The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach
Abstract
Based on the innovation and technological diffusion literatures, promising research questions concerning the implementation of a production and inventory control information system (material requirements planning: MRP) are identified and empirically examined. These questions focus on the interaction of managerial tasks with the information technology and the resulting effect on the adoption and infusion of that technology. Using a random sample of manufacturing firms across the United States, we find that this interaction does indeed affect the adoption of MRP, though it does not seem to affect MRP infusion. These results support the notion that though rational decision models may be useful in explaining information technology adoption, political and learning models may be more useful when examining infusion.
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
User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research
Ives, B., & Olson, M. H. (1984) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.5.586 · Cited by 1,318
Cited by
Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model1
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250921 · Cited by 8,767
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159
Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249689 · Cited by 6,006
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · Cited by 4,584
Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization1
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249443 · Cited by 3,814
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1990-02
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-139
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2123438112
- Cited by
- 2,765
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.23
- 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.