Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 963

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Adoption of Technological, Administrative, and Ancillary Innovations: Impact of Organizational Factors

Damanpour, Fariborz·1987·Journal of Management

Abstract

The influence of six organizationalfactors on the adoption of three types of innovations was examined in public libraries. It wasfound that (a) all factors together were a better predictor of technological than administrative or ancillary innovations, and (b) specialization and organizational slack had a stronger effect on technological innovations than the other two types, whereas administrative intensity and organizational size had a stronger effect on administrative innovations. It is concluded that differentiation between types of innovations and stages of adoption is essential in developing realistic theories of organizational innovations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/014920638701300408

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 963

Metadata

Authors
Damanpour, F.
Venue
Journal of Management
Published
1987-12
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
675-688
ISSN
  • 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-1211
OpenAlex
W2069159729
Cited by
963
References
0
FWCI
2.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Adoption of Technological, Administrative, and Ancillary Innovations: Impact of Organizational Factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/014920638701300408
The paper
Damanpour, F. (1987). The Adoption of Technological, Administrative, and Ancillary Innovations: Impact of Organizational Factors. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638701300408

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.