CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,639Technology Adoption and User BehaviourERP Systems Implementation and ImpactInformation Technology Governance and Strategy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An Institutional Perspective1

Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., Benbasat, I.·2003·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/30036518
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study used institutional theory as a lens to understand the factors that enable the adoption of interorganizational systems. It posits that mimetic, coercive, and normative pressures existing in an institutionalized environment could influence organizational predisposition toward an information technology-based interorganizational linkage. Survey-based research was carried out to test this theory. Following questionnaire development, validation, and pretest with a pilot study, data were collected from the CEO, the CFO, and the CIO to measure the institutional pressures they faced and their intentions to adopt financial electronic data interchange (FEDI). A firm-level structural model was developed based on the CEO’s, the CFO’s, and the CIO’s data. LISREL and PLS were used for testing the measurement and structural models respectively. Results showed that all three institutional pressures— mimetic pressures, coercive pressures, and normative pressures—had a significant influence on organizational intention to adopt FEDI. Except for perceived extent of adoption among suppliers, all other subconstructs were significant in the model. These results provide strong support for institutional-based variables as predictors of adoption intention for interorganizational linkages. These findings indicate that organizations are embedded in institutional networks and call for greater attention to be directed at understanding institutional pressures when investigating information technology innovations adoption.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/30036518

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 85 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Azjen, 1980, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Behavior
  2. Bagozzi, 1980, Causal Models in Marketing
  3. Bagozzi, 1982, Theoretical Concepts, Measurement, and Meaning
  4. Barclay, 1995, The Partial Least Squares Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration, Technology Studies, 2, 285
  5. Cyert, 1963, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm
  6. Fallon, 1988, GM Europe Blazes EDI Trail: Will Link 2000 Suppliers in Seven Countries, MIS Week
  7. Fornell, 1982, A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis, Methods
  8. King, 1990, Singapore’s TradeNet: A Tale of One City
  9. Kerlinger, 1986, Foundations of Behavioral Research
  10. March, 1981, Decisions in Organizations and Theories of Choice, 205
  11. Miner, 1995, Population Level Learning, 115
  12. Nunnally, 1978, Psychometric Theory
  13. O’Hanlon, 1993, Financial Electronic Data Interchange: Closing the Loop
  14. Poole, 1989, Toward a General Theory of Innovation Processes, 637
  15. Rogers, 1995, Diffusion of Innovations
  16. Schelling, 1978, Micromotives and Macrobehavior
  17. Sisodia, 1992, Singapore Invests in the Nation-Corporation, Harvard Business Review, 70, 40
  18. Teo, H. H. Organizational Predisposition Toward an Information Technology Innovation Adoption: The Roles of Three Theoretical Perspectives in the Case of Financial Electronic Data Interchange, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, National University of Singapore, October 1998.
  19. Teo, 2001, Factors Influencing the Adoption of IT-Based Interorganizational Linkages: An Integrative Perspective

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
ORCID
Wei, K. K.
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2003-03-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
19-49
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
DOI
10.2307/30036518
OpenAlex
W2097700858
Semantic Scholar
e759bed5046982ab9e6812e74606ead3df042c38
Cited by
1,639
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 78 · 2015: 97 · 2014: 106 · 2013: 93 · 2012: 111
FWCI
81.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
Keywords
interorganizational systems, technology adoption intention, institutional theory, mimetic pressure, coercive pressure, normative pressure, information technology adoption, institutional pressures, organizational embeddedness

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