We present a review and analysis of the rich body of research on the adoption and diffusion of IT-based innovations by individuals and organizations. Our review analyzes 48 empirical studies on individual and 51 studies on organizational IT adoption published between 1992 and 2003. In total, the sample contains 135 independent variables, eight dependent variables, and 505 relationships between independent and dependent variables. Furthermore, our sample includes both quantitative and qualitative studies. We were able to include qualitative studies because of a unique coding scheme, which can easily be replicated in other reviews. We use this sample to assess predictors, linkages, and biases in individual and organizational IT adoption research. The best predictors of individual IT adoption include Perceived Usefulness, Top Management Support, Computer Experience, Behavioral Intention, and User Support. The best predictors of IT adoption by organizations were Top Management Support, External Pressure, Professionalism of the IS Unit, and External Information Sources. At the level of independent variables, Top Management Support stands as the main linkage between individual and organizational IT adoption. But at an aggregate level, two collections of independent variables were good predictors of both individual and organizational IT adoption. These were innovation characteristics and organizational characteristics. Thus, we can consistently say that generic characteristics of the innovation and characteristics of the organization are strong predictors of IT adoption by both individuals and organizations. Based on an assessment of the predictors, linkages, and known biases, we prescribe 10 areas for further exploration.
AgarwalR. (2000). Individual Acceptance of Information Technologies, in ZmudW (ed.) Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future… Through the Past, Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex, pp. 85–104.
2.
AgarwalR., and KarahannaE. (2000). Time Flies When You're Having Fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage, MIS Quarterly24(4): 665–694.
3.
AgarwalR., and PrasadJ. (1997). The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies, Decision Sciences28(3): 557–582.
4.
AgarwalR., and PrasadJ. (1998). The Antecedents and Consequents of User Perceptions in Information Technology Adoption, Decision Support Systems22(1): 15–29.
5.
AgarwalR., and PrasadJ. (2000). A Field Study of the Adoption of Software Process Innovations by Information Systems Professionals, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management47(3): 295–308.
6.
AgarwalR., TanniruM., and WilemonD. (1997). Assimilating Information Technology Innovations: Strategies and moderating influences, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management44(4): 347–358.
7.
AjzenI. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50(2): 179–211.
8.
Al-GahtaniS. (2001). The Applicability of TAM outside North America: An empirical test in the United Kingdom, Information Resources Management Journal14(3): 37–46.
9.
Al-KhaldiM.A., and WallaceR.S.O. (1999). The Influence of Attitudes on Personal Computer Utilization among Knowledge Workers: The case of Saudi Arabia, Information & Management36(4): 185–204.
10.
AstebroT. (1995). The Effect of Management and Social Interaction on the Intra-Firm Diffusion of Electronic Mail Systems, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management42(4): 319–331.
11.
BanduraA. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought a0nd Action: A social cognitive theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.
BergeronF., RaymondL., RivardS., and GaraM. (1995). Determinants of EIS Use: Testing a behavioral model, Decision Support Systems14(2): 131–146.
13.
BouchardL. (1993). Decision Criteria in the Adoption of EDI, in Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems (Olrando, FL). 365–376.
14.
BretschneiderS., and WittmerD. (1993). Organizational Adoption of Microcomputer Technology: The role of sector, Information Systems Research4(1): 88–108.
15.
BurrellG., and MorganG. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books.
16.
BurtR.S. (1997). The Contingent Value of Social Capital, Administrative Science Quarterly42(2): 339–365.
17.
CaleE.G., and EriksenS.E. (1994). Factors affecting the Implementation Outcome of a Mainframe Software Package: A longitudinal study, Information & Management26(2): 165–175.
18.
ChauP.Y.K. (1996a). An Empirical Assessment of a Modified Technology Acceptance Model, Journal of Management Information Systems13(2): 185–204.
19.
ChauP.Y.K. (1996b). An Empirical Investigation on Factors affecting the Acceptance of CASE by Systems Developers, Information & Management30(4): 269–280.
20.
ChauP.Y.K., and TarnK.V. (1997). Factors Affecting the Adoption of Open Systems: An exploratory study, MIS Quarterly21(1): 1–24.
21.
ChiassonM.W., and LovatoC.Y. (2001). Factors influencing the Formation of a User's Perceptions and Use of a DSS Software Innovation, Database for Advances in Information Systems32(2): 16–35.
22.
ChinW.W., and GopalA. (1995). Adoption Intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs, Database Advances26(2/3): 42–64.
23.
ChoeJ. (1996). The Relationships among Performance of Accounting Information Systems, Influence Factors, and Evolution Level of Information Systems, Journal of Management Information Systems12(4): 215–239.
24.
CompeauD.R., and HigginsC.A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test, MIS Quarterly19(2): 189–211.
25.
CompeauD.R., HigginsC.A., and HuffS.L. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computer Technology: A longitudinal study, MIS Quarterly23(2): 145–158.
26.
CoxB., and GhoneimS. (1996). Drivers and Barriers to adopting EDI: A sector analysis of UK industry, European Journal of Information Systems5(1): 24–33.
27.
DavisF.D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology, MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
28.
DavisF.D. (1993). User Acceptance of Information Technology: System characteristics, user perceptions, and behavioral impacts, Journal of Man–Machine Studies38(3): 475–487.
29.
DavisF.D., BagozziP., and WarshawP.R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A comparison of two models, Management Science35(8): 982–1001.
30.
DiMaggioP., and PowellW. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Industrial isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review48(2): 147–160.
31.
Dos SantosB.L., and PeffersK. (1998). Competitor and Vendor Influence on the Adoption of Innovative Applications in Electronic Commerce, Information & Management34(3): 175–184.
32.
FichmanR.G. (1992). Information Technology Diffusion: A review of empirical research, in Thirteenth International Conference on Information Systems (Dallas, TX). 195–206.
33.
FichmanR.G. (2004). Going Beyond the Dominant Paradigm for Information Technology Innovation Research: Emerging concepts and methods, Journal of the AIS5(8): 314–355.
34.
FichmanR.G., and KemererC.F. (1999). The Illusory Diffusion of Innovation: An Examination of Assimilation Gaps, Information Systems Research10(3): 255–275.
35.
FishbeinM., and AjzenI. (1975). Belief Attitude, Intention, and Behavior, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
36.
GallivanM. (2001). Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and application of a new framework, Database32(3): 51–85.
37.
GefenD., and KeilM. (1998). The Impact of Developer Responsiveness on Perceptions of Usefulness and Ease of Use: An extension of the technology acceptance model, Databases for Advances in Information Systems29(2): 35–49.
38.
GefenD., and StraubD.W. (1997). Gender Differences in the Perception and Use of E-Mail: An extension of the technology acceptance model, MIS Quarterly21(3): 389–400.
39.
GeorgeJ.F., NunamakerJ.F., and ValacichJ.S. (1992). Electronic Meeting Systems as Innovation: A study of the innovation process, Information & Management22(3): 187–195.
40.
GordonS.R., and GordonJ.R. (1992). Organizational Hurdles to Distributed Database Management Systems (DDBMS) Adoption, Information & Management22(6): 333–345.
41.
GranovetterM.S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
42.
GroverV. (1993). An Empirically Derived Model for the Adoption of Customer-based Interorganizational Systems, Decision Sciences24(3): 603–640.
43.
GroverV., FiedlerK., and TengJ.T.C. (1997). Empirical Evidence on Swanson's Tri-Core Model of Information Systems Innovation, Information Systems Research8(3): 273–287.
44.
GroverV., and GoslarM.D. (1993). The Initiation, Adoption, and Implementation of Telecommunications Technologies in U.S. Organizations, Journal of Management Information Systems10(1): 141–163.
45.
GroverV., and TengJ.T.C. (1992). An Examination of DBMS Adoption and Success in American Organizations, Information & Management23(5): 239–248.
46.
GroverV., TengJ.T.C., SegarsA.H., and FiedlerK. (1998). The Influence of Information Technology Diffusion ad Business Process Change on Perceived Productivity: The IS executive's perspective, Information & Management34(2): 141–159.
47.
GuimaraesT., YoonY., and ClevensonA. (1996). Factors important for Expert Systems Success: A field test, Information & Management30(3): 119–130.
48.
HackmanJ.R., and OldmanG.R. (1976). Motivation through Design of Work, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance16(2): 250–279.
49.
HackmanJ.R., and OldmanG.R. (1980). Work ReDesign, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
50.
HebertM., and BenbasatI. (1994). Adopting Information Technology in Hospitals: The relationship between attitudes/expectations and behavior, Hospital and Health Services Administration39(3): 369–383.
51.
HirschheimR.A., and GolesT. (2000). The Paradigm is Dead, the Paradigm is Dead… Long Live the Paradigm: The legacy of Burrell and Morgan, OMEGA28(3): 249–268.
52.
HofferJ.A., and AlexanderM.B. (1992). The Diffusion of Database Machines, Database23(2): 13–18.
53.
HuQ., SaundersC., and GebeltM. (1997). Research Report: Diffusion of information systems outsourcing: A reevaluation of influence sources, Information Systems Research8(3): 288–301.
54.
IacovouC.L., BenbasatI., and DexterA.S. (1995). Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organizations: Adoption and impact of technology, MIS Quarterly19(4): 465–485.
55.
IgbariaM. (1993). User Acceptance and Microcomputer Technology: An empirical test, OMEGA21(1): 73–90.
56.
IgbariaM., GuimaraesT., and DavisG.B. (1995). Testing the Determinants of Microcomputer Usage via a Structural Equation Model, Journal of Management Information Systems11(4): 87–104.
57.
IgbariaM., ParasuramanS., and BaroudiJ.J. (1996). A Motivational Model of Computer Usage, Journal of Management Information Systems13(1): 127–143.
58.
IgbariaM., and TanM. (1997). The Consequences of Information Technology Acceptance on Subsequent Individual Performance, Information & Management32(3): 113–121.
59.
IgbariaM., ZinatelliN., CraggP., and CavayeA.L.M. (1997). Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A structural equation model, MIS Quarterly21(3): 279–302.
60.
IivariJ., and MaansaariJ. (1997). The Impact of CASE on IS Professionals’ Work and Motivation to Use CASE., Eighteenth International Conference on Information Systems (Georgia, Atlanta, USA). 89–105.
61.
JacksonC.M., ChowS., and LeitchR.A. (1997). Toward an understanding of the Behavioral Intention to Use an Information System, Decision Sciences28(2): 357–389.
62.
JurisonJ. (2000). Perceived Value and Technology Adoption across Four End-User Groups, Journal of End User Computing12(4): 21–28.
63.
KarahannaE., StraubD.W., and ChervanyN.L. (1999). Information Technology Adoption across Time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs, MIS Quarterly23(2): 183–213.
64.
KeilM., BeranakP.M., and KonsynskiB.R. (1995). Usefulness and Ease of Use: Field study evidence regarding task outcomes, Decision Support Systems13(1): 75–91.
65.
KraemerK.L., DanzigerJ.N., DunkleD.E., and KingJ.L. (1993). The Usefulness of Computer-based Information to Public Managers, MIS Quarterly17(2): 129–148.
66.
KuhnT. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
67.
KunnathurA.S., AhmedM.U., and CharlesR.J.S. (1996). Expert Systems Adoption: An analytical study of managerial issues and concerns, Information & Management30(1): 15–25.
68.
KwonT.H., and ZmudR.W. (1987). Unifying the Fragmented Models of Information Systems Implementation, in BolandR.J., and HirschheimR.A. (eds.) Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 227–251.
69.
LaiV.S., and GuynesJ.L. (1994). A Model of ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) Adoption in U.S. Corporations, Information & Management26(1): 75–84.
70.
LarsenT.J. (1993). Middle Managers’ Contribution to Implemented Information Technology Innovation, Journal of Management Information Systems10(2): 155–176.
71.
LedererA.L., MaupinD.J., SenaM.P., and ZhuangY. (2000). The Technology Acceptance Model and the World Wide Web, Decision Support Systems29(3): 269–282.
72.
LeeS.M., KimY.R., and LeeJ. (1995). An Empirical Study of the Relationships among End-user Information Systems Acceptance, Training, and Effectiveness, Journal of Management Information Systems12(2): 189–202.
73.
LegrisP., InghamJ., and ColleretteP. (2003). Why do People Use Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model, Information & Management40(3): 191–204.
74.
LiberatoreM.J., and BreemD. (1997). Adoption and Implementation of Digital Imaging Technology in the Banking and Insurance Industries, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management44(4): 367–377.
75.
LimayemM., and HirtS.G. (2003). Force of Habit and Information Systems Usage: Theory and initial validation, Journal of the Association for Information Systems4: 65–97.
76.
LohL., and VenkatramanN. (1992). Diffusion of Information Technology Outsourcing: Influence sources and the kodak effect, Information Systems Research3(4): 334–358.
77.
MoonJ., and KimY. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web Context, Information & Management38(4): 217–230.
78.
MooreG., and BenbasatI. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation, Information Systems Research2(3): 192–222.
79.
Nedovic-BudicZ., and GodschalkD.R. (1996). Human Factors in Adoption of Geographic Information Systems: A local government case study, Public Administration Review56(6): 554–567.
80.
NeoB.S., KhooP.E., and AngS. (1994). The Adoption of TradeNet by the Trading Community: An empirical analysis, in Fifteenth International Conference on Information Systems (Vancouver, Canada). 159–175.
81.
OrlikowskiW., and BaroudiI. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions, Information Systems Research2(1): 1–28.
82.
PaeH.P., KimN., HanJ.K., and YipL. (2002). Managing Intraorganizational Diffusion of Innovations Impact of Buying Center Dynamics and Environments, Industrial Marketing Management31(8): 719–726.
83.
ParthasarathyM., and BhattacherjeeA. (1998). Understanding the Post-Adoption Behavior in the Context of Online Services, Information Systems Research9(4): 362–379.
84.
PenningsJ.M., and HariantoF. (1992). The Diffusion of Technological Innovation in the Commercial Banking Industry, Strategic Management Journal13(1): 29–46.
85.
PlouffeC.R., HullandJ.H., and VandenboschM. (2001). Research Report: Richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decisions – understanding merchant adoption of a smart card-based payment system, Information Systems Research12(2): 208–222.
86.
PremkumarG., and PotterM. (1995). Adoption of Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) Technology: An innovation adoption perspective, Database Advances26(2/3): 105–124.
87.
PremkumarG., RamamurthyK., and CrumM. (1997). Determinants of EDI Adoption in the Transportation Industry, European Journal of Information Systems6(1): 107–121.
88.
PremkumarG., RamamurthyK., and NilakantaS. (1994). Implementation of Electronic Data Interchange: An innovation diffusion perspective, Journal of Management Information Systems11(2): 157–186.
89.
PrescottM.B., and CongerS.A. (1995). Information Technology Innovations: A classification by IT locus of impact and research approach, Database Advances26(2/3): 20–41.
90.
RaiA. (1995). External Information Source and Channel Effectiveness and the Diffusion of CASE Innovations: An empirical study, European Journal of Information Systems4(1): 93–102.
91.
RaiA., and HowardG.S. (1993). An Organizational Context for CASE Innovation, Information Resources Management Journal6(3): 21–34.
92.
RaiA., and HowardG.S. (1994). Propagating CASE usage for Software Development: An empirical investigation of key organizational correlates, OMEGA22(2): 133–147.
93.
RaiA., and PatnayakuniR. (1996). A Structural Model for CASE Adoption Behavior, Journal of Management Information Systems13(2): 205–234.
94.
RamamurthyK., and PremkumarG. (1995). Determinants and Outcomes of Electronic Data Interchange Diffusion, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management42(4): 332–351.
95.
RavichandranT. (2000). Swiftness and Intensity of Administrative Innovation Adoption: An empirical study of TQM in information systems, Decision Sciences31(3): 691–724.
96.
RogersE.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations, New York: The Free Press.
97.
RogersE.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, New York: The Free Press.
98.
RoseG., and StraubD.W. (1998). Predicting General IT Use: Applying TAM to the Arabic world, Journal of Global Information Management6(3): 39–46.
99.
RuppelC.P., and HarringtonS.J. (1995). Telework: An innovation where nobody is getting on the bandwagon?Database Advances26(2/3): 87–104.
100.
RuppelC.P., and HowardG.S. (1998). Facilitating Innovation Adoption and Diffusion: The case of telework, Information Resources Management Journal11(3): 5–15.
101.
SalonerG., and ShepardA. (1995). Adoption of Technologies with Network Effects: An empirical examination of the adoption of automated teller machines, RAND Journal of Economics26(3): 479–501.
102.
SaundersC.S., and ClarkS. (1992). EDI Adoption and Implementation: A focus on interorganizational linkages, Information Resources Management Journal5(1): 9–19.
103.
StraubD., LimayemM., and Karahanna-EvaristoE. (1995). Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS theory testing, Management Science41(8): 1328–1342.
104.
StraubD.W., KeilM., and BrennerW. (1997). Testing the Technology Acceptance Model across Cultures: A three country study, Information & Management33(1): 1–11.
105.
SultanF., and ChanL. (2000). The Adoption of New Technology: The case of object-oriented computing in software companies, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management47(1): 106–126.
106.
SwansonE.B. (1994). Information Systems Innovation among Organizations, Management Science40(9): 1069–1092.
107.
SzajnaB. (1996). Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model, Management Science42(1): 85–92.
108.
TaylorS., and ToddP. (1995). Understanding Information Technology Usage: A test of competing models, Information Systems Research6(2): 144–176.
109.
TengJ.T.C., GroverV., and GuttlerW. (2002). Information Technology Innovations: General diffusion patterns and its relationships to innovation characteristics, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management49(1): 13–27.
110.
TeoH., TanB.C.Y., and WeiK. (1995). Innovation Diffusion Theory as a Predictor of Adoption Intention for Financial EDI, in Sixteenth International Conference on Information Systems (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 155–165.
111.
ThompsonR.L., HigginsC.A., and HowellJ.M. (1994). Influence of Experience on Personal Computer Utilization: Testing a conceptual model, Journal of Management Information Systems11(1): 167–187.
112.
ThongJ.Y.L., and YapC.S. (1995). CEO Characteristics, Organizational Characteristics, and Information Technology Adoption in Small Businesses, OMEGA23(4): 249–442.
113.
ThongJ.Y.L., YapC.S., and RamanK.S. (1994). Engagement of External Expertise in Information Systems Implementation, Journal of Management Information Systems11(2): 209–231.
114.
Van SlykeC., LouH., and DayJ. (2002). The Impact of Perceived Innovation Characteristics on Intention to use Groupware, Information Resources Management Journal15(1): 5–12.
115.
VenkateshV., and DavisF.D. (1996). A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and test, Decision Sciences27(3): 451–481.
116.
VenkateshV., and DavisF.D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies, Management Science46(2): 186–204.
117.
VenkateshV., MorrisM.G., DavisG.B., and DavisF.D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward an unified view, MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
118.
VenkateshV., SpeierC., and MorrisM.G. (2002). User Acceptance Enablers in Individual Decision Making about Technology: Toward an integrated model, Decision Sciences33(2): 297–316.
119.
WillmottH. (1993). Breaking the Paradigm Mentality, Organization Studies14(5): 681–719.
120.
WynekoopJ.L. (1992). Strategies for Implementation Research: Combining research methods, in Thirteenth International Conference on Information Systems (Dallas, USA). 185–193.
121.
YanH., and FioritoS.S. (2002). Communication: CAD/CAM adoption in US textile and apparel industries, International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology14(2): 132–140.
122.
YoonY., and GuimaraesT. (1995). Assessing Expert Systems Impact on Users’ Jobs, Journal of Management Information Systems12(1): 225–249.
123.
ZelkowitzM.V. (1996). Software Engineering Technology Infusion with NASA, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management43(3): 250–261.
124.
ZmudR.W., and AppleL.E. (1992). Measuring Technology Incorporation/Infusion, Journal of Product Innovation Management9(2): 148–155.
