Information & Management 43 (2006) 975985 www.elsevier.

com/locate/im

Organizational size and IT innovation adoption: A meta-analysis

Gwanhoo Lee a,*, Weidong Xia b
b

Kogod School of Business, American University, Washington, DC, USA Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Received 8 September 2005; received in revised form 31 August 2006; accepted 17 September 2006 Available online 13 November 2006

Abstract Organizational size has long been considered to be an important predictor of IT innovation adoption. However, empirical results on the relationship between them have been disturbingly mixed and inconsistent. Through a meta-analysis of 54 correlations derived from 21 empirical studies, we attempted to explain and resolve these mixed results by synthesizing across studies the effects of organizational size on IT innovation adoption and by examining the effects of six moderators on the relationship. The results suggested that, although a positive relationship generally existed between them, the relationship was moderated by ve variables: type of IT innovation, type of organization, stage of adoption, scope of size, and type of size measure. This suggested that the mixed empirical results from previous studies can be explained by a lack of consideration of moderators. # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: IT innovation adoption; Organizational size; IS department size; Meta-analysis; Moderating effect

1. Introduction IT innovation has profound impacts on organizations. As such, much research has been done to understand organizational factors that inuence it [20,28,66,70]. In particular, organizational size has been studied as a determinant of IT innovation adoption [25,39]. IT innovation was dened as administrative or operational idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an organizational unit and whose underlying basis was IT [41]. IT innovation adoption is an on-going organizational process rather than an isolated event [78]. As such, it normally has multiple stages [12]. Organizational size has been dened as the organizations resources, transaction volumes, or workforce size [37]. It is

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 202 885 1991; fax: +1 202 885 1992. E-mail address: glee@american.edu (G. Lee). 0378-7206/$ see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.09.003

therefore a surrogate for total and slack resources that represent the organizations economies of scales [44,45]. Despite past research, a consistent relationship between organizational size and IT innovation adoption has not been established. Researchers have found positive, negative, and non-signicant effects [19,67]. Two important factors contribute to the mixed and inconsistent ndings. First, studies often failed to control important contextual variables that might inuence the direction and strength of the effect: a uniform relationship may not exist between organizational size and IT innovation adoption and therefore, studies may produce misleading conclusions if they use organizational size without taking into consideration important contextual variables. Second, organizational size has been operationalized in various ways and they capture different aspects/dimensions of it. We intended to shed light on the mixed and inconsistent ndings through a meta-analysis of past empirical studies. Meta-analysis overcomes inherent

976

G. Lee, W. Xia / Information & Management 43 (2006) 975985

limitations and biases that may be present in individual studies and discovers patterns of relatively invariant relations and causalities. It also helps identify moderators that explain and resolve mixed empirical ndings. Our objectives were therefore to examine:  the cumulative, aggregate effect of organizational size on IT innovation adoption;  the moderating effects of contextual variables on the relationship;  the moderating effect of size measures on the relationship. 2. Theoretical background 2.1. IT innovation adoption IT innovations enable organizations to improve productivity and quality and facilitate interorganizational collaboration and transactions [69]. IT innovations are adopted as organizational responses to change in internal and external environments, or as preemptive actions to inuence the environments. IT innovation adoption has been studied from many theoretical perspectives, including Rogers diffusion of innovation theory [26], absorptive capacity [6], organizational learning [21], an evolutionary perspective [50,51], pushpull theory [61], the tri-core model [27,68], network externality [2,3,30], institutional theory [8,46], power perspective [32], and resource dependence theory [33]. These theoretical perspectives have provided complementary or alternative views on organizational adoption of IT innovations. Commonly studied determinants of IT innovation adoption include environmental, organizational, and IS factors, as well as innovation characteristics. Environmental factors, in turn, include environmental uncertainty, industry sector, and industry competitiveness [7,10,56]. Organizational factors include rm size, top management support, centralization, formalization, and the presence of a champion [59,62]. IS factors include IS department size, organizations technology experience, IS investment, IS infrastructure, and the role of IT in the organization [29,81]. Finally, innovation characteristics include relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, and cost [11,57]. 2.2. Organizational size and IT innovation adoption Our review of past IT innovation adoption research suggested that organizational size, including both the

rm and IT department size, was one of the most commonly studied determinants of IT innovation adoption. Organizational size is considered important for its structure and process: larger organizations tend to be associated with greater differentiation [5], greater formalization [58], more decentralized managerial decision-making authority [31], greater task specialization [4], and more complex forms of communications [34]. These characteristics can profoundly inuence the processes in which organizations adopt innovation. Many past studies on organizational innovation suggest that organizational size should positively affect organizations capability to adopt innovations, partly because large organizations have more complex and diverse facilities that contribute to the adoption [47,73]. Small businesses, on the other hand, suffer from resource poverty [72] with tight IT budgets, a lack of inhouse IS personnel and expertise, and short-range management perspectives, resulting in more barriers to IT innovation adoption. For example, a study of executive information systems (EIS) suggested that large organizations are more likely to adopt them [64]. However, the Schumpeterian hypothesis originally stated that organizational size is negatively associated with innovativeness [74]. Small organizations can be more innovative because they have greater exibility/ adaptability. Innovation often requires close collaboration and coordination [43]. This can be achieved more easily in small organizations [35]. In addition to the overall rm size, IS department size has been used as an important determinant of IT innovation adoption; large IS departments tend to have more technical resources and skills [23]. IS department size represents IS resources, professionalism, and capabilities that directly affect IT innovation adoption. 2.3. Moderators of the sizeadoption relationship Previous meta-analysis studies of organizational innovation suggested that different research contexts may inuence the relationships between organizational factors and innovation adoption [9,14]. By taking into consideration important moderators, research efforts may explain the mixed empirical ndings. We therefore examined six moderators. 2.3.1. Type of innovation As suggested by Downs [17], researchers have distinguished product from process innovations [38,75]. We distinguished IT product innovations from IT process innovations. The former refer to new IT products or services that are internally developed or

G. Lee, W. Xia / Information & Management 43 (2006) 975985

977

externally purchased to meet user needs. These do not necessarily require changes in IT or business processes. Examples include computers and relational database software [15,79]. In contrast, the latter refer to new practices of IT or IT-enabled business processes that organizations use to generate products and/or deliver services. They do not necessarily require development or purchase of new IT products or services. Examples include object-oriented programming and software development practices such as those proposed in the capability maturity model (CMM) [82]. While the distinction between IT product and process innovation is useful, some IT innovations cannot be classied into one type because they include both components. For example, in Fuller and Swansons study, information centers were considered as both. In our meta-analysis, we categorized IT innovations with both product and process innovation elements as mixed types. 2.3.2. Industry sector The need for adopting IT innovations may vary across industry sectors due to their levels of inherent information intensity [55]. Furthermore, there are considerable differences in the underlying dimensions of technology and structure across industry sectors [42]. Therefore, organizational size can signicantly affect IT innovation adoption in one sector while it has a weaker effect on another one. Pavitt et al. [49] found that the sizeadoption relationship was not uniform across different industries. In our meta-analysis, we examine industry sector, manufacturing versus service, as a moderator that could have inuenced the relationship. 2.3.3. Type of organization Different types of organizations have different incentives for and ways of adoption [52,65]. In particular, non-for-prot organizations differ from for-prot organizations in terms of environmental demands, structural characteristics, managerial roles, and decision-making processes. With an incentive to increase market competitiveness, large for-prot organizations may utilize their resources for this purpose. Some studies have suggested that the correlation between organizational size and innovation adoption was lower for non-for-prot organizations [1,16]. In our meta-analysis, we incorporated type of organization, non-for-prot or for-prot, as a moderator. 2.3.4. Stage of adoption Cooper and Zmud [13] proposed six distinct stages in the adoption and diffusion of IT innovation: initiation,

adoption, adaptation, acceptance, routinization, and infusion. Such stages have been identied as an important factor and the direction and strength of the sizeadoption relationship may differ across different stages [54]. An increase in size appears to have a positive effect on the adoption and implementation stages because of the increased availability of resources, capabilities, and knowledge. However, post-adoption stages may depend more on such factors as user perception of the innovation, user participation in the innovation process, and overall IS maturity of the organization than on the scale of resources and capabilities. Therefore, organizational size appears to have different effects on different adoption stages [18,80]. As such, our metaanalysis examined stage of adoption, adoption or postadoption, as a moderator. 2.3.5. Scope of size Whereas rm size is a surrogate variable of an organizations overall resources and assets, IS department size taps into IT-specic resources and capabilities that directly affect IT innovation adoption [60]. Therefore, IS department size may be a better predictor of IT innovation adoption than rm size. Our metaanalysis examined the scope of size, rm or IS department size, as a moderator. 2.3.6. Type of size measure Size measures tap into different aspects of organizational size, such as the resources that an organization possesses (e.g., asset measures), transaction volumes (e.g., sales volume or units produced), or workforce/ personnel size (e.g., number of employees) [24]. Use of different size measures can lead to different results. Thus discussions of organizational size and IT innovation adoption may not be appropriate unless the type of size measure is specied. We therefore examined type of size measure, personnel or nonpersonnel, as a moderator. 3. Research method 3.1. Study selection We used ABI/INFORM to search for relevant research in major IS and management journals published in the time period from 1980 to 2004. The keywords used in the search included combinations of innovation, information technology, information systems, adoption, diffusion, implementation, post-implementation, post-adoption, infusion, routinization, and

978

G. Lee, W. Xia / Information & Management 43 (2006) 975985

usage. The criteria for selecting studies in our metaanalysis were: (1) the focus was on IT innovation, not other types; (2) the level of analysis was organization, not individual or industry; (3) the dependent variables included adoption, implementation, diffusion, infusion, and usage; (4) the study reported zero-order correlation estimates for relationships between organizational size variables and innovation adoption variables. We obtained 54 correlations of the sizeIT innovation adoption relationship, derived from 21 journal publications. Multiple correlations from a single study were included only if each correlation represented a distinct combination of size and adoption variables. Table 1 shows the distribution of studies by journal type and time period. This indicated that research examining the relationship between organizational size and IT innovation adoption had been steadily increasing since 1980. The time period from 2000 to 2004 thus represented a relatively strong portion of the total research sample. In terms of journal type, most studies were published in IS journals. 3.2. Coding of the studies We independently coded moderators of each study. Each variable was coded as one of its pre-dened dichotomous categories. When a combination of the categories for a given moderator was used, the variable was coded as mixed. When information about a moderator was not available, the variable was coded as N/A (not available). Using this scheme, type of innovation was coded as IT product, IT process, or mixed; industry sector was coded as manufacturing, service, or mixed; type of organization was coded as for-prot, non-for-prot, or mixed; stage of adoption was coded as adoption,
Table 1 Distribution of empirical studies included in the meta-analysis Journal type Time period 19801989 IS journals Interdisciplinary journals Management journals Total 2 2 0 4 19901999 5 3 2 10 20002004 3 3 1 7 10 8 3 21 Total

post-adoption or mixed; scope of size was coded as rm or IS department; type of size measure was coded as personnel, non-personnel, or mixed. Adoption stage included decision, diffusion, and implementation, whereas post-adoption stage included infusion, routinization, and usage. Personnel size referred to the number of employees of the organization, and nonpersonnel size was used for annual sales, size of assets, or capacity. After independently completing the coding, our results were compared. The inter-rater reliability for the initial codes was 89.7%, indicating a high level of agreement between us. All differences in the initial coding were resolved by discussion. 3.3. Meta-analysis procedure The rst step of our meta-analysis procedure was to accumulate correlation coefcients across all studies. Next, a mean correlation on the sizeadoption relationship, weighted by sample size, was calculated. Then, an observed variance among correlations and the variance due to sampling error were obtained. A 95% condence interval for the mean correlation was computed based on the mean correlation, the number of the correlations, and the variance due to sampling error [36]. If a condence interval did not include zero, the sizeadoption relationship was considered to be statistically signicant. In contrast, if the condence interval included zero, the mean correlation was not considered to be statistically different from zero, thus indicating no signicant effect of size on adoption. To determine whether a testing of moderating effects was warranted, the percentage of observed variance explained by sampling error was computed. According to Peters et al. [53], moderators should be introduced if sampling error accounts for less than 60% of the observed variance. If the sampling error analysis indicated the need for introducing moderators for the sizeadoption relationship, the effects of the moderators were tested. The total research sample was divided into subgroups based on the code of a given moderator. Then, the same meta-analysis procedure used for the total sample was used to estimate a weighted mean correlation, an observed variance, a sampling error variance, and a 95% condence interval for each subgroup. A t-approximation test of the difference between the mean correlations of a pair of subgroups for a given moderator was conducted [76]. A signicant t-approximation value (t0 -value) indicated a signicant moderating effect.

G. Lee, W. Xia / Information & Management 43 (2006) 975985 Table 2 Coding and correlation results for individual studies Study DeLone [15] Eder and Igbaria [19] Fichman [20] Innovation Computer Intranet OO programming Type of innovation PD PD PC Industry sector MFG Mixed Mixed N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SVC SVC SVC SVC Mixed Mixed Mixed Computer system PD SVC SVC SVC SVC SVC SVC SVC SVC SVC Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed SVC Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed MFG MFG MFG SVC Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed SVC Type of organization FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP Mixed Mixed Mixed NFP NFP NFP NFP NFP NFP NFP NFP FP Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed FP Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP FP Stage of adoption ADPT ADPT POST POST ADPT Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed POST POST POST POST POST POST POST POST POST POST POST POST POST POST POST ADPT POST POST POST POST ADPT ADPT ADPT ADPT ADPT POST POST POST ADPT ADPT ADPT ADPT POST ADPT ADPT Scope of size FIRM FIRM FIRM IS IS IS IS IS FIRM IS FIRM FIRM FIRM IS FIRM FIRM IS FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM IS IS FIRM IS FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM IS FIRM FIRM FIRM FIRM Size measure P P P Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed P Mixed P P P P P P P NP NP NP NP NP NP NP P P P P P P NP P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Sample size 55 281 281 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 46 46 46 46 26 25 27 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 137 240 240 240 240 70 140 108 43 42 34 34 34 95 222 222 166 120 166 137

979

Correlation 0.056 0.030 0.070 0.330 0.280 0.360 0.390 0.440 0.150 0.390 0.056 0.151 0.036 0.010 0.070 0.380 0.260 0.090 0.160 0.020 0.240 0.160 0.230 0.040 0.050 0.266 0.047 0.034 0.060 0.123 0.570 0.320 0.310 0.280 0.330 0.280 0.020 0.310 0.190 0.157 0.177 0.364 0.472 0.272 0.310

RDB CASE Fichman and Kemerer [21] Fletcher et al. [22] OO programming DB marketing

PD Mixed PC PC

Fuller and Swanson [23] Gremillion [25]

Information centers

Mixed

Liberatore and Breem [39] Liberatore and PollackJohnson [40] Nystrom et al. [48] Rai [59] Rai and Bajwa [60] Raymond [63]

Digital imaging technology Project management software

PD PD

Imaging technology CASE (front-end) CASE (back-end) EIS Information systems

PD Mixed Mixed PD PD

Seyal and Rahman [67] Teo et al. [69] Thong [71] Thong and Yap [72] Wang and Cheung [77]

E-commerce Financial EDI Information systems IT E-business

Mixed Mixed PD PD Mixed

980 Table 2 (Continued ) Study Yap [79] Zmud [81] Innovation Computer

G. Lee, W. Xia / Information & Management 43 (2006) 975985

Type of innovation PD PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC

Industry sector SVC Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed

Type of organization FP Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed

Stage of adoption ADPT ADPT ADPT ADPT ADPT ADPT ADPT POST POST

Scope of size FIRM IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS

Size measure NP P P P P P P P P

Sample size 638 49 49 49 49 49 49 47 47

Correlation 0.420 0.300 0.230 0.110 0.250 0.300 0.220 0.320 0.150

Software practices

Zmud [82]

Software practices

Note: type of innovation: PD (product), PC (process); industry sector: MFG (manufacturing), SVC (service); type of organization: FP (for-prot), NFP (non-for-prot); stage of adoption: ADPT (decision/diffusion/implementation), POST (infusion/routinization/usage); scope of size: FIRM (rm), IS (IS department); type of size measure: P (personnel), NP (non-personnel).

4. Results 4.1. Coding and correlation results for individual studies Table 2 shows focal IT innovations, coding of moderators, sample size, and correlations of the size adoption relationship for the individual studies in our sample. A variety of IT innovations were studied, ranging from IT product innovations to IT process innovations and IT mixed innovations. IT product innovations were examined in more studies (11) than IT mixed innovations (5) and IT process innovations (4). More studies examined a combination of manufacturing and service sectors (10) than either service sector (7) or manufacturing sector (2). More studies investigated forprot organizations (14) than non-for-prot organizations (6). Adoption stage was more often studied (11) than post-adoption stage (6). Three studies examined both adoption stage and post-adoption stage. A majority of studies investigated rm size (12), four studies examined IS department size and ve studies examined both rm size and IT department size. Personnel size measure (16) was used more frequently than nonpersonnel size measure (2). Three studies used both personnel and non-personnel size measures. Sample size ranged from 25 to 638 across studies with a median sample size of 116. Correlations of the sizeadoption relationship ranged from 0.300 to 0.570: 41 correlations were positive and 13 correlations were negative, conrming mixed, inconsistent effects. 4.2. Sizeadoption relationship for the total sample Using the overall sample and 54 correlations, we analyzed a cumulative correlation of the size

adoption relationship. Results are shown in Table 3. The cumulative sample size of all studies was 9419. The mean correlation was 0.2265 and the observed variance was 0.0370. The variance due to sampling error was 0.0052. The 95% condence interval for the mean correlation did not include zero (0.2073, 0.2457). Therefore, the analysis results of the cumulative correlations across studies revealed a signicant, positive relationship between organizational size and IT innovation adoption. However, the observed variance explained by sampling error was only 14%. With the major portion of the observed variance unexplained, this suggested that a test of moderators on the sizeadoption relationship was warranted. 4.3. Moderating effects We conducted further meta-analyses for all subgroups based on the coding schemes used for each of the six moderators. For each subgroup, Table 4 shows the number of correlations, sample size, mean correlation, observed variance, variance due to sampling error, percentage of the observed variance explained by sampling error, and 95% condence interval of the correlation. Subgroups showed a wide range of number
Table 3 Meta-analysis results for the total sample Number of correlations Sample size Mean correlation Observed variance Sampling error variance Explained variance (%) 95% condence interval 54 9419 0.2265 0.0370 0.0052 14 (0.2073, 0.2457)

G. Lee, W. Xia / Information & Management 43 (2006) 975985 Table 4 Meta-analysis results for subgroups by moderators Subgroup by moderator Type of innovation Product Process Mixed Industry sector Manufacturing Service Type of organization For-prot Non-for-prot Stage of adoption Adoption Post-adoption Scope of size Firm IS organization No. of correlations 27 17 10 4 17 27 8 22 27 34 20 Sample size 4197 3612 1610 157 1789 7132 528 3424 2955 4798 4621 4546 1170 Mean correlations 0.1714 0.2633 0.2874 0.1429 0.1594 0.2802 0.0063 0.2277 0.1021 0.1297 0.3269 0.1094 0.2575 Observed variance 0.0495 0.0202 0.0273 0.0185 0.0720 0.0271 0.0217 0.0377 0.0335 0.0404 0.0136 0.0297 0.0590 Sampling error variance 0.0061 0.0041 0.0053 0.0185 0.0091 0.0032 0.0154 0.0058 0.0090 0.0069 0.0035 0.0082 0.0068 Explained variance (%) 12 20 19 100 13 12 71 15 27 17 25 28 11

981

95% condence interval (0.1420, 0.2009) (0.2328, 0.2937) (0.2424, 0.3323) (0.0096, 0.2762) (0.1140, 0.2048) (0.2587, 0.3016) (0.0922, 0.0797) (0.1958, 0.2596) (0.0662, 0.1379) (0.1018, 0.1576) (0.3011, 0.3527) (0.0805, 0.1382) (0.2038, 0.3112)

Type of size measure Personnel 38 Non-personnel 9

of correlations (438), sample size (1574798), and mean correlation (0.0063 to 0.3269). Furthermore, results indicated that the introduction of moderators signicantly increased the percentage of observed variance explained by sampling error for the manufacturing sector subgroup and for the non-for-prot organization subgroup. However, the other subgroups still showed an inadequate percentage of the observed variance explained by sampling error. To assess the signicance of the effects of the moderator variables, we used t-approximation tests that examine the differences in mean correlations between subgroups of the corresponding moderator. Results are shown in Table 5. For all three subgroups categorized by type of IT innovation, the 95% condence intervals for the mean correlation were positive and did not include zero, suggesting a positive relationship between organizational size and IT innovation adoption for all three groups. As indicated by signicant t0 -values, correlations for the IT process innovation subgroup and the IT mixed innovation subgroup were signicantly higher than that for the IT product innovation subgroup. We found no signicant difference in the mean correlations between the IT process innovation subgroup and the IT mixed innovation subgroup. These results indicated that the strength of the sizeadoption relationship differed for different types of IT innovation.

The two subgroups by industry sector showed positive sizeadoption relationships as their 95% condence intervals were positive and did not include zero. Furthermore, although the mean correlation of the sizeadoption relationship for the service sector was slightly higher than that for the manufacturing sector, the difference was not statistically signicant. This indicated that industry sector was not a signicant moderator of the sizeadoption relationship. The for-prot organization subgroup showed a signicant positive sizeadoption relationship, whereas the non-for-prot organization subgroup showed a nonsignicant one. We found a signicant difference in the mean correlations between the for-prot organization subgroup and the non-for-prot organization subgroup. These results suggested that the type of organization moderated the direction and strength of the relationship between organizational size and IT innovation adoption. The 95% condence intervals for both the adoption stage subgroup and the post-adoption stage subgroup were greater than zero, indicating signicant and positive effects. The mean correlation for the adoption stage subgroup was signicantly higher than that for the post-adoption subgroup. These results indicated that size was a more signicant predictor of IT innovation adoption in the early stages (e.g., adoption decision and implementation) of the innovation adoption lifecycle than in the later stages (e.g., infusion and usage).

982

G. Lee, W. Xia / Information & Management 43 (2006) 975985

Table 5 t-Approximation tests for moderating effects Moderator and subgroups Type of innovation Product vs. process Product vs. mixed Process vs. mixed Industry sector Manufacturing vs. service Type of organization For-prot vs. non-for-prot Stage of adoption Adoption vs. post-adoption Scope of size Firm size vs. IS department size Type of size measure Personnel vs. non-personnel
*

Result Product < process Product < mixed Not signicant Not signicant For-prot > non-for-prot Adoption > post-adoption Firm size < IS department size Personnel < non-personnel

t0 -Value 3.624** 3.861** 0.614 0.829 6.916** 5.790** 8.746** 1.949y

p < 0.05,

**

p < 0.01, yp < 0.1.

Both the rm size subgroup and the IS department size subgroup revealed positive 95% condence intervals. The mean correlation of the sizeadoption relationship for the IS department size subgroup was signicantly higher than that for the rm size subgroup. This result indicated that scope of size was an important moderator of the strength of the sizeIT innovation adoption relationship and that IS department size was a stronger predictor of IT innovation adoption than rm size. Finally, the 95% condence intervals for both the personnel size subgroup and the non-personnel size subgroup were positive and did not include zero, indicating signicant, positive sizeadoption relationships. The difference in the mean correlations between the personnel size subgroup and the non-personnel size subgroup was signicant only at the 0.1 signicance level. The results thus suggested that type of size measure was a marginal moderator of the sizeIT innovation adoption relationship and that non-personnel size measure was a marginally stronger predictor of IT innovation adoption than personnel size measure. 5. Discussion and conclusions 5.1. Limitations of the research Care must be taken in interpreting our ndings because of some limitations of our research. Some moderator subgroups included only a few correlations of the sizeadoption relationship. The statistical power to detect moderating effects for these subgroups was

relatively low. Therefore, non-signicant moderating effects found for those subgroups with a few correlations need to be accepted only tentatively. For example, the manufacturing sector subgroup included only four correlations and the non-personnel size subgroup included nine. Although we found an insignicant moderating effect of industry sector and only a marginally signicant moderating effect of type of size measure, it is therefore premature to draw denite conclusions. We excluded a number of past studies because they did not report zero-order correlation coefcients of the sizeadoption relationship. Also, some studies in our sample did not provide information about its industry sector. As a result, our ndings were based only on data available in our sample. 5.2. Implications for research and practice Our work has important implications for IT innovation adoption research. The synthesis of the cumulative correlations across empirical studies revealed that organizational size had a positive effect on IT innovation adoption: larger organizations generally adopt more IT innovations than do smaller organizations. We examined six moderators that would inuence the relationship between organizational size and IT innovation adoption. Type of innovation, type of organization, stage of innovation adoption, and scope of size were found to be signicant moderators of the sizeadoption relationship. Type of size measure was

G. Lee, W. Xia / Information & Management 43 (2006) 975985

983

found to be only a marginal moderator. More specically, the positive effect of organizational size on IT innovation adoption was stronger for IT process innovations, IT mixed innovations, for-prot organizations, adoption stages, IS department size, and nonpersonnel size measures. However, industry sector was not found to be a signicant moderator. Furthermore, it is worth noting that only the non-forprot organization subgroup showed a non-signicant effect while all other subgroups showed positive effects. This result indicated that organizational size may not be an advantage in adopting IT innovations for non-forprot organizations. In sum, our results suggest that the direction and strength of the relationship between organizational size and IT innovation adoption depends on type of innovation, type of adoption organization, adoption stage, scope of size measure, and type of size measure. This research also has important implications for practice. Managers should be aware that the effect of their organizations size on IT innovation adoption depends on the specic contexts under which the IT innovation is being adopted and on how size is measured. Managers need to strategize their approach to adopting an IT innovation based on various moderators specic to the innovation. Managers can use our results to predict the likelihood of the adoption of an IT innovation by analyzing moderators and by assessing the size of their organization. Importantly, there is no one-size-t-all relationship between organizational size and IT innovation adoption. In order to increase IT innovation adoption success, managers need to understand and effectively manage those important moderators before they make adoption decision. It is important to distinguish adoption decisions regarding IT process innovations from those for IT product innovations. While organizational size does not affect IT product innovations, managers must recognize the advantages and disadvantages of their size in the adoption of IT process innovation. Another important nding was that organizational size had different effects on IT innovation adoption, depending on the specic stages of the adoption process. While large organizations tend to have advantage in the early stages, they face critical challenges in the latter ones. As such, to achieve success, managers in large organizations should understand and effectively manage the later adoption stages. Managers should conduct benchmarking analyses with comparable samples based on both appropriate size measures and contextual variables in order to assess the effectiveness and performance of IT innovation

adoption. With this improved understanding, managers can assess desirable levels of managerial intervention and investment required for IT innovation to be adopted successfully. Acknowledgements This research was funded by research grants from the UPS (United Parcel Service) Foundation, Center for Information Technology and Global Economy in Kogod School of Business at American University, and the University of Minnesota. References
[1] M. Aiken, S.B. Bacharach, J.L. French, Organizational structure, work process, and proposal making in administrative bureaucracies, Academy of Management Journal 23, 1980, pp. 631652. [2] Y.A. Au, R.J. Kauffman, Should we wait? Network externalities, compatibility, and electronic billing adoption Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (2), 2001, pp. 4763. [3] M. Benaroch, R.J. Kauffman, Justifying electronic banking network expansion using real options analysis, MIS Quarterly 24 (2), 2000, pp. 197225. [4] P.M. Blau, A formal theory of differentiation in organizations, American Sociological Review 35, 1970, pp. 201218. [5] P.M. Blau, R. Shoenherr, The Structure of Orgnanizations, Basic Books, New York, NY, 1971. [6] A.C. Boynton, R.W. Zmud, G.C. Jacobs, The inuence of IT management practice on IT use in large organizations, MIS Quarterly 18 (3), 1994, pp. 299318. [7] S. Bretschneider, D. Wittmer, Organizational adoption of microcomputer technology: the role of sector, Information Systems Research 4 (1), 1993, pp. 88108. [8] E.A. Busch, S. Jarvenpaa, N. Tractinsky, W.H. Glick, External versus internal perspectives in determining a rms progressive use of information technology, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY, 1991. [9] C. Camison-Zornoza, R. Lapiedra-Alcami, A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size, Organization Studies 25 (3), 2004, pp. 331361. [10] P.Y.K. Chau, K.Y. Tam, Factors affecting the adoption of open systems: an exploratory study, MIS Quarterly 21 (1), 1997, pp. 124. [11] I. Chengalur-Smith, P. Duchessi, The initiation and adoption of clientserver technology in organizations, Information and Management 35 (2), 1999, pp. 7788. [12] R. Cooper, R. Zmud, Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach, Management Science 36 (2), 1990, pp. 123139. [13] R.B. Cooper, R.W. Zmud, Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach, Management Science 36 (2), 1990, pp. 123139. [14] F. Damanpour, Organizational size and innovation, Organization Studies 13 (3), 1992, pp. 375402. [15] W.H. DeLone, Firm size and the characteristics of computer use, MIS Quarterly 1981, pp. 6577. [16] R.D. Dewar, J.E. Dutton, The adoption of radical and incremental innovations, Management Science 32, 1986, pp. 14221433.

984

G. Lee, W. Xia / Information & Management 43 (2006) 975985 [37] J.R. Kimberly, M.R. Evanisko, Organizational innovation: the inuence of individual organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations, Academy of Management Journal 24, 1981, pp. 689713. [38] K.E. Knight, A descriptive model of the intra-rm innovation process, Journal of Business 40, 1967, pp. 478496. [39] M.J. Liberatore, D. Breem, Adoption and implementation of digital-imaging technology in the banking and insurance industries, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 44 (4), 1997, pp. 367377. [40] M.J. Liberatore, B. Pollack-Johnson, Factors inuencing the usage and selection of project management software, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50 (2), 2003, pp. 164174. [41] M.R. Lind, R.W. Zmud, The inuence of a convergence in understanding between technology providers and users on information technology innovativeness, Organization Science 2 (2), 1991, pp. 195217. [42] P.K. Mills, D.J. Moberg, Perspectives on the technology of service operations, Academy of Management Review 7, 1982, pp. 467478. [43] H. Mintzberg, The Structuring of Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1979. [44] M.K. Moch, E.V. Morse, Size, centralization and organizational adoption of innovations, American Sociological Review 42 (5), 1977, pp. 716725. [45] L. Mohr, Determinants of innovation in organizations, American Political Science Review 63, 1969, pp. 111126. [46] B.S. Neo, P.E. Khoo, S. Ang, The adoption of TradeNet by the trading community: an empirical analysis, in: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Information Systems, Vancouver, Canada, 1994. [47] W.R. Nord, S. Tucker, Implementing Routine and Radical Innovation, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1987. [48] P.C. Nystrom, K. Ramamurthy, A.L. Wilson, Organizational context, climate and innovativeness: adoption of imaging technology, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 19 (3/4), 2002, pp. 221247. [49] K. Pavitt, M. Robson, J. Townsend, Technological accumulation, diversication, and organization in U.K. companies, 19451983, Management Science 35, 1989, pp. 8199. [50] J.M. Pennings, F. Harianto, The diffusion of technological innovation in the commercial banking industry, Strategic Management Journal 13 (1), 1992, pp. 2946. [51] J.M. Pennings, F. Harianto, Technological networking and innovation implementation, Organization Science 3 (3), 1992, pp. 356382. [52] J.L. Perry, H.G. Rainey, The publicprivate distinction in organization theory: a critique and research strategy, Academy of Management Review 13, 1988, pp. 182201. [53] L.H. Peters, D.D. Hartke, J.T. Pohlmann, Fiedlers contingency theory of leadership: an application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter, Psychological Bulletin 97, 1985, pp. 274285. [54] J.L. Pierce, A.L. Delbecq, Organizational structure, individual attitudes, and innovation, Academy of Management Review 2, 1977, pp. 2637. [55] M.E. Porter, V.E. Millar, How information gives you competitive advantage, Harvard Business Review 63 (4), 1985, pp. 149160. [56] G. Premkumar, K. Ramamurthy, The role of interorganizational and organizational factors on the decision mode for adoption of

[17] G.W. Downs, L.B. Mohr, Conceptual issues in the study of innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly 21, 1976, pp. 700 714. [18] R.B. Duncan, The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation, in: R.H. Kilmann, L.R. Pondy, D.P. Slevin (Eds.), The Management of Organization: Strategy and Implementation, North-Holland, NY, 1976. [19] L.B. Eder, M. Igbaria, Determinants of intranet diffusion and infusion, Omega 29, 2001, pp. 233242. [20] R.G. Fichman, The role of aggregation in the measurement of ITrelated organizational innovation, MIS Quarterly 25 (4), 2001, pp. 427455. [21] R.G. Fichman, C.F. Kemerer, The assimilation of software process innovations: an organizational learning perspective, Management Science 43 (10), 1997, pp. 13451363. [22] K. Fletcher, G. Wright, C. Desai, The role of organizational factors in the adoption and sophistication of database marketing in the UK nancial services industry, Journal of Direct Marketing 10 (1), 1996, pp. 1021. [23] M.K. Fuller, E.B. Swanson, Information centers as organizational innovation: exploring the correlates of implementation success, Journal of Management Information Systems 9 (1), 1992, pp. 4767. [24] R.Z. Gooding, J.A. Wagner, A meta-analytic review of the relationship between size and performance, Administrative Science Quarterly 30, 1985, pp. 462481. [25] L.L. Gremillion, Organization size and information system use: an empirical study, Journal of Management Information Systems 1 (2), 1984, pp. 417. [26] V. Grover, An empirically derived model for the adoption of customer-based interorganizational systems, Decision Sciences 24 (3), 1993, pp. 603640. [27] V. Grover, K. Fiedler, J. Teng, Empirical evidence on Swansons tri-core model of information systems innovation, Information Systems Research 8 (3), 1997, pp. 273287. [28] V. Grover, M.D. Goslar, The initiation, adoption, and implementation of telecommunications technologies in U.S. organizations, Journal of Management Information Systems 10 (1), 1993, pp. 141163. [29] V. Grover, J. Teng, An examination of DBMS adoption and success in American organizations, Information and Management 23 (5), 1992, pp. 239248. [30] V. Gurbaxani, Diffusion of computing networks: the case of BITNET, Communications of the ACM 33 (12), 1990, pp. 6575. [31] J. Hage, M. Aiken, Relationship of centralization to other structural properties, Administrative Science Quarterly 12 (2), 1967, pp. 7292. [32] P. Hart, C. Saunders, Power and trust: critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange, Organization Science 8 (1), 1997, pp. 2342. [33] P. Hart, C. Saunders, Power and trust: critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange, Journal of Management Information Systems 14 (4), 1998, pp. 87111. [34] H.A. Haveman, Organizational size and change: diversication in the savings and loan industry after deregulation, Administrative Science Quarterly 38 (1), 1993, pp. 2050. [35] M.A. Hitt, R.E. Hoskisson, R.D. Ireland, Mergers and acquisitions and managerial commitment to innovation in M-form rms, Strategic Management Journal 11, 1990, pp. 2947. [36] J.E. Hunter, F.L. Schmidt, Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, 1990.

G. Lee, W. Xia / Information & Management 43 (2006) 975985 interorganizational systems, Decision Sciences 26 (3), 1995, pp. 303336. G. Premkumar, K. Ramamurthy, S. Nilakanta, Implementation of electronic data interchange: an innovation diffusion perspective, Journal of Management Information Systems 11 (2), 1994, pp. 157186. D.S. Pugh, D.J. Hickson, C.R. Hinings, C. Turner, The context of organizational structure, Administrative Science Quarterly 14, 1969, pp. 91114. A. Rai, External information source and channel effectiveness and the diffusion of CASE innovations: an empirical study, European Journal of Information Systems 4, 1995, pp. 93102. A. Rai, D.S. Bajwa, An empirical investigation into factors relating to the adoption of executive information systems: an analysis of EIS for collaboration and decision support, Decision Sciences 28 (4), 1997, pp. 939974. A. Rai, R. Patnayakuni, A structural model for CASE adoption behavior, Journal of Management Information Systems 13 (2), 1996, pp. 205234. L. Raymond, Organizational characteristics and MIS success in the context of small business, MIS Quarterly 1985, pp. 37 52. L. Raymond, Organizational context and information systems success: a contingency approach, Journal of Management Information Systems 6 (4), 1990, pp. 520. J.F. Rockart, D.W. De Long, Executive Support Systems, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1988. J.D. Roessner, Incentives to innovate in public and private organizations, Administration and Society 9 (341365), 1997. E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, 1995. A.H. Seyal, M.N.A. Rahman, A preliminary investigation of Ecommerce adoption in small and medium enterprises in Brunei, Journal of Global Information Technology Management 6 (2), 2003, pp. 626. E.B. Swanson, Information systems innovation among organizations, Management Science 40 (9), 1994, pp. 1069 1092. H.-H. Teo, K.K. Wei, I. Benbasat, Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: an institutional perspective, MIS Quarterly 27 (1), 2003, pp. 1949. T.S.H. Teo, M. Tan, An empirical study of adoptors and nonadopters of the internet in Singapore, Information and Management 34 (6), 1998, pp. 339345. J.Y.L. Thong, An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses, Journal of Management Information Systems 15 (4), 1999, pp. 187214. J.Y.L. Thong, C.S. Yap, CEO characteristics, organizational characteristics and information technology adoption in small businesses, Omega 23 (4), 1995, pp. 429442. L.G. Tornatzky, K.J. Klein, Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of ndings, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 29, 1982, pp. 2845. J.M. Utterback, Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology, Science 183, 1974, pp. 620626. J.M. Utterback, W.J. Abernathy, A dynamic model of process and product innovation, Omega 3 (6), 1975, pp. 639656. J.A.I. Wagner, R.Z. Gooding, Effects of societal trends on participation research, Administrative Science Quarterly 32, 1987, pp. 241262.

985

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[77] S. Wang, W. Cheung, E-business adoption by travel agencies: prime candidates for mobile e-business, International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8 (3), 2004, pp. 4363. [78] R.A. Wolfe, Organizational innovation: review, critique, and suggested research directions, Journal of Management Studies 31 (3), 1994, pp. 405431. [79] C.S. Yap, Distinguishing characteristics of organizations using computers, Information and Management 18 (2), 1990, pp. 97 107. [80] G. Zaltman, R. Duncan, J. Holbek, Innovations and Organizations, R.E. Krieger Pub. Co., Malabar, FL, 1984. [81] R.W. Zmud, Diffusion of modern software practices: inuence of centralization and formalization, Management Science 28 (12), 1982, pp. 14211431. [82] R.W. Zmud, An examination of pushpull theory applied to process innovation in knowledge work, Management Science 30 (6), 1984, pp. 727738. Gwanhoo Lee is an assistant professor of information technology and UPS scholar at the Kogod School of Business, American University, where he is also an assistant director of the Center for Information Technology and Global Economy. He earned his doctorate in management information systems from the University of Minnesota. His research focuses on IS project management, IT-enabled organizational agility, global software teams, outsourcing and offshoring, technology adoption, strategic role of IT, and interorganizational systems. He has been working on collaborative research projects involving companies such as 3M, A.G. Edwards, Cargill, McDonald Food, Marriott, Medtronic, Pillsbury, St. Paul Cos, and the World Bank. His research has been published in Journal of Management Information Systems, Communications of the ACM, European Journal of Information Systems, Information Technology & People, and conference proceedings such as ICIS, HICSS, and AMCIS. Weidong Xia is an assistant professor in the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. His research focuses on IT strategy, organizational capabilities and business alignment; IT project complexity and exibility; IT adoption decisions. His writings have been published or are forthcoming in a number of academic journals and international conferences including: Communications of the ACM, Decision Sciences, European Journal of Information Systems, International Journal of Career Development, Journal of Management Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, Journal of End-User Computing, and International Conference on Information Systems. At the University of Minnesota, he has taught nine different courses at PhD, Executive, MBA, and undergraduate levels. He has served as MIS undergraduate and MBA program coordinators. He has been working closely with executives from companies such as 3M, A.G. Edwards, Ahold, Cargill, McDonalds, Medtronic, Musicland, Northwest Airlines, Pillsbury, ShopNBC, St. Paul Cos., Target, Union Pacic, US Bank and US Cellular on issues related to his research areas. He received his doctorate in information systems from the University of Pittsburgh.

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64] [65] [66] [67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74] [75] [76]