2.5 THE TECHNOLOGY–ORGANIZATION–ENVIRONMENT (TOE)
2.5.2 Organisational Context
Organisational context addresses the traits and characteristics of the organisation that influences innovation adoption decisions (Hsu et al., 2014). Ramdani et al. (2013) have identified top management support, organisational readiness, experience and size as some of the critical organisational factors that influence technological adoption. Baker (2012), whilst
34
highlighting the same issues raised by Ramdani et al, has added intra-firm communication processes and the amount of slack resources available to the firm as being equally important.
A number of scholars (Ramdani et al., 2013; Baker, 2012; Jeyaraj et al., 2006) have described the role played by top management as being critical to the adoption of technology in any organisation. The role played by top management in technology adoption range from drawing up a strategic plan that recognises the role played by technology in the sustenance of the organisation, decision-making on what type of technology(ies) the organisation should adopt, and facilitating technology adoption and implementation. Ramdani et al. (2013) has indicated that the decision maker in technology adoption is likely to be in the top management team.
This means that the decision maker’s support is vital for adoption to take place. Jeyaraj et al.
(2006) has also weighed in the discussion by describing top management support as one of the best predictors of organisational adoption of technology although they do not specify the actual role played by management. Thong (1999), however, points out that the management’s role in technology adoption is that of articulating a vision for the organisation. In this regard, the role played by management could, therefore, be described as mainly involving planning.
Baker (2012) also prescribes communication as the management team’s role in technology adoption. In this particular case, he describes the role of management as involving the following activities:
(1) describing the role of innovation within the organisation’s overall strategy;
(2) indicating the importance of innovation to subordinates;
(3) rewarding innovation both formally and informally;
(4) emphasizing the history of innovation within a firm; and
(5) building a skilled executive team that is able to cast a compelling vision of the firm’s future.
The communication role played by management as described above could hence be described as happening both during the planning stage, evidenced by the manager’s efforts to make workers understand the role of innovation in the organisation’s strategy, and also during the implementation stage, evidenced by the building of a skilled executive team plus rewarding innovation.
Organisational readiness is yet another important pillar. Iacovou et al. (1995, p. 467) has defined organisational readiness as “the availability of the needed organisational resources for adoption”. Technological adoption is a resource-intensive exercise. Therefore,
35
organisations that are keen to make it a reality would have to invest heavily in both human and financial resources. Whilst skilled human resources are essential in setting up and also running systems that makes an organisation to realise its technology goals, financial resources are necessary to put up the requisite infrastructure, pay for cost of operations and also train or indeed recruit human resource teams that manage that infrastructure. Skilled human resources and adequate financial resources are viewed as important drivers of technology projects, and their absence most often affects the implementation of such projects (Cragg and King, 1993). The rate at which these resources are made available for the implementation of technology projects at a particular organisation would largely be driven by level of commitment of top management, size of the organisation, and also the amount of financial resources available to a firm.
Organisational structure and previous experience with technology have also been identified as important elements in technology adoption. Baker (2012) observes that organic structures which are also referred to as decentralised structures are best-suited to the adoption phase of the innovation process. On the contrary, mechanistic or centralised structures that emphasise on formal reporting relationships and clearly defined roles for employees are best-suited to the implementation phase of the innovation process. Previous experience with technology also plays a role in technology adoption. Dholakia and Kshetri (2002) in this regard posit that firms that have experience in using technology are more likely to adopt new technologies unlike those that have no prior experience. The explanation given for this trend is that incremental costs and knowledge required to adopt new technologies are smaller for organisations that already own related technologies or infrastructure. For instance, the incremental costs of adopting the use of mobile phones in the delivery of library and information services would be much less if a library already has some form of automation.
This is such the case because such a library would already have well-trained technical support staff, technical infrastructure, and also core library staff who are computer literate. Moreover, smartphones, to a large extent, work in a similar pattern to computers hence it would be easier to train staff on how to use them in the delivery of library and information services.
Similarly, the existing technical support staff could be used to plan, implement and run the new system albeit with some limited training whilst some of the technical infrastructure could also be utilised for the same program.
36
Trends have shown that larger organisations are more likely to adopt technology than is the case with smaller organisations. This has led researchers to conclude that size could be a factor in technology adoption (Harris et al. 2015; Sophonthummapharn, 2009). However, Kimberly (1976 cited by Baker, 2012, p.234) has criticised such findings arguing that “size is often a proxy for more specific and more meaningful underlying organisational factors such as the availability of specific resources”. Yap (1990) and more recently Levenburg et al.
(2006) have added credence to this analogy by suggesting that larger firms have a greater need, resources, skills and experience, and the ability to survive failures than smaller firms.
Although there is a difference of opinion on this particular issue, the impact of size of an organisation on technology adoption cannot be overlooked.