CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Innovation Diffusion and ForecastingQuality and Supply ManagementSustainable Supply Chain Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Supply chain innovation diffusion: going beyond adoption

Hazen, Benjamin T., Overstreet, Robert E., Cegielski, Casey G.·2012·The International Journal of Logistics Management
DOI 10.1108/09574091211226957
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: A comprehensive evaluation of the constructs that contribute to the incorporation of a supply chain innovation into an organization is markedly absent in the literature. Even in academic fields where the post‐adoption diffusion stages of acceptance, routinization, and assimilation are often investigated, no study integrates these constructs and their constituent dimensions into a unified framework. In addition, these post‐adoption activities are largely ignored in the supply chain innovation literature. This paper aims to integrate extant literature regarding acceptance, routinization, and assimilation for the purpose of clarifying the definitions and identifying the dimensions of each construct to provide guidance to scholars who are investigating innovation diffusion in the supply chain. Design/methodology/approach: Through the lens of diffusion of innovation theory, a broad base of literature both within and beyond the scope of traditional supply chain management (SCM) journals is considered to develop a unified framework of post‐adoption activities. Findings: This research effort provides an in‐depth analysis of the post‐adoption stages of the organizational diffusion process and suggests 17 activities that support diffusion. Relationships between and within these stages of the process are inferred to create a unified framework of post‐adoption activities. Research limitations/implications: The resultant framework provides a reference point for future research. Although providing motivation for this study, this research is limited by the fact that few studies in the SCM literature consider organizational diffusion beyond adoption. The proposed framework is contingent on generalizing literature from related academic disciplines. Future SCM research can validate these findings and further tailor the framework to be more specific to supply chain applications. Practical implications: This article provides insight for supply chain professionals who seek to not just adopt, but also to fully embed a newly acquired innovation into their organization. Managers can use this article's resulting framework as a reference to determine what actions they should take to fully incorporate an innovation. Originality/value: Although recognized as an important area of investigation in other literature streams, post‐adoption activities are almost entirely overlooked in SCM research. This study provides both the motivation and a starting point for scholars to consider such activities.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/09574091211226957

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 69 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  2. Lewin, K. (1952), “Group decision and social change”, in Newcomb, T.M. and Hartley, E.L. (Eds), Readings in Social Psychology, Henry Holt and Co., New York, NY, pp. 459‐73.
  3. Prahalad, C.K. and Mashelkar, R.A. (2010), “Innovation's holy grail”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88 Nos 7/8, pp. 132‐41.
  4. Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY.
  5. Saga, V.L. and Zmud, R.W. (1994), “The nature and determinants of information technology acceptance, routinization, and infusion”, in Levine, L. (Ed.), Diffusion, Transfer, and Implementation of Information Technology, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 67‐86.
  6. Sullivan, C. (1995), “Systems planning in the information age”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 3‐12.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–115 of 115

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hazen, B. T., Overstreet, R. E., & Cegielski, C. G.
Affiliations
Auburn University (US)
ORCID
Venue
The International Journal of Logistics Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2012-05-18
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
119-134
ISSN
0957-4093 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/09574091211226957
OpenAlex
W2021566208
Cited by
117
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8
FWCI
8.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
The International Journal of Logistics Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Innovation Diffusion and Forecasting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Keywords
supply chain innovation, diffusion of innovations, diffusion of innovation theory, acceptance, routinization, assimilation, innovation adoption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review