud and Apple, 1992). All the organizational level studies of IS infusion do not specify the underlying theories except Ramamurthy et al 2008, who used diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory.…”

“…Some studies used the variable, infusion at an individual level (Fadel, 2012;Hsieh and Wang, 2007;Kim and Gupta, 2014;Maas et al, 2014;McKnight et al, 2011;Sundaram et al, 2007) and organizational level (Cooper and Zmud, 1990;Eder and Igbaria, 2001;Eder et al, 2000;Lee et al, 2000;Ramamurthy et al, 2008;Winston and Dologite, 1999). Other studies examined distinct types of infusion behaviors including extended use, integrative use, emergent use, deep structure use, exploratory use, trying to innovate, innovate with IT, innovative use, adaptive system use, intention to explore, and embeddedness of IS.…”