Practical recommendations based on institutional theory for the implementation of technology: A Systematic Literature Review

(1)

Practical recommendations based on institutional theory for the

implementation of technology:

A Systematic Literature Review

Master Thesis BA: Change Management

Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

Supervisor: dr. C. Reezigt

Secondary Evaluator: M. L. Hage

November 28, 2016

L.E. de Vries

S1517481

Word count: 9041

(2)

2 Abstract

(3)

3

Introduction

Halloween is supposed to be the “sweetest and scariest” day of the year in the USA. Hershey Foods, a

Fortune 500 company famous for their delicious chocolate kisses, usually delivers around $100

million worth of those kisses to the people who celebrate Halloween. The year 1999 however was not

a “sweet” experience at all for Hershey. In 1996 they started implementing a new technology, an

upgrade of their IT systems. 48 months was recommended for the implementation, but Hershey

decided to use 30 months to roll out the new system. The implementation failed, which led to

problems with the supply chain applications. Hershey was unable to deliver the $100 million worth of

Kisses for Halloween, although they had most of the inventory in stock. It caused an 8 percent decline

in stock price and a 19 percent drop in quarterly profit. The implementation of the technology did not

take Hershey down, but 1999 was certainly not the “sweetest” year (Wailgum, 2009).

Nowadays, many organizations implement technology to be more efficient and competitive

(Ahmad, 2014). Furthermore, competition and a demanding environment ask for constant

improvement of technology to stay ahead (Nielsen, Mathiassen & Newell, 2014). Moreover,

technologies can be very complex (Narayanan & Chen, 2012) and many attempts to implement

technology fail because it is difficult in practice (Hitt, Wu, & Zhou, 2002; Kukafka, Johnson, Linfante,

& Allegrante, 2003).

Institutional theory might provide answers to why implementation of technology often fails

(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Zucker, 1987; Greenwood and Hinings, 1996). Institutional theory

states that structural and behavioural changes in organizations are driven by the need for

organizational legitimacy instead of competition or a desire for efficiency. This in turn, stimulates

processes of institutionalization which makes organizations more alike, and possibly not more

efficient (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). This process is called ‘isomorphism’, which is defined as a

“constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set

of environmental conditions” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, 149). It is the drive for legitimacy and

becoming more alike which might pose problems when an organization tries to implement technology.

Institutional theory assists in mapping the institutional environment and understand the

possibilities and restrains where such change initiatives take place (Kuipers et al., 2014). Change

practitioners benefit from this knowledge when implementing technology. Furthermore, practical

recommendations on how to implement technology in an institutional environment might decrease the

amount of failing technology initiatives.

Although, a substantial body of academic research exists on the adoption and implementation

of technology, a review of the practical recommendations regarding institutional theory given by this

body of research has yet to be done. Therefore, this study aims to fill in this gap.

(5)

5 design, structure, and work of an organization (Ahmed, 2014). These technologies can range from

something simple, such as buying a laptop with accounting software, to something complex, such as

inter-organizational information technology. Due to the different effects and uses of technology, it is

difficult to form a definition. In this study, technology is defined as software or system an organization

implements to increase their efficiency, performance, and competitiveness. This definition is able to

capture the technologies studied in academic literature.

Next, is the theoretical framework of this study to broaden the understanding and knowledge

of the reader regarding the topic of this study.

Theoretical framework

Before implementation, an organization needs to make decisions about the adoption of certain

hardware and/or software technology (Thong, 1999) and on a managerial and professional/technical

staff level in the internal and external environment of an organization (Grover and Goslar 1993;

Preece 1995). Institutional theory provides decisionmakers with information about the institutional

environment and its pressures surrounding an organization.

The institutional environment

The focus of institutional theory is on “the institutional environment surrounding an

organization” (Phang et al., 2008, p. 103). Within this environment are institutional dimensions that

influence individual as well as organizational behaviour (Scott, 2001). These institutional forces are

categorized as the regulatory, normative, or cognitive dimension (Scott, 2001). The regulatory

dimension refers to formal rules and regulations to which an organization needs to comply. The

normative dimension refers to informal values and norms that promote certain behaviour. The

cognitive dimension refers to rules and meanings that are culturally constructed (Bruton, Ahlstrom &

Han-Lin, 2010). From these institutional dimensions three types of pressures emerge i.e., coercive,

normative, and mimetic pressures (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

Coercive pressure refers to pressures by others on whom an organization is dependent

(DiMaggio et al., 1983). Such coercive pressures might come from suppliers who controle scarce

resources, customers who are responsible for most of the organization’s turnover, or parent companies

driving changes to organizational structure of its subsidiaries (Messerschmidt and Hinz, 2013).

Normative pressure refers to pressures that are derived from the professionalization of fields

and disciplines (DiMaggio et al., 1983). These pressures might come from interaction between

organizations who operate in the same industry, and these successful organizations might persuade

non-adopters to adopt new technology through promotion of the benefits and costs of the new

technology (Powell, 1991).

(6)

6 organization over time, in response to changes in structure and actions of organizations in the same

industry (Messerschmidt et al., 2013). Furthermore, changes in other organizations create uncertainty

and triggers mimetic behaviour from organizations that do not want to fall behind (Messerschmidt et

al., 2013).

These pressures within an institutional environment foster to a process called ‘isomorphism’

(DiMaggio et al., 1983). Isomorphism is defined as a “constraining process that forces one unit in a

population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions” (DiMaggio et

al., 1983, 149). In other words, organizations within the institutional environment will start to look the

same. Coercive isomorphism takes place when organizations try to avoid sanctions from others on

whom they are dependend. Normative isomorphism occurs when an organization tries to conform to

pressures related to professionalization. Lastly, mimetic isomorphism takes place when organizations

face uncertainty and try to model themselves to organizations that they perceive as successful or

legitimate (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Liu, 2012). An organization’s actions are legitimate when these

actions are desirable (Suchman, 1995).

Thus, an institutional environment is a complex setting that is influenced by institutional

dimensions and pressures. This complexity makes implementation of, for example, information

technologies difficult (Philippidou, Karageorgiou, Tarantilis, Soderquist, & Prastacos, 2008).

Knowing and understanding these forces make it possible to guide implementation of technology more

precisely. Furthermore, mapping the external and internal processes benefits implementation, because

external processes affect diffusion into an organization and internal processes affect creation from

within (Scott, 2001).

According to Burns and Wholey (1993), the institutional environment influences the structure

and actions of an organization significantly. Additionally, Teo, Wei, and Benbasat (2003) argue that

adoption of technology is not by basing it on intra-organizational or technical criteria, but on the

institutional environment and its pressures. For example, organizations might try to replicate the

success of another organization to be as innovative in their environment (Markus, 1987).

Unfortunately, ‘IT researchers have yet to ask how institutions influence the design, use, and

consequences of technologies, either within or across organizations’ (Orlikowski and Barley, 2001, p.

153). It is likely, that the institutional environment influences organizations in their choice and design

of technology. But often, technology is treated as a unitary object, ignoring its unique properties

(Volkoff, Strong & Elmes, 2007). This might be another reason why implementation of technology

often fails. Again, this shows the importance of recommendations on implementation of technology.

Therefore, this study will answer the following research question:

(7)

7 This study contributes to the current knowledge of institutional theory and technology

implementation. Regarding institutional theory, this study expands the knowledge by giving insight in

recommendations found in the academic literature. This study also broadens the knowledge of the

field of technology implementation regarding the aspect of institutional theory.

The main aim of this study is to provide practitioners with, on institutional theory based,

practical recommendations for implementation of technology in organizations. The method for

gathering these practical recommendations from the academic literature is a systematic literature

review.

(8)

8

Methodology

To find key scientific contributions to the field of change management in relation with

technology and institutions a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is used. According to Leseure,

Bauer, Birdi, Neely, and Denyer (2004), a SLR should be replicable, parsimonious, and competent. In

other words, a literature search using the same databases and search strings should result in the same

list of found articles. Secondly, the SLR should be written in a clear and concise way. And lastly,

enough evidence needs to be brought forward by the search in order to create valuable insights. To

adhere to these three criteria, three phases described by Kitchenham (2007) are used: 1) planning the

review; 2) conducting the review; and 3) reporting the review. Each phase is build-up of several stages

that guide the process of the SLR. The first stage is concerned with setting up the SLR, the second

phase with gathering and processing relevant information, and the third phase with describing what the

gathered and processed information tells us. This process seems linear, but Lavallee, Robillard, and

Mirsalari (2014) advice to approach a SLR in an iterative way. Especially, if the SLR is performed by

a person who is not an expert on the subject. By describing each stage and its phases comprehensively,

repeatability of the SLR is increased.

Planning the Systematic Literature Review

Identifying major terms and keywords. To find articles for a systematic literature review,

relevant search terms and keywords need to be identified. To identify these search terms and keywords

a strategy developed by Khan, Basri, Dominic, and Amin (2013) is used. Their strategy consists of the

following four steps: 1) derive major terms from the research question; 2) search for alternative

spellings and synonyms; 3) verify the keywords in any relevant papers; and 4) use the Boolean “OR”

operator to integrate alternative spellings and synonyms and use the “AND” operator to integrate the

major terms.

(9)

9 were adapted to the search engine used by the databases.

Databases. The databases used in this study are “Academic Search Premier”, Business Source

Premier”, and “Elsevier ScienceDirect”. These databases were selected because the majority of articles

Both “Academic Search Premier” and “Business Source Premier” use the same search engine.

To search for conjugations in this search engine an ‘*’ is placed at the end of the search term. For

example, ‘theor*’ will find results containing ‘theories’, ‘theory’, etc. Furthermore, by using “ “

around a search term the search engine will search for the complete expression. For example,

“organizational change” will give articles containing ‘organizational change’ and not organizational

and change separately.

“Elsevier ScienceDirect” on the other hand, uses a different search engine where using the

search term ‘theory’ will automatically result in plurals. In appendix A you will find two sets of

search strings where the first is used in the databases “Academic Search Premier” and “Business

Source Premier”, and the second set is used in the database “Elsevier ScienceDirect”.

Conducting the Systematic Literature Review

Search Strategies. In the database “Academic Search Premier”, the advanced search option

was used. After each field search, the articles were filtered on publish date (2000+), peer reviewed

journals, academic journals, and English language. For Academic Search Premier the advanced search

option was selected and for each search string the field was set to all text. Furthermore, the articles

were filtered for publish date 2000 and further, peer reviewed academic journals, and written in

English.

In the database “Business Source Premier”, the advanced search option was used. After each

field search, the articles were filtered on publish date (2000+), peer reviewed journals, academic

journals, and English language. For Business Source Premier the advanced search option was selected

and for each search string the field was set to all text. Furthermore, the articles were filtered for

publish date 2000 and further, peer reviewed academic journals, and written in English.

In the database “Elsevier ScienceDirect”, the same search strings were used, but adapted to fit

the Elsevier ScienceDirect search engine (see appendix A). The ‘Expert search’ function was used to

search in all text of the articles. The search strings were inserted in the text block and restricted by

searching for articles (document type), articles that are published since 1999, and articles in press.

Each search result was exported to the computer in RIS format, and then imported in

Mendeley Desktop. After import, a mechanical and manual search was performed among all articles to

find and remove duplicates.

(10)

10 The databases “Academic Search Premier” and “Business Source Premier” have the option to

apply filters to the articles. The following filters were applied: 1) peer reviewed article; 2) articles

published after the year 1999; and 3) articles written in English. The “Elsevier Sciencedirect” database

also gave the possibility to apply filters, but compared to the other two databases choices were limited.

The filter for year was set to articles that are published after the year 1999. Filtering for ‘peer

reviewed’ articles was not possible in “Elsevier Sciencedirect”,

The exclusion criteria ‘describing an empirical study’, was performed manually on all

remaining articles, together with the first inclusion criteria to speed up the process. Hereafter, the

second inclusion criteria was applied followed by the third inclusion criteria. The exclusion criteria

“before the year 2000” was applied because no articles were found when applying a search filter on

the years before 2000.

Table 1. Inclusion and Exclusion criteria

Inclusion Criteria

1 the recommendations are based on institutional theory

2 the article is based on a situation of change and related to technology 3 the article gives practical recommendations to the field of change management

Exclusion Criteria

1 the article is not describing an empirical study 2 the article is not peer reviewed

3 the article is published before the year 2000 4 the article is not written in English

(11)

11 criteria are not applicable and scored with ‘N/A’. This influences the total possible score, and thus the

total possible score needs to be adjusted. To adjust the total possible score, the formula ‘total possible

score = 28 – (number of ‘N/A’ x 2)’ is used.

Reporting the Systematic Literature Review

Data analysis and synthesis. After the quality assessment, the selected articles were

documented using a data extraction form (see appendix B). For the analysis and synthesis of the

recommendations, three steps proposed by Thomas and Harden (2008) was used. In the first step, the

findings were coded based on meaning and context. Secondly, the coded findings were structured

based on meaning and context into descriptive themes using axial coding. In step three, the analytical

themes were developed. According to Lavallee et al. (2014), synthesis benefits from an iterative

approach. They state that structuring the large amount of data is difficult, which makes revisiting

papers necessary. Therefore, for the development of the descriptive and analytical themes an iterative

approach was used to improve the quality of the synthesis.

Summary

(12)

12

Results

Search Results

The result of the selection process is presented in figure 1. The databases Academic Search

Premier, Business Source Premier, and Elsevier ScienceDirect were consulted on August 3 2016. The

search resulted in 215 articles in Academic Search Premier, 354 articles in Business Source Premier,

and 118 articles in Elsevier ScienceDirect. In total 687 articles were found using the search strings in

the selected databases. A mechanical check for duplicate articles resulted in 42 duplicates and a

manual check found none, meaning that 645 articles remained. Applying the inclusion and exclusion

criteria resulted in removing 607 articles, meaning that 10 articles met the criteria. Appendix C shows

the excluded articles including their reason for exclusion.

Figure 1. Flowchart of article selection process

Business Source Premier: 354 Potentially relevant articles Academic Search Premier: 215 Potentially relevant articles Elsevier ScienceDirect: 118 Potentially relevant articles Total of 687 potentially relevant articles

Total of 645 articles for

screening

Total of 10 articles meet

(13)

13 The remaining articles’ quality is assessed using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for

Evaluating Primary Research Papers (Kmet et al., 2004). None of the remaining articles were excluded

based on their quality. The quality scores of each article stayed well above the threshold of 0.55 given

by Kmet et al. (2004). For an overview of the rating and calculation of the quality score of each article

see Appendix D.

Overview of the Selected Articles

(14)

(15)

(16)

16 Findings

In total, the review found 32 recommendations in the ten selected articles. These

recommendations are coded and subsequently structured to form descriptive themes (See Appendix

E). The themes are ‘Know the institutional environment’, ‘Have an adequate infrastructure’, ‘Create

alignment’, and ‘Effective use of pressures’.

Know the institutional environment

An institutional environment consists of regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements

(Scott, 2001). Concerning these elements, Phang et al. (2008) recommend to start with an assessment

of the existing institutional environment that surrounds an organization. Within this assessment, the

inter-relationships among different organizational elements, such as organizational memory, culture,

and power relations, and the influence of the institutional environment on these relationships within

the organization are assessed. According to Standing et al. (2009), within the institutional environment

of an organization, several levels of authority are present that influence the organization and the use of

technology. Levels of authority can take the form of personal, internal institutional, local, external, and

system authority. Standing et al. (2009) recommend assessing how these levels of authority influence

the organization and the use of technology. Having knowledge of the various forms of authority that

influence technology appropriation over time may help develop adequate strategic responses to these

forms of authority.

In case an organization is operating in a global context, Le-Nguyen et al. (2014) recommend

examining the national and international rules and legislation, combined with examination of the

standards and practices of the particular industry. In line with this recommendation, Kurnia et al.

(2015) recommend being aware of and have respect for the local cultural customs and traditions of the

location where the implementation takes place.

Have an adequate infrastructure

Bahkoo and Choi (2013) and El-Haddadeh et al. (2013), recommend having an adequate

infrastructure. The definition they give for infrastructure differs. Bahkoo and Choi (2013) define

infrastructure as a technology-based infrastructure that facilitates transactions, sharing information,

coordinating activities, and establishing governance structures between firms. El-Haddadeh et al.

(2013) define infrastructure as the buildings, technologies, and human resources that are needed to

implement the technology. Despite the difference in definitions, both approaches are capable of

facilitating implementation of technology.

(17)

17 implementation of the technology. Coordination mechanisms can take the form of processes, roles, or

structural arrangements. Davidson and Chismar (2007), provide an example of a coordination

mechanism. They recommend the formation of role networks to mobilize implementation. In their

study, they found that increased multidisciplinary cooperation in the form of role networks, positively

influenced customization, implementation, and application of the technology. Investing in permanent

network structures benefits the implementation of technology.

Next to an infrastructure, sufficient resources need to be available throughout the project

(Bahkoo and Choi, 2013; El-Haddadeh et al., 2013; and Kurnia et al., 2015). Recommended resources

are financial resources, human resources, education, training, skills, technical support, and guidance

(Bahkoo and Choi, 2013; El-Haddadeh et al., 2013; and Kurnia et al., 2015). First, sufficient financial

resources should be able to cover the costs of the project, including any additional costs that may arise

during implementation or change. Secondly, adequate and sufficient human resources need to be

available to successfully implement the technology. Adding to this, Davidson and Chismar (2007)

recommend incorporating human resource investments in the planning of the project in case extra

human resources are necessary. Thirdly, technical support is necessary to help users of the technology

in case problems arise. Finally, guidance helps users to stay on the right track when using the

technology.

To deploy resources more efficiently, Phang et al. (2008) recommend that practitioners know

the relevant modalities that belong to the organization’s organizational memory (routines, schemas),

culture (artefacts, values, assumptions, symbols), and power relations (formal authority, scarce

resources, disciplines, rules and norms that govern meanings and membership).

Another aspect related to resources is where to acquire them. El-Haddadeh et al. (2013)

recommend making use and exploit local resources, instead of gathering resources from all over the

world. According to El-Haddadeh et al. (2013), the use of local resources creates stability and

sustainability. Having the resources nearby reduces transport time and costs, and provides a better

view of readily available resources.

Related to acquiring resources, Chatterjee et al. (2002) recommend creating a ‘strategic

investment rationale’ that contains “value propositions that will guide the identification of promising

organizational opportunities and justification of resource commitments toward the implementation of

those projects” (Chatterjee et al., 2002, p. 71). Creating a well-developed strategic investment

rationale contributes to legitimacy and justification of resources, and consequently to implementation

of the technology

(18)

18 and Choi (2013) recommend having supportive leadership, which is support in situations where

external coercive pressures, such as government regulations, demand implementation of technology.

Thirdly, Wang and Lai (2014) recommend having top management support, which is the “dedication

and commitment of management to devote time and other resources to the planning, monitoring, and

promoting” of the technology (Wang and Lai, 2014, p. 57). Finally, El-Haddadeh et al. (2013)

recommend having political commitment if the technology initiative is from the government. These

findings show the importance of higher echelon support of the technology. Other studies support this

finding and state that support is a key element for successful implementation of technology (Liang,

Saraf, Hu & Xue, 2007; Rai, Brown & Tang, 2009).

Create alignment

Misalignment between the technology and organization is often the cause for implementation

problems (Bahkoo & Choi, 2013; Le-Nguyen et al., 2014; and Kurnia et al., 2015). Thus, minimizing

the amount of misalignment between technology and organizations is important. Davidson and

Chismar (2007) recommend thinking and working out the design of the technology prior to

implementation. In other words, creating a design that is appropriate and fits with the organization and

its institutional environment. From an opposite standpoint, Le-Nguyen et al. (2014) recommend to

focus on institutional features that influence the design of the technology. Combining both

recommendations may provide the best approach for the design of an appropriate technology. It could

lead to a technology that fits with the organization and its institutional environment and the

institutional environment with the technology.

Le-Nguyen et al. (2014) recommend reviewing the strategic organizational objectives that are

related to the technology. Justifying and legitimating the implementation of a technology is less

difficult when the technology is beneficial to the strategic objectives of an organization. Le-Nguyen et

al. (2014) also recommend to assess the professional identities within an organization to prevent the

formation of emergent work structures. “Professional identity accommodates attributes, beliefs,

values, motives, and experiences in terms of which people define themselves in a professional role”

(Le-Nguyen et al., 2014, p. 229). The formation of emergent work structures influences the

implementation of technology negatively, because the chances they cause misalignment with the

technology is high (Le-Nguyen et al., 2014).

Moreover, some technologies are used inter-organizational. Bahkoo and Choi (2013)

recommend developing appropriate inter-organizational technology, meaning a technology that is

aligned for use by and between different organizations. For example, in the fragmented grocery

industry, alignment of the technology with and between grocery stores, distributers, and manufacturers

might increase the chances of successful implementation (Bahkoo and Choi, 2013).

(19)

19 increases the chances of suitable alignment between technology and organizations.

The use of isomorphic pressures

To increase technology use, several recommendations have been proposed. For instance,

Davidson and Chismar (2007) recommend involving important stakeholders in the implementation

process. In their case study, physicians were involved in the implementation process. Although the

involved physicians restrained the implementation process to a certain degree, they were using the

system more.

Another recommendation by Davidson and Chismar (2007), is the use of teams that are

responsible for a certain task within the technology. These teams consist of individuals representing

departments related to the task. For example, in the case study of Davidson and Chismar (2007), a

disease management task force was formed to develop and implement clinical pathways. This resulted

in an increase of accurate diagnosis of diseases, accurate medical treatment, and more use of the

technology.

Experience level and positive experiences of users might also increase technology use. For

instance, Phang et al. (2008) recommend the use of ‘massive communication sessions’ and

‘hand-holding’. Massive communication sessions between employees of an organization are great for sharing

positive experiences of technology use, which in turn may increase technology use. ‘Hand-holding’ is

having experienced system users help and guide less experienced users. The more trust less

experienced users gain in their capability of using the technology, the more they will use the

technology.

Using institutional forces to increase technology use is also recommended. Jan et al. (2012)

recommend managers to improve normative and mimetic forces. As a normative force, they propose

building a technology community and select champions to create normative expectations. As a

mimetic force, they propose using high-level technology users to influence the adoption of low-level

technology users. Providing success stories of high-level users might inspire low-level users to adopt

the technology. Next to mimetic and normative forces, Jan et al. (2012) also recommend using

coercive forces, but only when these forces are linked to incentives. In the same vein, Wang and Lai

(2014) recommend using influential (i.e., top management support) and regulatory powers (i.e.,

organizational rewards) to facilitate the creation of an organizational vision regarding the technology.

This organizational vision enables employees to understand why implementation of the technology is

necessary and thus legitimate and justified.

Standing et al. (2009) recommend managing the perceptions of the technology continuously.

Perceptions about the technology can change over time and it is key to manage these perceptions in a

positive direction.

(20)

20 Institutional forces influence an employee’s attitude and thus the intention to use the technology. To

improve the intention to use the technology, Jan et al. (2012) recommend managers to improve their

knowledge of the technology in order to promote an employee’s positive attitude.

An aspect that can hinder technology implementation is the uncertainty the impact of the

institutional environment creates. Le-Nguyen et al. (2014) recommend managing the perceived

uncertainty in order to minimize it.

Summary

(21)

21

Discussion

This review of existing academic literature displays on institutional theory based

recommendations for implementation of technology. Key themes with related subthemes are formed

and discussed below. First a general discussion of the study is given. Next, each theme is discussed

separately. Followed, by a discussion on how the key themes relate to each other.

The number of articles containing recommendations based on institutional theory is low. More

so, when taking into account that institutional theory is frequently used to study technology

implementation (Gibbs & Kramer, 2004; Oliveira & Martins, 2010; Teo, Wei, & Benbasat, 2003).

Klein, Conn, and Sorray (2001), on the other hand, state that the implementation process of

technology is not given much attention. Since their study and as displayed by this review, this seems

still the case. This study shows that providing recommendations to aid practitioners does not receive

much attention. The low amount is further reflected in the variety between the recommendations. An

explanation might be, that most of the recommendations are research setting specific and thus differ

from each other. Consequently, it makes generalizability of the recommendations difficult (Britten et

al., 2002). Thus, making the reliability and applicability of the found recommendation speculative at

best. Nonetheless, having recommendations for specific situations is better than having none.

Extrapolating the recommendations to other settings seems thus far the only option for practitioners, in

order to use the recommendations.

The recommendations vary from the period prior implementation to the period throughout the

implementation. None of the studies, however, reported recommendations for the post-implementation

period. Perhaps, because implementation is seen as an on-going process (Davidson et al, 2007;

Orlikowski, 1996), organizations never reach a post-implementation period.

Know the institutional environment

As mentioned, the institutional environment has great influence on an organization (Burns et

al., 1993), and three subthemes emerge from the findings. The subthemes related to the institutional

environment are Uncertainty and Multiple institutional environments.

(22)

22 unfamiliar host societal context” (p. 562). Another reason to assess and keep assessing the institutional

environment lies in the risks of failing to implement the technology. For example, stock markets tend

to react negatively on reports of IT failures (Barahdwaj, Keil, & Mähring, 2009), which could devalue

the organization. Therefore, the institutional environment needs constantly assessment and concerns of

investors needs to be managed. This brings us to the factor of uncertainty within the institutional

environment.

Uncertainty. An important factor within the institutional environment is uncertainty. Constant

changes in industries due to government regulations or deregulations, mergers, changes in technology

(Chiasson and Davidson, 2005), and possible implementation failures (Barahdwaj et al., 2009)

increase the amount of uncertainty. As found by Barat and Choi (2007), the higher the level of

uncertainty the stronger the tendency of organizations to surrender to institutional pressures. As

mentioned in the introduction, mimetic isomorphism results from uncertainty (DiMaggio & Powell,

1983).

Next to the institutional environment, technology itself also is capable of increasing

uncertainty (Messerschmidt and Hinz, 2013). The level of uncertainty depends on how reliable and

successful the technology can become. Additionally, trust in the technology shows the strongest effect

when adopting technology (Messerschmidt and Hinz, 2013). The higher the trust, the less the amount

of uncertainty, and the more likely the technology will be adopted. For example, Shareef, Kumar,

Kumar, and Dwivedi (2011) found that, according to institutional theory, actors of e-Government who

do not feel institutional trust are likely to not follow the institutional norms linked with e-Government.

According to Reeves and Deimler (2011), adaptability and the ability to detect and respond

quickly to signals in the institutional environment leads to competitive advantages. An example is the

adoption of technologies similar to organizations in the institutional environment. This promotes

mimetic isomorphism as a viable option to increase organizational success. Furthermore, it is common

to copy popular IT ideas from other successful organizations (Baskerville and Myers 2009; Swanson

and Ramiller 2004; Wang 2010).

(23)

23 internal legitimacy respond to the parent company (Kostova, Roth, & Dacin, 2008; Kostova & Zaheer,

1999; Xu & Shenkar, 2002; Yang & Rivers, 2009). Consequently, the choice of institutional

environment might pose problems with regard to successful functioning of a subunit that is stationed

in a different country (Heidenrich, 2012; Souitaris et al., 2012). How organizations deal with these

problems needs further study (Narayanan, Yang, & Zahra, 2009; Scott, 2005; Souitari et al., 2012).

The findings in this study are more in favour of exomorphism, in that they focus on the rules and

regulations, practices and norms, and resources of an institutional environment that are different from

the mother organization. Meaning that, thus far, organizations who want to venture into new markets

or developing countries are advised to adapt to the institutional environment of these new markets and

developing countries.

Have an adequate infrastructure

The findings show the importance of having an adequate infrastructure with sufficient

resources and support throughout the implementation process. As mentioned, the definitions of

infrastructures are different. Bahkoo and Choi (2013) define infrastructure as a technology-based

infrastructure and El-Haddadeh et al. (2013) define infrastructure as the buildings, technologies, and

human resources that are needed to implement the technology. According to Cata and Lee (2006), an

infrastructure consists of a physical infrastructure (hardware and operating systems) and a human

infrastructure (knowledge and capabilities of IT staff). These two forms of infrastructures show

resemblance to the ones from the findings. Bahkoo and Choi their infrastructure relates to the physical

infrastructure, and El-Haddadeh et al. their infrastructure relates to the human infrastructure.

Messerschmidt and Hinz (2013) found that the size of an IT department has a significant positive

effect on adoption of technology. Meaning, that the human capabilities and expertise of larger IT

departments more able to implement technology.

In the institutional environment are external constituents who have control over resources.

Examples of such constituents are corporate headquarters, buying companies, investment companies,

and government (Barat & Choi, 2007). These external constituents all have their own specific interests

that influence the institutional environment (Barat & Choi, 2007). Therefor, an adequate infrastructure

should be able to harvest the necessary resources from the institutional environment.

(24)

24 Zowghi & Wong, 2004; Thomas, 2006).

Support is another important element of the infrastructure. The findings show that promoting

and supporting the technology finds it basis in mimetic and normative pressures. When managers use

and promote the system, chances are high that users will mimic the manager and start using the

technology. Furthermore, Morris and Geraldi (2011) found that managers are powerful organizational

actors who are capable of shaping the institutional culture. Another way to increase system use is the

use of normative pressure. When the use of the technology becomes a norm in the organization, it

triggers users to conform to this norm and will likely start to use the technology. Depending on the

type of organization more or less support is necessary. For example, a young and open-minded

organization with high IT confidence needs less support compared to an organization with older less

open- and IT-minded employees (Messerschmidt & Hinz, 2013).

To summarize, an adequate infrastructure with resources, and top management support

combined with championing provides a strong platform that creates stability throughout the

implementation.

Create alignment

The third theme is creating alignment between the technology and the institutional

environment. The findings raise a question regarding the design of the technology. Adjust technology

to its institutional environment or adjust the institutional environment to the technology? Both

approaches would have their merits, but the latter is difficult to achieve, because the influence of the

environment is greater than that of the technology (Kurnia et al., 2015; Lee, Lin & Pai, 2005; Zhu,

Kraemer & Xu, 2002). However, there is a perspective that deems it possible to shape the institutional

environment (Oliver, 1991). More research is necessary to define the possibilities of technology to

change the institutional environment.

The findings show the importance of alignment between technology and the institutional

environment. When more organizations are dependent on the technology, it becomes more difficult to

implement the technology. Furthermore, when an organization tries to mimic technology from a

successful organization the chances are that the technology does not align. As a result, none of the

expected rewards and advantages is obtained.

The use of isomorphic pressures

(25)

25 technology is high. In case of attitude a normative pressure can be used to increase implementation,

and with perception a coercive pressure. Furthermore, coercive pressure can also be used to influence

suppliers, customers and parent companies (Messerschmidt & Hinz, 2013). This shows the variability

practitioners have in managing users. Thus, practitioners need to develop their knowledge and skills

regarding using these pressures.

How do the themes relate?

The key themes show that implementation of technology is a complex process, which is

reflected in the number of technology initiatives that fail (Hitt et al., 2002; Kukafka et al., 2003). This

study shows that many factors play a role before and during implementation of technology, which

makes providing change practitioners with general recommendations difficult.

The institutional environment is of great influence on the design and planning of the

technology. Thus, the most influence on implementation of technology comes from the environment

and not from the technology or organization, which is confirmed in other studies (Kurnia et al., 2015;

Lee et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2002).

Overall, the key themes are related to each other and should not be seen separately. All themes

are linked in such a way that they are dependent on each other. Together, they provide a view on how

to approach technology implementation based on institutional theory. It might be possible to

implement technology based on this view, but as Kurnia et al. (2015) found, implementation of

technology benefits from a multi-theory approach.

Further research directions

(26)

26 Research limitations

(27)

27

Conclusion

(28)

28

References

Ahmad, S. (2014). Technology in Organizations. International Journal of Research in Business

Management, 2(7), 73-80.

Bellamy, A. (2007). Exploring the Influence of New Technology Planning and Implementation on the

Perceptions of New Technology Effectiveness. Journal Of Technology Studies, 33(1), 32-40.

Bahkoo, V., & Choi, T. (2013). The iron cage exposed: Institutional pressures and heterogeneity

across the healthcare supply chain. Journal Of Operations Management, 31(6), 432-449.

Baradwaj, A., Keil, M., & Mähring, M. (2009). Effects of information technology failures on the

market value of firms. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18, 66-79.

Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2009). Fashion Waves in Information Systems Research and

Practice. MIS Quarterly 33(4), 647-662.

Britten, N., Campbell, R., Pope, C., Donovan, J., Morgan, M., & Pill, R. (2002). Using

meta-ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. Journal Of Health Services

Research & Policy, 7(4), 209-215.

Bruton, G., Ahlstrom, D., & Han-Lin, L. (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are

we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurial Theory Practice, 34(3),

421–440.

Burnes, B. (2014). Managing Change. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.

Burns, L. R., & Wholey, D. R. (1993). Adoption and abandonment of matrix management programs:

effects of organizational characteristics and interorganizational networks. Academy Of

Management, 36(1), 106-138.

(29)

29 Chatterjee, D., Grewal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2002). Shaping Up for E-Commerce: Institutional

Enablers of the Organizational Assimilation of Web Technologies. MIS Quarterly, 26(2),

65-89.

Cho, M., Bero, L., Cho, M. K., & Bero, L. A. (1994). Instruments for assessing the quality of drug

studies published in the medical literature. Journal Of The American Medical Association,

272(2), 101-104.

Davidson, E. J., & Chismar, W. G. (2007). The Interaction of Institutionally Triggered and

Technology-Triggered Social Structure Change: An Investigation of Computerized Physician

Order Entry. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 739-758.

Davies, A., & Hobday, M. (2005). The business of projects: Managing innovation in complex

products and systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does legitimacy legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1024–

1039.

Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R.

Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational

institutionalism (49 – 77). CA: Sage.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and

collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 147-160.

El-Haddadeh, R., Weerakkody, V., & Al-Shafi, S. (2013). The complexities of electronic services

implementation and institutionalisation in the public sector. Information & Management,

50(4), 135-143.

Gibbs, J., Kraemer, K. L., & Dedrick, J. (2003). Environment and Policy Factors Shaping Global

E-Commerce Diffusion: A Cross-Country Comparison. Information Society, 19(1), 5.

(30)

30 Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing Change: The Role of Professional

Associations in the Transformation of Institutionalized Fields. Academy of Management

Journal, 45(1), 58-80.

Grover, V., & M. D. Goslar (1993). The Initiation, Adoption, and Implementation of

Telecommunications Technologies in U.S. Organizations. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 10(1), 141–163.

Heidenreich, M. (2012). The social embeddedness of multinational companies: A literature review.

Socio-Economic Review, 10(3), 549–579.

Hitt, L. M., Wu, D. J., & Zhou, X. G. (2002). Investment in Enterprise Resource Planning: Business

impact and productivity measures. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 71-98.

Jan, P., Lu, H., & Chou, T. (2012). The Adoption of e-Learning: An Institutional Theory Perspective.

Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology - TOJET, 11(3), 326-343.

Jugdev, K. (2004). Through the looking glass: Examining theory development in project management

with the resource-based view lens. Project Management Journal, 35(3), 15–26.

Khan, A. A., Basri, S., Dominic, P. D. D., & Amin, F. E. (2013). Communication Risks and Best

Practices in Global Software Development during Requirements Change Management: A

Systematic Literature Review Protocol. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering

and Technology, 6(19), 3514-3519.

Kitchenham, B., Charters, S., Budgen, D., Brereton, P., Turner, M., Linkman, S., Jørgensen, M.,

Mendes, E., & Visaggio, G. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in

software engineering. UK, Durham: University of Durham.

Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing Computerized Technology: An

Organizational Analysis. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811-824.

Kmet, L. M., Lee, R. C., & Cook, L. S. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating

primary research papers from a variety of fields. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical

(31)

31 Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational

corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994–

1006.

Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case

of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64–81.

Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & van der Voet, J. (2014). The

Management of Change in Public Organizations: A Literature Review. Public Administration,

92(1), 1-20.

Kukafka, R., Johnson, S. B., Linfante, A., & Allegrante, J. P. (2003). Grounding a new information

technology implementation framework in behavioral science: a systematic analysis of the

literature on IT use. Journal Of Biomedical Informatics, 36(3), 218-227.

Kurnia, S., Karnali, R. J., & Rahim, M. M. (2015). A qualitative study of business-to-business

electronic commerce adoption within the Indonesian grocery industry: A multi-theory

perspective. Information & Management, 52(4), 518-536.

Lavallee, M., Robillard, P., & Mirsalari, R. (2014). Performing Systematic Literature Reviews With

Novices: An Iterative Approach. IEEE Transactions On Education, 57(3), 175-181.

Le-Nguyen, K., Harindranath, G., & Dyerson, R. (2014). Understanding knowledge management

software-organisation misalignments from an institutional perspective: A case study of a

global IT-management consultancy firm. International Journal Of Information Management,

34(2), 226-247.

Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2005). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Re-

search. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243.

Lee, G. G., Lin, H. F., & Pai, J. C. (2005). Influence of environmental and organizational factors on

the success of internet-based interorganizational system planning. Internet Research:

Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 11, 527-543.

(32)

32 Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of

institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1),

59-87.

Markus, M. L. (1987). Toward a critical mass theory of interactive media: universal access,

interdependence and diffusion. Communication Research 14(5), 491–511.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative methods in qualitative health research. In Mays, N., & Pope,

C., Qualitative research in health care (pp. 1-10). Londen: BMJ Books.

Messerschmidt, C. M., & Hinz, O. (2013). Explaining the adoption of grid computing: An integrated

institutional theory and organizational capability approach. Journal of Strategic Information

Systems, 22(2), 137–156.

Morris, P. W. G., & Geraldi, J. (2011). Managing the institutional context for projects. Project

Management Journal, 42(6), 20–32.

Narayanan, V., & Chen, T. (2012). Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and

challenges. Research Policy, 41(8), 1375-1406.

Narayanan, V. K., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Corporate venturing and value creation: A review

and proposed framework. Research Policy, 38(1), 58–76.

Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D., & Wong, B. (2004). A model for the implementation of software

process improvement: An empirical study. Product-Focused Software Process Improvement,

3009, 1–16.

Nielsen, J. A., Mathiassen, L., & Newell, S. (2014). Theorization and Translation in Information

Technology Institutionalization: Evidence from Danish Home Care. MIS Quarterly, 38(1),

165-186.

(33)

33 Oliver, C., (1991). Strategies responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review

16(1), 145–179.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising Organizational Transformation over Time: A Situated Change

Perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63-92.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on

Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other?. MIS

Quaterly, 25(2), 145-165.

Orr, R. L., & Scott, R. W. (2008). Institutional exceptions on global projects: A process model.

Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 562–588.

Phang, C. W., Kankanhalli, A., & Ang, C. (2008). Investigating organizational learning in

eGovernment projects: A multi-theoretic approach. Journal Of Strategic Information Systems,

17(2), 99-123.

Philippidou, S., Karageorgiou, M., Tarantilis, C., Soderquist, E., & Prastacos, G. (2008). Meeting the

Challenge of Technology-Driven Change within an Institutional Context: The Greek Case.

Public Administration, 86(2), 429-442.

Popay, R., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of

qualitative literature in health services research. Quality Health Research, 8(3), 341-351.

Powell, W.W. (1991). The new Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago University Press,

Chicago.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business

Review, 68(3), 79–91.

Preece, D. A. (1995). Organizations and Technical Change: Strategy, Objectives, and Involvement.

London: Routledge.

(34)

34 Reeves, M., Deimler, M. (2011). Adaptability: the new competitive advantage. Harvard Business

Review, 89(7/8), 134–141.

Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. G.

Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 460–484). Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Shareef, M. A., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2011). e-Government Adoption Model

(GAM): Differing service maturity levels. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 17-35.

Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Liu, G. (2012). Which iron cage? Endo- and exoisomorphism in

corporate venture capital programs. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 477–505.

Standing, C., Sims, I., & Love, P. (2009). IT non-conformity in institutional environments:

E-marketplace adoption in the government sector. Information & Managment, 46(2), 138-149.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of

Management Review, 20, 571–611.

Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (2004). Innovating Mindfully with Information Technology. MIS

Quarterly 28(4), 553-583.

Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational

Linkages: An Institutional Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 19-49.

Thomas, P. C. (2006). From good intentions to successful implementation: the case of patient safety in

Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 49(4), 415-440.

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in

systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(45), 1-10.

Thong, J. (1999). An Integrated Model of Information Systems Adoption in Small Businesses. Journal

(35)

35 Timmer, A., Sutherland, L. R., & Hilsden, R.J. (2003). Development and evaluation of a quality score

for abstracts. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 3(2).

Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B. (2007). Technological Embeddedness and Organizational

Change. Organization Science, 18(5), 832-848.

Wailgum, T. (2016, 27 October). 10 Famous ERP Disasters, Dustups and Disappointments. Retrieved

from

http://www.cio.com/article/2429865/enterprise-resource-planning/10-famous-erp-disasters--dustups-and-disappointments.html

Wang, P. (2010). Chasing the Hottest IT: Effects of Information Technology Fashion on

Organizations. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 63-85.

Wang, W., & Lai, Y. (2014). Examining the adoption of KMS in organizations from an integrated

perspective of technology, individual, and organization. Computers In Human Behavior,

3855-3867.

Xu, D., & Shenkar, O. (2002). Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of

Management Review, 27(4), 608–618.

Yang, X., & Rivers, C. (2009). Antecedents of CSR practices in MNCs’ subsidiaries: A stakeholder

and institutional perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 155–169.

Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., & Xu, S. 2002. A cross-country study of electronic business adoption using

the technology–organisation–environment framework. Twenty-Third International Conference

on Information Systems, 337–348.

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

(61)

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

(67)

(68)

(69)

(70)

(71)

(72)

(73)

(74)

(75)

(76)

(77)

(78)

(79)

(80)

(81)

(82)

(83)

(84)

(85)

(86)

(87)

(88)

(89)

(90)

(91)

(92)

(93)

(94)

Practical recommendations based on institutional theory for the implementation of technology: A Systematic Literature Review