The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Examination of “Push-Pull” Theory Applied to Process Innovation in Knowledge Work
Abstract
Because many organizations have not been successful in introducing new task and managerial methods into the workplace, considerable attention has been directed toward developing a more complete understanding of organizational innovation. Three separate literatures (organizational science, engineering/R&D management, and MS/OR/MIS implementation) have, in fact, been concerned with innovation and technology diffusion; however, surprisingly little integration among the three has occurred. This paper reports on a study which examined a key tenet from each of these literatures in an effort to construct a robust model of innovative behavior. Specifically, the study utilized survey data in examining the validity of “push-pull” theory (i.e., that innovation is most likely to occur when a need and a means to resolve that need are simultaneously recognized) as well as the importance of top management attitude toward an innovation and of organizational receptivity toward change. The research context involved the diffusion of six modern software practices into 47 software development groups. While the model's independent variables explained a rather large amount of the variance in the use of these modern software practices, “push-pull” theory was not validated. A number of explanations are offered for the apparent failure of “push-pull” theory. Top management attitude and organizational receptivity toward change, however, were generally found to influence organizational innovation. As hypothesized, significant differences emerged in the factors influencing administrative and technical innovations with organizational receptivity toward change important only for the technical innovations. This suggests that organizational processes facilitating innovation should vary depending on the nature of the innovation involved.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations.
Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.5.553 · Cited by 426
Cited by
Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators
Damanpour, F. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256406 · Cited by 6,542
Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An Institutional Perspective1
Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036518 · Cited by 1,639
Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(00)00152-1 · Cited by 1,270
Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses
Premkumar, G., & Roberts, M. (1999) · Omega · doi:10.1016/s0305-0483(98)00071-1 · Cited by 1,108
Managerial Influence in the Implementation of New Technology
Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.10.1252 · Cited by 812
The Assimilation of Software Process Innovations: An Organizational Learning Perspective
Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1997) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.43.10.1345 · Cited by 811
An Empirically Derived Model for the Adoption of Customer‐based Interorganizational Systems*
Grover, V. (1993) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1993.tb01295.x · Cited by 757
Hwang, H.-G., Ku, C.-Y., Yen, D. C., & Cheng, C.-C. (2004) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(02)00191-4 · Cited by 228
Understanding the implications of ICT adoption: Insights from SMEs
Shiels, H., McIvor, R., & O'Reilly, D. (2003) · Logistics Information Management · doi:10.1108/09576050310499318 · Cited by 155
Metadata
- Authors
- Zmud, R. W.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1984-06
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 727-738
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2052825152
- Cited by
- 522
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.74
- 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
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.