Organizational Characteristics, Modes of Internet Adoption and Their Impact

Abstract

The Internet can be used for different purposes ranging from simple Internet presence to using it for business transformation. This study examines two modes of Internet adoption-basic and advanced. Questionnaires were sent to 566 firms in Singapore and 159 usable responses were received. Results suggested that firms operating in an advanced adoption mode invest more in Internet technology, had larger firm size, proactive business strategy and significantly greater perceived Internet contributions to competitive advantage than did those operating in a basic adoption mode. No significant differences were found between the two adoption modes in terms of industry sector and hierarchical level of respondents. The results provide some useful information on the relationships between adoption modes and organizational characteristics as well as the impact of adoption modes on the five dimensions of competitive advantage (namely, differentiation, cost, innovation, growth, and alliance). Implications of the results are discussed.

An explanatory model of the organizational factors that explain the adoption of E-business

“…Firms that have the support of management usually maintain a high budget in ICTs, which means they are more likely to adopt e-business (Hong & Zhu, 2006). Likewise, Teo (2007) finds that those firms investing the most in ICTs have progressed more in the use of e-business tools, with those firms that have received less backing from management, and therefore a smaller budget for investing in new technologies, remaining at a lower or more basic level.…”

“…This means top managers should have the authority to influence other members of the organisation, and their support can be used to overcome any resistance to change within the organisation itself. Along these same lines, according to Teo (2007), if senior management is willing to accept changes in the organisation, to adopt unfamiliar technologies and invest resources in new applications, then the firm may be more readily disposed to adopt technological innovations. In fact, authors such as Beatty, Shim and Jones (2001) and Hatten (2015) contend that the innovation adoption process will stall without management support.…”

“…In other matters, some studies, such as the ones by Lind and Zmud (1991), Jarvenpaa and Ives (1991) and Teo (2007), have analysed whether there is any correspondence between the relationship that top management has with technical managers and the adoption of technologies. Lind and Zmud (1991) report that the closer the relations are between management and technical staff, the higher the level of implementation of a technological innovation, while Jarvenpaa and Ives (1991) report that a closer relationship between top managers and systems managers favours the actual use of systems.…”

“…The larger the firm, the greater the complexity, and the greater the need to use technologies; this means that larger firms will adopt more technologies than small ones. Likewise, Thong (1999) and Teo (2007) contend that when a firm grows, its coordination tasks become very complicated, as do its information requirements, with larger firms therefore having a greater potential for using more technologies.…”

Diffusion of innovation theory: Beyond decision stage

“…Some researchers (Sadowski et al, 2002;Beveren and Thomson, 2002;Scupola, 2003;Zhu et al, 2003;Gibbs and Kraemer, 2004) come up with the empirical evidence and found competitive pressure as a powerful driver of IT innovation adoption. Contrary to that Teo (2007) did not found competitive pressure as a significant factor for the adoption of innovation. This difference may be the result of different kind of IT adoption.…”