CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,401Innovation Diffusion and ForecastingInnovation and Knowledge ManagementPolicy Transfer and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning: The Case of Business Computing

Attewell, Paul·1992·Organization Science
DOI 10.1287/orsc.3.1.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The dominant explanation for the spread of technological innovations emphasizes processes of influence and information flow. Firms which are closely connected to pre-existing users of an innovation learn about it and adopt it early on. Firms at the periphery of communication networks are slower to adopt. This paper develops an alternative model which emphasizes the role of know-how and organizational learning as potential barriers to adoption of innovations. Firms delay in-house adoption of complex technology until they obtain sufficient technical know-how to implement and operate it successfully. In response to knowledge barriers, new institutions come into existence which progressively lower those barriers, and make it easier for firms to adopt and use the technology without extensive in-house expertise. Service bureaus, consultants, and simplification of the technology are examples. As knowledge barriers are lowered, diffusion speeds up, and one observes a transition from an early pattern in which the new technology is typically obtained as a service to a later pattern of in-house provision of the technology. Thus the diffusion of technology is reconceptualized in terms of organizational learning, skill development, and knowledge barriers. The utility of this approach is shown through an empirical study of the diffusion of business computing in the United States, reporting survey and ethnographic data on the spread of business computing, on the learning processes and skill…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.3.1.1

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 54 references

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Attewell, P.
Affiliations
The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
Corresponding author
Attewell, Paul
ORCID
Attewell, Paul
Venue
Organization Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
1992-02
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
1-19
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
DOI
10.1287/orsc.3.1.1
OpenAlex
W2143465259
Cited by
1,401
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 74 · 2012: 83
FWCI
19.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organization Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Innovation Diffusion and Forecasting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policy Transfer and Learning
Keywords
technology diffusion, organizational learning, business computing, knowledge barriers, service bureaus, consultants, institutional change, skill development, communication networks, diffusion of innovations

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