Why technology adoption succeeds or fails: an exploration from the perspective of intra-organizational legitimacy
Open accessAbstract
This paper constructs an intra-organizational legitimacy analysis framework to reveal the conditional mechanisms of technology adoption at the organization level. A retrospective look on a 9-year application process of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) in a Chinese state-owned enterprise shows how the application effects of an adopted technology fluctuate with changes to intra-organizational legitimacy, which itself is composed of performance legitimacy, task legitimacy, and value legitimacy. This research indicates that gaining sufficient legitimacy is one necessity for the success of technology adoption in organizations. Basically, performance legitimacy determines how far technologies can be transferred into the corporate sector. When a new technology adoption starts with performance uncertainty, task legitimacy ensures organizational resource investments that serve to initiate and accelerate technology adoption. Value legitimacy, on the other hand, ensures informal resource input, which preserves the technology during crises for future possible reuse and advances the application when used.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
The necessity of dealing with power relationships in organizations is mostly neglected in AI-related discourses.
“The necessity of dealing with power relationships in organizations is mostly neglected in AI-related discourses (Ren 2019;Vallas and Hill 2012).”
From Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as Ren 2019
The Literature review (page unavailable) says existing research already examines institutions, interests, and power in organizational technology adoption; it argues instead that efficiency and organizational performance have received too little attention. The paper discusses technology adoption generally, not AI-related discourse specifically. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWhenever key actors of an organization negotiate who is authorized to modify the AI system and to what extent modification is to be undertaken, dimensions of power and control are on the table.
“Whenever the key actors of an organization negotiate who is authorized (4.1 & 4.3) to modify the AI system and to what extent modification is to be undertaken, dimensions of power and control are on the table (Kellogg et al. 2020;Ren 2019;Vallas and Hill 2012).”
From Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as Ren 2019
The Conclusion and discussion section (page unavailable) describes bargaining among decision-makers and staff over technology-adoption decisions, with greater uncertainty leaving more political room for negotiation. Task legitimacy (page unavailable) also links authority over implementation to organizational power. The paper studies ERP adoption, however, and does not address who is authorized to modify an AI system or how extensively the system may be modified. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPerformance legitimacy, task legitimacy, and value legitimacy are of particular importance for the successful adaptation of new technologies, and they have to be established and negotiated in organizational practices.
“Performance legitimacy, task legitimacy, and value legitimacy are of particular importance for the successful adaptation of new technologies, they have to be established and negotiated in organizational practices (Ren 2019).”
From Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as Ren 2019
The evaluation of the performance legitimacy of employing AI has to be organized with respect to the effects on O-tasks.
“But again, this evaluation has to be organized with respect to the effects on O-tasks.”
From Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as Ren 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.398 · Cited by 4,957 · see citing works
Barley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315 · see citing works
Information Systems and Developing Countries: Failure, Success, and Local Improvisations
Heeks, R. (2002) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972240290075039 · Cited by 1,390 · see citing works
Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation
Aladwani, A. M. (2001) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/14637150110392764 · Cited by 619 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- Bergek, A., S. Jacobsson, B. Carlsson, S. Lindmark, and A. Rickne. 2008a. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy 37 (3): 407-429.
- Bergek, A., S. Jacobsson, and B.A. Sandén. 2008b. 'Legitimation' and 'development of external economies': Two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20 (5): 575-592.
- Brown, Andrew D. 1995. Managing understandings: Politics, symbolism, niche marketing and the quest for legitimacy in IT implementation. Organization Studies 16 (6): 951-969.
- Brown, Andrew D. 1998. Narrative, politics and legitimacy in an IT implementation. Journal of Management Studies. 35 (1): 35-58.
- Davis, F.D. 1986. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Doctoral dissertation. Sloan School of Management. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Davis, F.D., R.P. Bagozzi, and P.R. Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35 (8): 982-1003.
- Davison, R. 2002. Cultural Complications of ERP. Communications of the ACM. 45 (7) 109-111.
- Finney, S., and M. Corbett. 2007. ERP implementation: A compilation and analysis of critical success factors. Business Process Management Journal 13 (3): 329-347.
- Grint, K., and S. Woolgar. 1997. The machine at work: Technology, work and society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Hekkert, M.P., R.A. Suurs, S.O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, and R.E. Smits. 2007. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analyzing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (4): 413-432.
- Holland, C.P., Light, B. and Gibson, N. 1999. A critical success factors model for enterprise resource planning implementation. In Proceedings of the 7th European conference on information systems. 1: 273-287.
- Hong, K.K., and Y.G. Kim. 2002. The critical success factors for ERP implementation: An organizational fit perspective. Information & Management 40 (1): 25-40.
- Huang, Xiaochun. 2010. Research on the operational mechanism of technology governance: A case study of an E- government center on L Street in Shanghai. Chinese Journal of Sociology 30 (4): 1-31.
- Human, S.E., and K.G. Provan. 2000. Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-firm multilateral networks: A comparative study of success and demise. Administrative Science Quarterly 45 (2): 327-365.
- Jones, M.C., M. Cline, and S. Ryan. 2006. Exploring knowledge sharing in ERP implementation: An organizational culture framework. Decision Support Systems 41 (2): 411-434.
- Ke, W., and K.K. Wei. 2008. Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation. Decision Support Systems 45 (2): 208-218.
- Majchrzak, A., and M.L. Paris. 1995. High-performing organizations match technology and management strategies: Results of a survey. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 16 (4-6): 309-325.
- Markard, J., S. Wirth, and B. Truffer. 2016. Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy: A framework and a case study on biogas technology. Research Policy 45 (1): 330-344.
- Martinsons, M.G. 2004. ERP in China: One package, two profiles. Communications of the ACM 47 (7): 65-68.
- Mitchell, J.C. 1983. Case and situation analysis. The Sociological Review 31 (2): 187-211.
- Rajapakse, J., and P.B. Seddon. 2005. Why ERP may not be suitable for organizations in developing countries in Asia. In Proceedings of PACIS, 1382-1388.
- Ruef, M., and W.R. Scott. 1998. A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (4): 877-904.
- Sarker, S., and A.S. Lee. 2003. Using a case study to test the role of three key social enablers in ERP implementation. Information & Management 40 (8): 813-829.
- Seo, G. 2013. Challenges in implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP) system in large organizations: Similarities and differences between corporate and university environment. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Skok, W., and M. Legge. 2002. Evaluating enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems using an interpretive approach. Knowledge and Process Management 9 (2): 72-82.
- Small, M.L. 2009. How many cases do I need? On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10 (1): 5-38.
- Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 571-610.
- Venkatesh, V. 2000. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research 11 (4): 342-365.
- Wang, X. 2009. Technology hierarchy structure of FAW company and the changes of relationship between departments. Doctoral dissertation, Peking University.
- Yin, G., and W. Chen. 2009. Empirical research on enterprise information technology capabilities and its impact on informatization success -Based on RBV theory perspective. Nankai Management Review 4: 152-160.
- Yusuf, Y., A. Gunasekaran, and M.S. Abthorpe. 2004. Enterprise information systems project implementation: A case study of ERP in Rolls-Royce. International Journal of Production Economics 87 (3): 251-266.
- Zammuto, R.F., T.L. Griffith, A. Majchrzak, D.J. Dougherty, and S. Faraj. 2007. Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science 18 (5): 749-762.
- Zhang, J., and X. Zhu. 2016. Responsibility distribution and interaction between upper and lower levels within government -Taking safety production management of S City as an example. Journal of Social Development 3: 108-128.
- Zhen, Shao, Y. Feng, and L. Liu. 2012. The mediating effect of organizational culture and knowledge sharing on transformational leadership and enterprise resource planning systems success: An empirical study in China. Computers in Human Behavior 28 (6): 2400-2413.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Herrmann, T., & Pfeiffer, S. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01391-5 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
“3) to modify the AI system and to what extent modification is to be undertaken, dimensions of power and control are on the table (Kellogg et al. 2020; Ren 2019; Vallas and Hill 2012).”
BackgroundInfluentialFrom Public E-Procurement 3.0 to E-Procurement 4.0; A Critical Literature Review
Mavidis, A., & Folinas, D. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su141811252 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ren, M.
- Affiliations
- Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Ren, Min
- Venue
- The Journal of Chinese Sociology
- Published
- 2019-11-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2198-2635 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2987524076
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 4.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Chinese Sociology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- The National Social Science Fund of China (2012FSH001)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- technology adoption, enterprise resource planning, ERP implementation, state-owned enterprises, performance legitimacy, legitimacy theory, technology transfer, performance uncertainty, Chinese enterprises
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
