CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 149Technology Adoption and User BehaviourInnovation Diffusion and ForecastingInformation Technology Governance and Strategy

Mimetic Isomorphism and Technology Evaluation: Does Imitation Transcend Judgment?

Open access
University of Western Ontario, Tingling, Peter, Parent, Michael, Simon Fraser University·2002·Journal of the Association for Information Systems
DOI 10.17705/1jais.00025
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although contemporary technology adoption theories incorporate societal norms or peer references, it is unclear to what extent these factors influence choices. In this research, we apply institutional theory and the concept of mimetic isomorphism as peer influences to the technology evaluation process to determine the degree to which managers conform when selecting between competing information technologies. More specifically, we test if peer influence is sufficient to overcome a product evaluation where the choice is believed to be inferior. An experiment is conducted using the World Wide Web and a national sample of 348 senior information technology and business decision makers. Significant effects are found where inferior technologies are selected if respondents are informed that competitors have selected them. Further research is warranted to investigate the presence and extent of these effects but overall implications are that product evaluations may be more ornamental than substantive.

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 · 10.17705/1jais.00025

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.

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

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?

  • This rapid adoption across the delivery system is likely driven both by an expectation that generative AI will address burnout among clinicians and increase patient volume and social, institutional, and mimetic processes.

    “This rapid adoption across the delivery system is likely driven both by an expectation that generative AI will address burnout among clinicians and increase patient volume and social, institutional, and mimetic processes.33,34”

    From Uptake of Generative AI Integrated With Electronic Health Records in US Hospitals (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

    The paper’s research implications say that social norms and external institutional forces influence technology selection and adoption, supporting the sentence’s reference to social, institutional, and mimetic processes. Our copy does not address generative AI adoption in healthcare or expectations about clinician burnout and patient volume; it therefore cannot support those specific parts of the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 93 · Cited by 149

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Abrahmson, E. "Managerial Fads and Fashion: The Diffusion and Rejection of Innovations," Academy of Management Review (16), 1991, pp. 586-612.
  2. Abrahmson, E., and Fairchild, G. "Management Fashion: Lifecycles, Triggers and Collective Learning Processes," Administrative Science Quarterly (44), 1999, pp. 708-740.
  3. Abrahmson, E., and Rosenkopf, L. "Institutional and Competitive Bandwagons: Using Mathematical Modeling as a Tool to Explore Innovation Diffusion," Academy of Management Review (18), 1993, pp. 487-517.
  4. Achrol, R. S., and Stern, L. W. "Environmental Determinants of Decision Making Uncertainty in marketing Channels," Journal of Marketing Research (25), February 1988, pp. 36-50.
  5. Ackoff, R. "Management Misinformation Systems," Management Science (14:4), 1967, pp. 147-155.
  6. Agarwal, R. "Individual Acceptance of Information Technologies," in Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future Through the Past, R. W. Zmud (ed.), Cincinnati, OH: Pendaflex, 1999.
  7. Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Heidleberg: Springer, 1985.
  8. Arthur, W. B. "Increasing Returns and the Two Worlds of Business," Harvard Business Review (74:4), July-August 1996, pp. 1-12.
  9. Armstrong, J. S., and Overton, T. S. "Estimating Non-Response Bias in Mail Surveys," Journal of Marketing Research (14:3), 1977, pp. 396-402.
  10. Astley, W. G., and Fombrun, C. "Collective Strategy: Social Ecology of Organization Environments," Academy of Management Review (8:4), 1983, pp. 576-587.
  11. Bakos, Y. "The Productivity Payoff of Computers," Science (281:5373), July 3, 1998, p. 52 (available online at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/281/5373/52).
  12. Baum, J. A. C., and Haverman, H. A. "Love Thy Neighbor? Differentiation and Agglomeration in the Manhattan Hotel Industry 1898-1990," Administrative Science Quarterly (42), 1997, pp. 304-338.
  13. Mimetic Isomorphism & Technology Evaluation by P. Tingling & M. Parent Beggs, A. "A Note On Switching Costs and Technology Choice," The Journal or Industrial Economics (37:4), 1989, pp. 437-441.
  14. Behling, O. "The Case for the Natural Science Model for Research in Organizational Behavior Organizational Theory," Academy of Management Review (5:4), 1980, pp. 483-490.
  15. Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., and Welch, I. "Learning from the Behavior of Others: Conformity, Fads and Informational Cascades," Journal of Economic Perspectives (12:3), 1998, pp. 151-170.
  16. Choi, J. P. "Irreversible Choice of Uncertain Technologies with Network Externalities," The Rand Journal of Economics (25:3), 1994, pp. 382-402.
  17. Ciborra, C. U., and Hanseth, O. "From Tool to Gestell: Agendas for Managing the Information Infrastructure," Information Technology & People (11:4), 1998, pp. 305-327.
  18. David, P. A. "CLIO and the Economics of QWERTY," Economic History (75), 1985, pp. 332-337.
  19. Davidow, W. H. Marketing High Technology. New York: The Free Press, 1986.
  20. Davis, F. D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1986.
  21. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science (35:8), 1989, pp. 982-1003.
  22. De Jong, W. M. "Cost-Effective Uses of Evaluation Models: An Empirical Cross-National Investi- gation," International Journal of Technology Management (19:3/5), 2000, pp. 368-383.
  23. Deephouse, D. L. "Does Isomorphism Legitimate?," Academy of Management Journal (39: 4), 1996, pp. 1024-1036.
  24. DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields," American Sociological Review (48:2), 1983, pp. 147-160.
  25. Dixit, A., and Pindyck, R. Investment Under Uncertainty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.
  26. Donaldson, L. American Anti-Management Theories of Organization. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  27. Durrani, T. S., Forbes, S. M., and Broadfoot, C. "An Integrated Approach to Technology Acquisition Management," International Journal of Technology Management (17:6), 1999, pp. 597-617.
  28. Durrani, T. S., Forbes, S. M., Broadfoot, C., and Carrie, A. S. "Managing the Technology Acquisition Process," Technovation (18:8/9), 1998, pp. 523-528.
  29. Fichman, R. G., and Kemerer, C. F. "The Illusory Diffusion of Innovation: An Examination of Assimilation Gaps," Information Systems Research (10:3), 1999, pp. 123-139.
  30. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
  31. Fligstein, N. "The Structural Transformation of American Industry: An Institutional Account of the Causes of Diversification in the Largest Firms," in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991, pp. 311-336.
  32. Garud, R., and Kumaraswamy, A. "Competitive Dynamics in Network Industries: An Exploration of SUN Microsystems Open Systems Strategy," Strategic Management Journal (14), 1993, pp. 351- 369.
  33. Mimetic Isomorphism & Technology Evaluation by P. Tingling & M. Parent Gerwin, D. "A Theory of Innovation Process for Computer-Aided-Manufacturing Technology," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (35:2), 1988, pp. 90-100.
  34. Granovetter, M. "Threshold Models of Collective Behavior," American Journal of Sociology (83), 1978, pp. 1420-1443.
  35. Greenwood, R., and Hinings, C. R. "Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing Together the Old and the New Institutionalism," Academy of Management Review (21:4), 1996, pp. 1022-1054.
  36. Greve, H. R., and Taylor, A. "Innovations as Catalysts for Organizational Change: Shifts in Organi- zational Cognition," Administrative Science Quarterly (45:1), 2000, pp. 54-80.
  37. Griffith, T. L., and Zammuto, R. F. "Why New Technologies Fail," Industrial Management (43:3), 1999, pp. 29-43.
  38. Hannan, M. T., and Freeman, J. "The Population Ecology of Organizations," American Journal of Sociology (82), 1977, pp. 929-964.
  39. Hannan, M. T., and Freeman, J. "Structural Inertia and Organizational Change," American Sociological Review (49), April 1984, pp. 149-164.
  40. Hawley, A. "Human Ecology," in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, D. L. Stills (ed.), New York: Macmillan, 1968, pp. 328-337.
  41. Hofstede, G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Chichester, England: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1991..
  42. Hotelling, H. "Stability in Competition," Economic Journal (39), 1929, pp. 41-57.
  43. Kelly, P. J., and Coaker, J. W. "The Importance of Price as a Choice Criterion for Industrial Purchasing Decisions," Industrial Marketing Management (5:5), 1976, pp. 281-293.
  44. Klassen, R. D., and Jacobs, J. "Experimental Comparison of Web, Electronic and Mail Survey Technologies in Operations Management," Journal of Operations Management (19:6), 2001, pp. 713-728.
  45. Lawrence, T. B. "Institutional Strategy," Journal of Management (25:2), March-April 1999, pp. 161- 188.
  46. Levin, S. G., Levin, S. L., and Meisel, J. B. "A Dynamic Analysis of the Adoption of a New Techno- logy: The Case of the Optical Scanners," Review of Economics and Statistics (69), 1987, pp. 12- 17.
  47. Luce, R. D., and Raiffa, H. Games and Decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1957.
  48. Mansfield, E. "Technical Change and the Rate of Imitation," Econometrica (29), 1961, pp. 741-766.
  49. Markus, M. L., and Robey, D. "Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Struc- tures in Information Systems Research," Management Science (34:5), 1988, pp. 583-598.
  50. Mathieson, K. "Predicting User intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information Systems Research (2:3), 1991, pp. 173-191.
  51. McRary, J. W. "Leveraging the Power of Information Technology for Sustained Competitive Success," Engineering Management Journal (7:1), 1995, pp. 3-5. 135 Journal of the Association for Information Systems (Volume 3, 2002) 113-143
  52. Mimetic Isomorphism & Technology Evaluation by P. Tingling & M. Parent Meyer, J. W., and Rowan, B. "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structures as Myth and Cere- mony," American Journal of Sociology (83), 1977, pp. 340-63.
  53. Miller, D., and Chen, M. J. "Nonconformity in Competitive Repertoires: A Sociological View of Markets," Social Forces (74), 1996, pp. 1209-1234,
  54. Mizruchi, M. S., and Fein, L. C. "The Social Construction of Organizational Knowledge: A Study of the Uses of Coercive, Mimetic, and Normative Isomorphism," Administrative Science Quarterly (44:4), 1999, pp. 653-683.
  55. Peet, M. "ROI on IT, Practical or Political," Document World (3:5), 1998, pp. 40-42.
  56. Porter, M. E. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press, 1980.
  57. Powell, P. "Information Technology Evaluation: Is It Different?," The Journal of Operational Research Society (43:1), 1992, pp. 29-43.
  58. Riddle, W. E., and Williams, L. G. "Technology Selection: An Educational Approach," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (SE13:11), 1987, pp. 1199-1207.
  59. Robey, D., and Boudreau, M. C. "Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implications," Information Systems Research (10:2), 1999, pp. 167-185.
  60. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1995.
  61. Scott, W. R. Institutions and Organizations (Foundations for Organizational Science). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995.
  62. Shapiro, C., and Varian, H. "The Art of Standard Wars," California Management Review (41:2), 1999, pp. 8-32.
  63. Smith, C. B. "Casting the Net: Surveying an Internet Population," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (3:1), June 1997 (available online at http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/ vol3/issue1/smith.html).
  64. Spence, A. M. Market Signaling: Informational Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974.
  65. Staw, B. M., and Epstein, L. D. "What Bandwagons Bring: Effects of Popular Management Techniques on Corporate Performance, Reputations and CEO Pay," Administrative Science Quarterly (45:3), 2000, pp. 523-556.
  66. Swoboda, S. J., Muehlberger, N., Weitkunat, R., and Schneeweiss, S. "Internet Surveys by Direct Mailing: An Innovative way of Collecting Data," Social Science Computer Review (15:3), 1997, pp. 242-255.
  67. Yun, G. W., and Trumbo, C. W. "Comparative Response to a Survey Executed by Post, E-mail, and Web Form," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (6:1), September 2000 (available online at http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/yun.html).

Authors
University of Western Ontario, Tingling, P., Parent, M., & Simon Fraser University
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Venue
Journal of the Association for Information Systems
Publisher
Association for Information Systems
Published
2002
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
113-143
ISSN
1536-9323 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17705/1jais.00025
OpenAlex
W2166841722
Cited by
149
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
FWCI
19.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Innovation Diffusion and Forecasting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
Keywords
mimetic isomorphism, technology evaluation, peer influence, technology adoption, institutional theory, information technology selection, organizational decision-making

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