This article was downloaded by: [University of Calgary]On: 05 October 2014, At: 06:23Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Information Systems ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uism20

Evaluating Adoption of Emerging IT for CorporateIT Strategy: Developing a Model Using a QualitativeMethodCasey G. Cegielski a , David M. Bourrie a & Benjamin T. Hazen aa College of Business, Auburn University, Auburn , Alabama , USAAccepted author version posted online: 17 Apr 2013.Published online: 22 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Casey G. Cegielski , David M. Bourrie & Benjamin T. Hazen (2013) Evaluating Adoption of Emerging IT forCorporate IT Strategy: Developing a Model Using a Qualitative Method, Information Systems Management, 30:3, 235-249, DOI:10.1080/10580530.2013.794632

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2013.794632

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Information Systems Management, 30:235–249, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1058-0530 print / 1934-8703 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10580530.2013.794632

Evaluating Adoption of Emerging IT for Corporate IT Strategy:Developing a Model Using a Qualitative Method

Casey G. Cegielski, David M. Bourrie, and Benjamin T. HazenCollege of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA

The acquisition and evaluation of new technologies is criticalto the development of a timely IT strategy. We report the find-ings of a four round Delphi study designed to elicit a cohesive setof issues that affect an IT executive’s decision to adopt an emerg-ing IT into corporate IT strategy. Based on the results, we presentthe Emerging Information Technology Evaluation Model, whichIT executives and academicians can use to support a strategicadoption decision.

Keywords emerging information technology; informationtechnology strategy; diffusion of innovation; Delphimethod

INTRODUCTIONFor decades, the development of an effective IT strategy

has consistently ranked as a key organizational issue amongsurveyed IT executives (Brancheau, Janz, & Wetherbe, 1996;Brancheau & Wetherbe, 1987, 1990; Luftman & Kempaiah,2008; Luftman, Kempaiah, & Nash, 2006; Niederman &Brancheu, 1991). Because the effectiveness of IT strategy canbe affected by the passage of time (Newkirk, Lederer, &Srinivasan, 2003; Porter, 1985), it would stand to reasonthat timeliness is a key element of an effective IT strategy.Unfortunately, IT executives often focus on integrating today’scommercially available technologies into tomorrow’s IT strat-egy (Cegielski, Reithel, & Rebman, 2005). This fact, along withthe rapid evolution of IT, injects an additional degree of com-plexity into the formulation and implementation of corporateIT strategy (Davenport, 2001; Varon, 2000). Inasmuch, execu-tives are faced with the challenge of constructing a timely ITstrategy with currently available commercial technologies thatmay be obsolete by implementation (Baldwin & Curley, 2007;Benamati & Lederer, 2001).

By focusing on currently available commercial technologies,IT executives assume the risk of developing corporate ITstrategies that are, at best, a step behind the evolution

Address correspondence to Benjamin T. Hazen, Management,427 Lowder Business Bldg, Auburn, AL 36849, USA. E-mail:benjamin.hazen@auburn.edu

of technology. Given the associated costs of IT strategyplanning and implementation, the creation of an obsoletestrategy serves to facilitate future technology-related problemsthat may ultimately translate into organizational inefficiencies(Premkumar & King, 1994; Segars & Grover, 1998; Segars,Grover, & Teng, 1998). To remedy the problem of the devel-opment of a dated IT strategy, some technology executivesfocus attention on emerging information technologies (EITs;Gordon, 2002; Low, 2001). Although this approach requiresIT executives to evaluate innovations earlier in the technol-ogy development life cycle, the proactive process of examiningEITs as part of planning a comprehensive IT strategy allowstechnology executives to better anticipate the future businessapplications of innovations. Ultimately, a more timely (and sub-sequently more effective) IT strategy may be developed (Chan,2002; Chan & Reich, 2007; Gottschalk, 1999).

In the research presented herein, we examine the relation-ship between IT strategy and timeliness through the lens ofclassical innovation diffusion theory. The question we seek toanswer is “What issues influence a corporate IT executive’sdecision to adopt an EIT into corporate IT strategy?” Thisquestion is particularly relevant given the aforementioneddiscussion regarding the importance of time and IT strategy.Therefore, we do not limit our investigation of a specific EITor category of EIT. Instead, we examine the process by whichEITs, in general, are evaluated. We propose the value of thecurrent study lies in the identification of the issues related toany EIT and their respective consideration for adoption intocorporate strategy given the assumption that it may preservesome timeliness of a subsequently developed IT strategy.A more complete understanding of the issues related to theadoption of EITs into corporate strategy and the context inwhich these issues may fit into classical diffusion theory couldprovide value to both academicians seeking to expand theframework of innovation diffusion theory in IS research andalso to practitioners by providing a reference model for framingorganizational decisions regarding said technologies.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. We firstprovide a brief literature review summarizing the salient pointsof the theory of innovation diffusion as it is derived from thereference discipline of sociology. Next, we provide an overview

235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

236 C. G. CEGIELSKI ET AL.

of EITs and their relationship to the aforementioned theoryof innovation diffusion. Then we discuss the application ofthe Delphi method employed in this research. Based on ouranalysis, we present and describe the Emerging InformationTechnology Evaluation Model. We close with a discussion asto how our research contributes to both the academic fieldof IT strategy and to practitioners who are concerned withobsolescence of IT strategy.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Innovation DiffusionInnovation diffusion research is particularly prominent

within the discipline of Management Information Systems(MIS; e.g., Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Chau, 1996; Cooper &Zmud, 1990; Davis, 1989; Fichman & Kemerer, 1999; Lai,Guynes, & Bordoloi, 1993; Larsen, 1993; Loukis, Spinellis, &Katsigianis, 2011; Moore & Benbasat, 1996; Premkumar,Ramamurthy, & Nilakanta, 1994; Tornatzky & Klein, 1982;Venkatesh & Morris, 2000). Two primary factors are thoughtto contribute to this prominence. First, IT, the focus of MISresearch, represents the hardware embodiment of innovation.Second, the long linage of innovation diffusion research pro-vides a convenient foundation from which MIS researchers mayground current studies. Because our study examines factorsthat affect the adoption decision of emerging IT (innovation),we find it appropriate to ground the current research upon theinnovation diffusion literature. This section presents a briefoverview of the sociological tradition of innovation diffusion.

Rogers (2003) reports that the cumulative efforts of thou-sands of scholars, in numerous fields of study who collectivelyexamined innovation diffusion theory, have produced more than3800 published research articles. In terms of volume of pub-lished works on a topic, innovation diffusion is among the mostwidely studied aspects within the behavioral sciences. Althoughthe scope of the collection of innovation diffusion research isexpansive, scholars typically agree that innovation diffusion isthe process by which an innovation is communicated throughcertain channels over time among the members of a society(Katz, 1961; Katz, Levin, & Hamilton, 1963).

An innovation is an idea, practice, or an object that is per-ceived as new by an individual or organization (Rogers, 2003).It is important to note that it does not matter whether the idea,practice, or object is new by the measure of time that has lapsedsince its discovery. The perception of newness by the potentialadopter determines the reaction to the idea, practice, or object.Newness can be expressed as one’s knowledge regarding aninnovation (Katz, 1961). Thus, if an idea, practice, or objectis perceived as new to an individual, it may be considered aninnovation.

Emerging Information Technologies as InnovationsWe define EITs as innovations that are in the early stages

of development. EITs may be in the form of hardware or

software. Regardless of the form, EITs represent an avenuefor enhancing the effective and efficient flow and utilization ofinformation within the organization to support business objec-tives and, ultimately, firm performance. Defining characteristicsof EITs that differentiate them from other ITs include incom-plete product standardization and limited availability (i.e., betaversions of software and prototypes of hardware). There aretwo distinct categories of EITs: (1) evolutionary extensionsof existing technologies, or (2) revolutionary new technolo-gies. The literature often considers an organization’s capabilityto sense and implement revolutionary innovations to enhanceorganizational performance (Christensen, 1997; O’Reilly &Tushman, 2004; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). However, EITsdiffer from Christensen’s description of disruptive technolo-gies in that EITs are defined without context to a specificfirm or organization and its existing processes (Christensen,1997; Christensen & Raynor, 2003). Specifically, Christensendefines a disruptive technology based upon an organization’sexisting resources including people, equipment, technologies,cash, product designs and relationships (Lucas & Goh, 2009).By this definition, what one organization defines as a disrup-tive technology may not be so defined by another organization(Christensen & Overdorf, 2000). In contrast, EITs are tech-nologies that are immature and in developmental stages. Theclassification is made without respect to a single organizationor its processes and resources.

Regardless of how an EIT is classified, the explicit businessapplication of the EIT is the same: the capability of achievinga practical purpose more effectively or more efficiently than anexisting technology. However, organizations must not only beable to recognize new technologies, but they must also haveadequate capacity to absorb adopted technologies (Cohen &Levinthal, 1990) and incorporate such technologies into its gov-ernance structures and work processes (Hazen, Overstreet, &Cegielski, 2012). In recent years, organizations have integrateda multitude of EITs into the ordinary course of business.Currently pervasive business applications of IT, such as e-mail,Bluetooth, and client/server computing, were, at one time,EITs. Today, a visit to an IT tradeshow like Interop or CeBITwill reveal a number of current EITs, such as cloud-based enter-prise applications, holographic computing interfaces, or fractalstorage devices.

EITs certainly fit the traditional sociological definition of aninnovation in that they exhibit all of the characteristics definedin classical diffusion theory. As such, the cohesive classicalinnovation diffusion theory is a particularly well-suited frame-work from which to position our research. Specifically, weorganize our study based on the innovation-decision process.

The Innovation-Decision ProcessThe innovation-decision process, as defined within the

framework of classical diffusion theory, provides a generalizedmodel of the stages of innovation adoption through which apotential innovation adopter will move as he or she evaluates

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

ADOPTION OF EMERGING IT 237

FIG. 1. The five steps of the innovation-decision process.

the variables that influence the innovation adoption decision.Although the actual adoption of EITs into corporate strategyis not the focus of this study, the innovation-decision processprovides a salient structure within which to consider poten-tial adopter knowledge aggregation regarding the innovationunder consideration. Potential adopters of an innovation fol-low a well-defined decision process in order to arrive at an

TABLE 1The five levels of adopter understanding regarding an

innovation

LevelThe point in the adoption decision process

when an individual:

Knowledge Learns of the existence of an innovationand accumulates some understanding ofits function.

Persuasion Formulates of an attitude (favorable/unfavorable) toward the innovation.

Decision Undertakes activities (impact analysis)leading to a choice to adopt or to rejectthe innovation.

Implementation Utilizes the innovation.Confirmation Seeks reinforcement for the innovation-

decision that has already occurred.

adoption decision regarding an innovation (Rogers, 2003). Thisinnovation-decision process, as depicted in Figure 1, encom-passes five steps, as defined in Table 1. For most adopters,the innovation-decision process will include common criteria,which are defined in Table 2.

Use of diffusion of innovation theory, and specifically theinnovation-decision process, as the lens in which to view ourresearch problem motivated our choice of research method. TheKnowledge and Persuasion phases of the innovation-decisionprocess are the principle focal points of our study. However, lit-tle is known regarding what issues are embedded within thesephases of the innovation-decision process in reference to exam-ining EITs; thus, we felt that a Delphi method would help us touncover the salient issues that influence knowledge and persua-sion. In the next section, we describe our research method.

TABLE 2Adopter evaluation criteria for an innovation

Criteria Definition Impact on adoption decision

Relative advantage The degree to which an individual perceivesan innovation to be better than apreviously-accepted idea.

Innovations perceived to have a greaterdegree of relative advantage are morelikely to be adopted.

Compatibility Perception of an innovation as consistentwith existing norms, values, experiences,and needs of the potential adopter.

Innovations that conflict with an existingsocial system are less likely to beadopted.

Complexity The degree to which an innovation isperceived as difficult to understand or use.

Innovations that are simpler to understandare more likely to be adopted.

Trialability The degree to which an innovation can beexperienced on a limited basis.

Innovations that can be employed on apartial-use or limited-use basis tend to bemore readily adopted.

Observability The degree to which the results of adoptingan innovation are visible to others.

Innovations with demonstrative results aremore apt to be adopted.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

238 C. G. CEGIELSKI ET AL.

METHODThe Delphi method is a research technique developed by the

Rand Corporation in the early 1950s to identify future tech-nological and economic trends (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). TheDelphi technique is best suited to deal with uncertainty in adomain of imperfect knowledge (Churchman & Schainblatt,1965). The principal focus of this technique is to achieve aconsensus among experts regarding a specific topic (Taylor &Meinhardt, 1985). Consequently, there are no “correct” answerswhen using the Delphi method. As a result, the potentialapplications for the Delphi method are very broad. However,the technique is particularly useful for controversial or multi-dimensional subjects (Paliwoda, 1983).

Following the selection of suitable knowledge domain for theDelphi study, the Delphi administrator must compile an initiallist of knowledgeable experts. The experts respond to a seriesof linked questionnaires depicting potential future scenarios inthe knowledge domain. The initial round of the Delphi ques-tionnaire is open-ended (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson,1975). The purpose of the first questionnaire round is to aggre-gate information for subsequent ranking rounds of the study(Brancheau & Wetherbe, 1987). In the first round, the panel ofexperts contributes input that they feel is pertinent to the focusquestion of the study (Nambisan, Agarwal, & Tanniru, 1999;Riggs, 1983). In the second round of the study, each expert onthe panel individually ranks, in order of perceived importance,every issue identified in the first round of the study (Paliwoda,1983). From the data gathered in the second Delphi round,the study administrator scores each issue (typically using aweighted average method) and redistributes results to the panelof experts (Nambisan et al., 1999; Rohrbaugh, 1979). In thethird round, as well as any subsequent rounds of the study, theparticipating individuals review the group rankings and re-rankthe issues in light of the aggregated response of the panel. Theprocess ends when there is minimal variation between roundsfor the ranked issues. At that time, a declaration of consensusexists among the panel (Delbecq et al., 1975).

The Delphi method of research has several unique character-istics that are worth noting:

1. Anonymity: The expert participants remain anonymous toone another; they interact only with the Delphi coordinator.

2. Controlled feedback: All information is gathered and redis-tributed via the Delphi coordinator.

3. Group response: Individuals contribute information into agroup response.

4. Expert opinion: Panelist selection is contingent on knowl-edge of the field.

5. Reduced cost and time limitations: The structure of the tech-nique eliminates the need for the participants to arrangecostly and time-consuming face-to-face meetings.

The Delphi method has been used extensively in manyfacets of business research, especially within the domain of

MIS (e.g., Fink, 1995; Garcia-Crespo, Colomo-Palacios, Soto-Acosta, & Ruano-Mayoral, 2010; Gutierrez, 1989; Langeland &Iden, 2010; McFadzean, Ezingeard, & Birchall, 2011; Muller,Linders, & Pires, 2010). Additionally, Delphi has been a usedto identify decision variables, as well as to populate conceptualtaxonomies (Doke & Swanson, 1995; Nambisan et al., 1999).Thus, we found the Delphi approach to be a favorable method toexplore our research question. In this study, we used four round,web-based Delphi process to elicit a set of cohesive issues thatIT executives consider important when evaluating EITs. Then,using diffusion of innovation as a basis to guide our conversa-tion, we used an online chat session with our panel of expertsto determine how these issues combine to create an evaluationmodel for EIT adoption.

Pilot TestingA pilot test provided a basis to test the appropriateness of the

Delphi method and functionality of the web-based process. Fivelocal IT executives participated in the pilot study that includedthree rounds of Delphi rankings regarding the consideration ofEIT and corporate IT strategy. Each of the five executives par-ticipating in the pilot study indicated professional experience inIT strategy planning and implementation. Discussions with theexecutives following the pilot test resulted in several technicalchanges to the survey web site. None of the material contentrequired modification.

Expert PanelA review of the Delphi studies conducted within the MIS

discipline revealed most studies begin with less than 50 par-ticipants. Nambisan et al. (1999) enlisted and maintained theparticipation of 11 experts through three rounds of a Delphi.Doke and Swanson (1995), de Haan and Peters (1993), andCouger (1988) conducted Delphi studies involving fewer than30 participants. Subsequently, we sought to solicit enough par-ticipants such that roughly 30 participants would be retainedthroughout.

To solicit study participants, we obtained a listing of IT exec-utives from Fortune 1000 firms and presented each with anopportunity to participate. Of the executives contacted, 75 com-pleted the initial demographics survey and consented to partici-pation in the study. An analysis of the descriptive data from the75 initial study participants (see the Appendices) indicated thegroup to be diverse in respect to industry, organizational size,professional experience, education, and geography. Of these ini-tial participants, 31 were retained throughout all four rounds;the others were lost through attrition.

Electronic mail was the method of communication betweenthe Delphi administrator and expert panel in the Delphi method.For the initial round of the Delphi, all 75 executives received ane-mail describing the purpose of the study, the perceived signif-icance with regard to IS executives, a restatement of the defini-tion of emerging IT from the initial contact e-mail, a description

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

ADOPTION OF EMERGING IT 239

of the Delphi method, and a unique user identification numberand password. Additionally, the participants received assuranceof anonymity of all data collected during the study.

During rounds two, three, and four of the study, every par-ticipating executive from the prior round received an e-mailmessage providing instructions for participation in the upcom-ing round and a web site link to the survey for the statedround. Additionally, the web page for each round of the sur-vey contained a restatement of the instructions provided in thepre-round e-mail sent to the participants.

Delphi Round OneThe initial round of the Delphi study required that each

participating executive read the introductory statement thatdescribes the study. Additionally, the participants were providedwith the definition of an EIT used in the current study anda brief list of previous and current EITs as a reference. Thelist included technologies such as Bluetooth communicationsprotocol, virtual retinal display technology, and XML-basedlanguages like RSS. Regarding EITs in corporate IT strategy,each participating executive submitted his or her perceptions ofpotential issues regarding the integration of EITs into corporateIT strategy. Specifically, participants were asked an open-endedquestion, “What issues do you consider to be the most impor-tant when considering the adoption and integration of emerginginformation technologies into your corporate IT strategy?” Ofthe 75 executives that had initially agreed to participate in ourstudy, 37 participants completed round one of the Delphi study.The participants generated a total of 111 individual comments.These comments were categorized into a total of 24 uniqueissues (Table 3), which were subsequently incorporated intoround two of the study.

Delphi Round TwoTo begin round two of the study, the 37 executives that partic-

ipated in round one received an e-mail listing the 24 previouslyidentified unique issues. Additionally, the e-mail requested thateach of the 37 executive participants log in to the Delphi website and rank (in an ordinal manner) each of the 24 issues interms of relative importance with respect to potential integra-tion into corporate strategy. Per the web site instructions, a rankof one indicated that the participant perceived the issue to beof greatest importance whereas a rank of 24 indicated that theexecutive perceived the issue to be the least important of thoseissues listed. In round two, 33 of the 37 executive participantsfrom round one completed the ranking process.

Delphi Round ThreeTo start round three of the study, the 33 respondents that par-

ticipated in round two received an e-mail that contained a listof each of the issues identified in round one and the respectivemean rank score for each issue computed from the analysis of

TABLE 3Issues identified in round one

1. Cost of the technology to deploy2. Security of the technology3. Integration of the technology with organizations outside the

firm4. Acceptance of the technology by end-users5. Ability to support the technology with current IT staff6. Acceptance of technology by customers/clients7. Cost to maintain the technology8. Current uses for the technology9. Perceived future uses of the technology

10. Ability to gain competitive advantage through the use oftechnology

11. Reliability of the technology12. Commercial access to the technology13. Standardization of the technology14. Compatibility of technology with current business

operations15. Ability to sustain competitive advantage using technology16. Training for users of technology17. External support for technology18. Compatibility of technology with future business

operations19. Potential measurable return on investment in technology20. Technology development life cycle time21. Use of technology by competitors22. Performance aspects of technology23. Compatibility with knowledge management practices24. Ability to integrate technology over time

the data collected in round two (Table 4). Again, the e-mailrequested that each participant access the Delphi web site and,considering the mean ordinal rank score derived from the groupinput, re-rank the 24 issues on the perceived of importance asthey pertain to the integration of an EIT into corporate strategy.During round three, all of the 33 executive participants fromround two completed the ranking process.

Delphi Round FourThe fourth round of the study began when the 33 participants

who completed the third study round received an e-mail list ofthe 24 issues identified during round one as well as the respec-tive mean ordinal rank scores for each issue from rounds twoand three. The e-mail requested that the participants review theprevious rankings and re-rank the relative importance of eachissue (Table 4). Additionally, the e-mailed requested that theparticipants score each issue on a 9-point, Likert-type scale.This procedure generated quantitative data, which we used fortwo purposes: (1) an internal validation of the group rankingsobtained via the Delphi method and (2) a subsequent measureof generalizability of the results beyond the expert panel.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

TAB

LE

4R

anki

ngof

issu

esfr

omro

unds

2,3,

&4

Rou

nd2

Rou

nd3

Rou

nd4

Issu

esR

ank

Mea

nR

ank

%of

Part

icip

ants

who

rank

edth

isis

sue

equa

lto

the

grou

pra

nkR

ank

Mea

nra

nk

%of

Part

icip

ants

who

rank

edth

isis

sue

equa

lto

the

grou

pra

nkR

ank

Mea

nra

nk

%of

Part

icip

ants

who

rank

edth

isis

sue

equa

lto

the

grou

pra

nk

AA

bilit

yto

gain

com

petit

ive

adva

ntag

eus

ing

tech

nolo

gy1

3.96

48.4

8%1

3.40

60.6

1%1

2.80

77.4

2%

BA

bilit

yto

sust

ain

com

petit

ive

adva

ntag

eus

ing

tech

nolo

gy2

4.12

39.3

9%2

4.20

48.4

8%2

3.54

61.2

9%

CSe

curi

tyof

the

tech

nolo

gy3

4.18

33.3

3%4

4.20

51.5

2%3

4.14

54.8

4%D

Acc

epta

nce

ofte

chno

logy

bycu

stom

ers/

clie

nts

44.

2436

.36%

34.

0036

.36%

43.

6645

.16%

EC

urre

ntus

esfo

rth

ete

chno

logy

54.

3248

.48%

56.

0063

.64%

56.

0470

.97%

FPe

rcei

ved

futu

reus

esof

the

tech

nolo

gy6

5.48

51.5

2%6

7.75

51.5

2%6

7.78

51.6

1%G

Rel

iabi

lity

ofth

ete

chno

logy

75.

6330

.30%

79.

5057

.58%

710

.08

54.8

4%H

Perf

orm

ance

aspe

cts

ofte

chno

logy

85.

9533

.33%

89.

7563

.64%

810

.48

61.2

9%I

Com

patib

ility

ofte

chno

logy

with

curr

ent

busi

ness

oper

atio

ns9

6.03

27.2

7%9

10.2

545

.45%

910

.38

64.5

2%

JC

ompa

tibili

tyof

tech

nolo

gyw

ithfu

ture

busi

ness

oper

atio

ns10

6.15

39.3

9%10

10.5

063

.64%

1010

.55

74.1

9%

KC

ostt

om

aint

ain

the

tech

nolo

gy11

6.80

42.4

2%11

10.5

057

.58%

1110

.98

64.5

2%L

Inte

grat

ion

ofth

ete

chno

logy

with

orga

niza

tions

outs

ide

the

firm

127.

5833

.33%

1311

.75

51.5

2%13

12.2

364

.52%

MC

ompa

tibili

tyw

ithkn

owle

dge

man

agem

ent

prac

tices

139.

3036

.36%

1411

.75

54.5

5%14

12.5

361

.29%

NC

osto

fth

ete

chno

logy

tode

ploy

149.

3854

.55%

1210

.75

60.6

1%12

11.1

364

.52%

OA

ccep

tanc

eof

the

tech

nolo

gyby

end-

user

s15

13.1

136

.36%

1717

.10

48.4

8%17

16.6

858

.06%

PSt

anda

rdiz

atio

nof

the

tech

nolo

gy16

14.0

469

.70%

1515

.00

66.6

7%15

15.3

367

.74%

QA

bilit

yto

supp

ortt

hete

chno

logy

with

curr

entI

Tst

aff

1714

.43

39.3

9%16

16.8

036

.36%

1616

.56

51.6

1%

RC

omm

erci

alac

cess

toth

ete

chno

logy

1815

.45

54.5

5%18

17.1

051

.52%

1817

.40

58.0

6%S

Tra

inin

gfo

rus

ers

ofte

chno

logy

1915

.54

42.4

2%19

17.7

048

.48%

1917

.49

54.8

4%T

Abi

lity

toin

tegr

ate

tech

nolo

gyov

ertim

e20

16.1

460

.61%

2018

.00

69.7

0%20

18.0

964

.52%

UPo

tent

ialm

easu

rabl

ere

turn

onin

vest

men

tin

tech

nolo

gy21

16.2

963

.64%

2118

.00

75.7

6%21

18.1

874

.19%

VE

xter

nals

uppo

rtfo

rte

chno

logy

2217

.52

69.7

0%22

19.8

075

.76%

2220

.01

70.9

7%W

Use

ofte

chno

logy

byco

mpe

titor

s23

19.9

581

.82%

2321

.34

87.8

8%23

22.1

190

.32%

XTe

chno

logy

deve

lopm

entl

ife

cycl

etim

e24

20.0

487

.88%

2422

.09

90.9

1%24

22.1

693

.55%

Num

ber

ofR

espo

nden

ts33

3331

240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

ADOPTION OF EMERGING IT 241

DATA ANALYSIS

Evaluation of ConsensusIn addition to the identification of domain-specific issues,

group consensus is the desired product of a Delphi process(Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). Kendall’s coefficient of concor-dance (W) was the first measure used to assess the relativestrength of consensus among the participants. Kendall’s W isa measure of the degree to which a set of ranked scores agree(Siegel, 1956). A significant W (p < 0.05) indicates that the par-ticipants applied essentially the same standard when judging theimportance of the issues. Kendall’s W was computed followingeach of the Delphi rounds, and was found to be significant afterthe third round of the study. However, a fourth round was neces-sary for further data collection. For the final round of the Delphistudy, Kendall’s W = 0.5919 and is statistically significant (p <

0.001).An analysis of the percentage of the participants who ranked

each issue comparably to the group rank served as a secondarymeans to assess the strength of group consensus (Table 4).During round four, no less than 50% of the respondents ranked

23 of the 24 issues equal to the group rank. Given the sig-nificance of Kendall’s W and the high occurrence of groupassociation, additional Delphi rounds were unnecessary.

Internal ValidationFor those engaged in Delphi-based research, the developers

of the method suggest the use of some form of internal vali-dation to substantiate the obtained results (Riggs, 1983). Onecommon technique used to validate Delphi rankings is the appli-cation of an alternative measurement scale (Malhotra, Steele, &Grover, 1994). Specifically, the aforementioned Likert-type sur-vey provided the data to assess, through another dimension,the consistency applied by the panel members while assigningranks to issues.

A comparison of the Likert survey rankings to those of thefinal Delphi rankings revealed a considerable number of consis-tencies (Table 5). It is particularly noteworthy that each set ofrankings, while not in the exact order, included 10 of the sameissues in the top half of the ranking schema. Additionally, sev-eral issues received identical rankings across methods. Finally,

TABLE 5A comparison of internal confirmatory survey rankings to final Delphi round rankings

IssuesInternal Confirmatory

Survey Issue RankRound 4 Final

Rank

A Ability to gain competitive advantage through the use oftechnology

1 1

B Ability to sustain competitive advantage using technology 2 2C Security of the technology 5 4D Acceptance of technology by customers/clients 3 3E Current uses for the technology 4 5F Perceived future uses of the technology 7 6G Reliability of the technology 6 7H Performance aspects of technology 8 8I Compatibility of technology with current business operations 11 9J Compatibility of technology with future business operations 9 10K Cost to maintain the technology 13 11L Integration of the technology with organizations outside the firm 10 13M Compatibility with knowledge management practices 14 14N Cost of the technology to deploy 12 12O Acceptance of the technology by end-users 16 17P Standardization of the technology 15 15Q Ability to support the technology with current IT staff 17 16R Commercial access to the technology 20 18S Training for users of technology 18 19T Ability to integrate technology over time 22 20U Potential measurable return on investment in technology 21 21V External support for technology 19 22W Use of technology by competitors 23 23X Technology development life cycle time 24 24

Note: Bold typeface indicates issues that received the same rank in both the measures.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

242 C. G. CEGIELSKI ET AL.

empirical assessment (W = 0.6103, p < 0.001) indicated con-gruence between the Delphi rankings and the rankings derivedvia the Likert scale score.

External ValidationSome methodologists question whether the findings of a

Delphi process are generalizable beyond the expert panel fromwhich the results emanate. To abate the aforementioned concernregarding the current method, an additional group of 131 ITexecutives, drawn from the membership of two professionalinformation systems organizations, received an e-mail request-ing participation in an IT survey. The e-mail provided eachrecipient with: (1) our definition of emerging IT, (2) a link tothe survey web site, and (3) a request for participation. Via thesame web-based, 9-point Likert-type instrument utilized duringthe final round of the Delphi process, 99 of the 131 execu-tives participated in the evaluation of the 24 issues identifiedduring the Delphi process. The profile of the confirmatory sur-vey respondents was similar to the general profile formulatedof the respondents who participated in the Delphi process (see

the Appendices). Because the purpose of the quantitative sur-vey was to add a degree of generalizability to the findings of theDelphi study, there was no intention to solicit additional issuesthat may affect the integration of EITs into corporate strategyfrom the respondents.

Overall, the results of the external confirmatory survey gen-erally reflect the ranking achieved through the Delphi process(Table 6). Of the top 12 issues, 4 received the same rank fromboth groups, while 6 of the lower 12 issues were consistentamong the survey groups. Alignment of 10 of the 24 issuesbetween the internal and external groups indicates a degree ofgeneralizability.

DISCUSSION WITH EXPERTS AND MODELDEVELOPMENT

In lieu of our research team drawing conclusions basedsolely on our independent evaluation of the findings, wesolicited the thoughts of our expert panel to make sense ofthe data. We hosted free-flowing, unstructured online chat ses-sion with participants and began the conversation with the

TABLE 6A comparison of external confirmatory survey rankings to internal confirmatory rankings

IssueExternal

Survey RankInternal

Survey Rank

A Ability to gain competitive advantage through the use oftechnology

1 1

B Ability to sustain competitive advantage using technology 2 2C Security of the technology 6 5D Acceptance of technology by customers/clients 3 3E Current uses for the technology 4 4F Perceived future uses of the technology 5 7G Reliability of the technology 10 6H Performance aspects of technology 11 8I Compatibility of technology with current business operations 12 11J Compatibility of technology with future business operations 7 9K Cost to maintain the technology 13 13L Integration of the technology with organizations outside the firm 14 10M Compatibility with knowledge management practices 9 14N Cost of the technology to deploy 8 12O Acceptance of the technology by end-users 15 16P Standardization of the technology 16 15Q Ability to support the technology with current IT staff 17 17R Commercial access to the technology 20 20S Training for users of technology 21 18T Ability to integrate technology over time 22 22U Potential measurable return on investment in technology 18 21V External support for technology 19 19W Use of technology by competitors 23 23X Technology development life cycle time 24 24

Note: Bold typeface indicates issues that received the same rank from both groups.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

ADOPTION OF EMERGING IT 243

question, “Given the results of this study, what would you sayare the overarching themes regarding the evaluation of emerg-ing information technologies for your corporate IT strategy?”Based on the input of these experts and the innovation-decisionprocess encompassed by innovation diffusion theory, we cre-ated an Emerging Information Technology Evaluation Modelthat explains our findings while providing direction for futureresearch. In this section, we describe our conversation with theexpert panel, the process in which we created our model, andthe major constructs presented within the model.

Qualitative feedback provided via the online chat sessionwith the Delphi expert panel revealed that the overwhelmingmajority of the participating IT executives believe that the adop-tion decision of EITs is stratified into two distinct but relatedassessment areas: “business alignment issues” and “technicalalignment issues.” Interestingly, alignment, in numerous facets,is a key issue in IT strategy identified in several previousresearch studies (Grover & Segars, 2005). According to a CIOfrom a global IT firm whose sentiments were widely supportedby the group, the two areas differ in that, “business issuesaddress the general ways and means that a particular technologywill support an organization’s objectives” while technical align-ment issues focus on “the nuts and bolts of a particular tech-nology like compatibility with existing systems.” Accordingto the study group, the business alignment issues reflect con-cerns that are universal to all organizations–competitive advan-tage, customer relationship management, and organizational fit.Interestingly, the study participants defined all of these issuesin qualitative assessment measures. Conversely, the technicalalignment issues are firm specific and, as the study groupdescribed, tend to focus on very quantifiable aspect of a tech-nology. While the group did feel that both areas are “equallyimportant,” a consensus formed among the executives duringthe chat session that the integration decision regarding EITsmust focus initially on business alignment issues in order toensure support for organizational objectives.

These business alignment issues and technical alignmentissues can be decomposed into additional components, basedon the issues identified in our Delphi study. Based on the feed-back garnered by our discussion with the expert panel, thesecomponents were used to formulate the Emerging InformationTechnology Evaluation Model (Figure 2). In the remainderof this section, we describe the components of this model,using our study’s findings and the input of the expert panel asjustification for each construct.

Business Alignment IssuesEach of the issues described in this section related specifi-

cally to higher order business concepts such as business processdesign, supply chain relationships, and customer relationshipmanagement. Therefore, the participants suggested that theseissues be classified together under the umbrella of businessalignment. Per the definitions presented in Table 2 that summa-rize the classical diffusion theory, the three areas identified asbusiness alignment issues could be stratified into two principleinnovation-decision variables—relative advantage and compat-ibility. In the model presented in Figure 2, these businessalignment issues are therefore framed accordingly as relativeadvantage and compatibility in relation to the grounding theoryfor this study.

Ability to Gain and Sustain Competitive AdvantagePractitioners as well as researchers hold the popular opin-

ion that competitive advantages derived from using IT are oftenshort-lived because of the ability of competitors to replicate,and subsequently eliminate, the advantage (Clemons & Row,1991). The participating executives agreed that the ability togain/sustain competitive advantage via the integration of anEIT into strategy is a paramount concern regarding the EIT eval-uation process (e.g., issues A, B, and W from Tables 4, 5, and 6).Interestingly, most of the participants expressed competitive

FIG. 2. The emerging information technology evaluation model.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

244 C. G. CEGIELSKI ET AL.

advantage not in terms of a single application of technologythat produces a benefit for a finite amount of time, but ratheras a continuous effort to manage the integration of technologiesas they develop. Given this information, we have modularizedcompetitive advantage into sequential components shown in themodel, which fall under the relative advantage component ofthe innovation-decision process.

Appropriateness of Technology for Partners/ClientsAccording to the executive respondents, the second busi-

ness alignment issue to consider when evaluating an EIT isthe appropriateness of the technology for use entities andpartners/clients (e.g., issues D, I, J, and L from Tables 4, 5, and6). This falls under compatibility in reference to the innovation-decision process. The former CIO of an international women’sfashion retailer explained his perception of appropriateness oftechnology for their customers with this example:

We evaluated an e-commerce plan. It was a comprehensive plan wehad on the table and it would have been costly. We learned frompreliminary market studies that our customers would not purchaseour clothes online. For them, there is a need to see and feel a gar-ment before they buy. They like to come into the store and try iton, see it in the mirror, and get some opinion on how it makes themlook. Because of that, we decided not to incorporate an e-commerceplatform in our web presence. I’ll also tell you that watching all ofour competition move to e-commerce platforms made us all worry.We wondered if we had made the right decision. Five years after,we know our assessment of our customers was right on. I knowthat our competition hasn’t experienced the kind of return on theirsites that they expected. We know it all boils down to our customer’spreferences.

Support Current/Future Business OperationsWithin the domain of business alignment, the subject group

defined support of current and future business operations andprocesses (which encompasses such issues as M, O, and T fromTables 4, 5, and 6) as another issue to consider when evaluatingan EIT. One CIO suggested that, by appropriately evaluating thecompatibilities of an EIT with current and future organizationaloperations, an IT strategist can avoid the difficult lesson learnedby so many adopters of ERP systems in the late 1990s: integrat-ing technology for the sake of technology is a poor approach todeveloping an IT strategy. The overriding theme expressed bythe group regarding EITs and operations compatibility is that itis of paramount importance to ensure that the operations of anorganization are not altered solely to allow for the integrationof a technology. While all agreed that it is completely accept-able to utilize technology to facilitate organizational change,attempts to conform organizational processes around an EIT aretantamount to placing the cart in front of the horse.

Technical Alignment IssuesAccording to the study group, while an IT strategist assesses

the business alignment issues regarding an EIT, he or she mayalso find it appropriate to explore the relevant issues of the

EIT as it would relate to compatibility with existing systems,support and licensing, and standards. The group classified thefollowing issues into the category of technical alignment. Eachof the technical alignment issues seem most aptly described asrepresenting issues with compatibility, as encompassed by theinnovation-decision process. All three of the technical issuesgrouped by the study participants seem to fit within the con-text of the definition of compatibility (Table 2) with needs,functions, or expectations. Therefore we have indicated thisgrounding in our model presented in Figure 2.

Current/Future Uses of TechnologyInitially, the analysis of an EIT should focus on the current

and future uses of the EIT within the organization (e.g., issuesE and F from Tables 4, 5, and 6). The CIO of an internationalpaper products manufacturer explained the analysis of potentialuses of an EIT as a “proactive” activity:

I have a good handle on our current [inventory] systems. I knowwhat we are capable of doing and what we are not. Spec’ing outa new product means I have to know how, when, where, and whatthe technology is going to be used for. Fixes to problems today cancreate problems tomorrow. I evaluate all of the technology that weare looking at by using a life cycle chart. It helps me to find ways touse a technology and also an idea of a useful timeline for it.

Several of the group participants suggested that identifyingfuture uses of an EIT is very difficult because of the natureof technology evolution, which underscores the importance ofcompatibility in reference to the innovation-decision process:

One problem with anticipating future uses of technologies is thatdevelopments can take place like an explosion but it usually takestime for support to catch up. Going way back, look at ISDN. Thetechnology was developed long before the rules were ever workedout. By the time everybody finally agreed on the standards, ISDNwas an afterthought for broadband.

Although the identification of future uses of an EIT requiressome forecasting, most of the executives in the study indicatedthat the key to future use assessment of an emerging technol-ogy is the analysis of the wealth of information available fromtechnology developers.

Technical Performance AspectsThe remaining assessment areas in the EIT evaluation model

are components of technical alignment that have to do withtechnical performance and compatibility issues. Technical per-formance aspects (e.g., issues C, G, and H from Tables 4, 5,and 6), per the subject group, collectively reflect the myriadof technology specifications of an EIT. For example, many ofthe participating executives were particularly concerned aboutthe technical security factors associated with new technologies.However, performance issues also include other technical areassuch as product reliability, particularly with respect to hardware.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

ADOPTION OF EMERGING IT 245

Technical Compatibility with Existing Information SystemsGeneral technical compatibility issues center on the specifics

of integrating an EIT into an organization’s existing IT infras-tructure and encompass compatibility issues that are not cap-tured elsewhere in the model (e.g., issues N, S, and R fromTables 4, 5, and 6). Most of the systems compatibility issuesfocused on specific areas such as cross-platform connectivity,software application integration, and deployment.

LIMITATIONSThe current study utilizes a novel qualitative research

methodology as a means to elicit a rich contextual perspec-tive on a traditional IS research theme. We believe that thistype of research approach is critical for (1) the developmentof exploratory analysis that may lead to the development ofnew research directions in the existing common body of knowl-edge, and (2) a deeper level of understanding regarding complexunstructured organizational processes that are not well suitedfor empirical analysis. However, we do understand that there areseveral limitations in the current study that should be addressed.First, our sample consisted of a relative homogenous group ofparticipants. Each subject was an IT executive with a Fortune1000 firm from the United States. As such, the data collectedmay not reflect concerns that may have been expressed bythose IT executives that are not employed by large Americancompanies.

Another limitation is presented by our exclusive use of ITexecutives. We understand that strategy development is a cross-functional activity and involves employees from many differentareas of an organization. Thus, our data may present a perspec-tive that is inherently limited to an IT point-of-view. In addition,while our sample was sufficiently large, we did experience somesubject attrition through the rounds of data collection. This attri-tion may have also limited the scope and perspective of thedata and subsequent conclusions. Future research that oper-ationalizes our proposed Emerging Information TechnologyEvaluation Model, in part or in its entirety, will serve to allaythe aforementioned limitations and enhance our understand-ing of EITs in IT strategy. Similarly, our study is focusedgenerically on EIT. Although our results can be of use to schol-ars and practitioners, future research may wish to examinespecific types or categories of EIT in order to provide moreparticular guidance. Using our results as a starting point, addi-tional research may be able to offer a more refined version ofour Emerging Information Technology Evaluation Model forspecific categories of EIT.

CONCLUSIONSIn today’s global business environment, timeliness is impor-

tant. The rapid evolution of technology utilized in the ordinarycourse of business leaves little doubt that such technologi-cal advancement is placing great pressure on those who are

charged with the responsibility of developing timely IT strate-gies to support their respective businesses. Given the rate oftechnological change, the exclusive use of currently availablecommercial technologies often creates a rapidly outdated ITstrategy. Because strategic IT planning is a critical compo-nent of success (Heckman, 2003), practitioners should givesome consideration to the appropriateness of EITs as potentialpieces of corporate IT strategy. The sentiments of academiciansare echoed by executives engaged in IT strategy development.Thus, we engaged in the current research in an attempt toanswer the question “What issues influence a corporate IT exec-utive’s decision to adopt an EIT into corporate IT strategy?”By answering this question we hope to have created (1) betterunderstanding of the innovation-decision process for adoptingEITs as part of corporate IT strategy, and (2) a means throughwhich IT executives engaged in the process of developing ITstrategy can prioritize and evaluate the strategic fit of EITs fortheir respective businesses and ultimately develop a more timelyIT strategy.

Our research has identified two overarching factors that con-solidate many issues related to the evaluation and subsequentadoption of EITs into corporate IT strategy. First, the partici-pants in the current study identified business alignment as thoseissues that are related to the higher order of business functionssuch as business process management, customer relationshipmanagement, and supply chain management. The second over-arching factor that the group proposed was technical alignment.The issues that underlie this factor are much more granular innature and relate to the EIT and its potential compatibly and per-formance with existing infrastructure. Both factors identified inthis research can be characterized as specific contextual expres-sions of relative advantage and compatibility, as seen throughthe lens of innovation diffusion theory.

We consolidated each of the aforementioned factors andissues into the Emerging Information Technology EvaluationModel. Using the model presented herein, IT executives may beable to work toward the creation of a more timely IT strategy byquickly assessing the potential fit of EITs within a firm-specificcontext. As a result, forward-looking IT strategies that capital-ize on early innovation are developed. The net effect is a longeruseful life for an IT strategy.

AUTHOR BIOSCasey G. Cegielski, PhD, CISA, CISSP, is an associate profes-

sor of Management Information Systems and former KPMGFaculty Fellow in the College of Business on the facultyof Auburn University. His current research interests arein the areas of innovation diffusion, emerging informationtechnology, information security, and the strategic use ofinformation technology. His research has appeared in sev-eral international information systems journals includingCommunications of the ACM, Information & Management,Decision Support Systems, and Information Systems Journal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

246 C. G. CEGIELSKI ET AL.

Additionally, Dr. Cegielski has more than 15 years ofprofessional experience within the domain of informationtechnology.

David M. Bourrie is a doctoral student at Auburn University andis studying the Management of Information Technology andInnovation. He earned a Bachelor’s degree from MichiganState University. His current research interests are in theareas of innovation diffusion, information technology capa-bilities, health information systems, and how informationtechnology can improve decision making and performance.

Benjamin T. Hazen is a PhD candidate in the College ofBusiness at Auburn University and an active duty U.S. AirForce maintenance officer. His research interests includereverse logistics and innovation diffusion. His researchhas appeared in several journals, to include InternationalJournal of Production Economics, International Journalof Logistics Management, and International Journal ofPhysical Distribution and Logistics Management. The viewsexpressed in this article are those of the author and do notreflect the official policy or position of the United States AirForce, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

REFERENCESAgarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and

perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies.Decision Sciences, 28(3), 557–582.

Baldwin, E., & Curley, M. (2007). Managing IT innovations for business value:Practical strategies for IT and business managers. Santa Clara, CA: IntelPress.

Benamati, J., & Lederer, A. L. (2001). Coping with rapid changes in IT.Communications of the ACM, 44(8), 83–88.

Brancheau, J. C., Janz, B. D. J., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1996). Key issues in informa-tion systems management: 1994–1995 SIM Delphi results. MIS Quarterly,20(2), 225–242.

Brancheau, J. C., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1987). Key issues in information systemsmanagement. MIS Quarterly, 11(1), 23–45.

Brancheau, J. C., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1990). The adoption of spreadsheetsoftware: Testing innovation diffusion theory in the context of end-usercomputing. Information Systems Research, 1(2), 115–143.

Cegielski, C. G., Reithel, B. J., & Rebman, C. M. (2005). Emerging informa-tion technologies: Developing a timely IT strategy. Communications of theACM, 48(8), 113–117.

Chan, Y. E. (2002). Why haven’t we mastered alignment? The importanceof the informal organization structure. MIS Quarterly Executive, 1(2),99–112.

Chan, Y. E., & Reich, B. (2007). IT alignment: What have we learned? Journalof Information Technology, 22(4), 297–315.

Chau, P. Y. K. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technologyacceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2),185–204.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologiescause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptivechange. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 66–76.

Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creatingand sustaining successful growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Churchman, C. W., & Schainblatt, A. H. (1965). The researcher and the man-ager: A dialectic of implementation. Management Science, 11(4), 69–87.

Clemons, E. K., & Row, M. C. (1991). Sustaining IT advantage: The role ofstructural differences. MIS Quarterly, 15(3), 275–292.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspec-tive on learning and innovation. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 35(1),128–152.

Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementationresearch: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2),123–139.

Couger, J. D. (1988). Key human resource issues in IS in the 1990s: Views of ISexecutives versus human resource executives. Information & Management,14(4), 161–174.

Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphimethod to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467.

Davenport, T. (2001). The new, new IT strategy. CIO 14(14), 58–59.Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user

acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.de Haan, J., & Peters, R. (1993). Technology: Toys or tools? Results of a Dutch

Delphi study. Information & Management, 25(6), 283–289.Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques

for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes.Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman.

Doke, E. R., & Swanson, N. E. (1995). Decision variables for selecting pro-totyping in information systems development: A Delphi study of MISmanagers. Information & Management, 29(4), 173–182.

Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1999). The illusory diffusion of innovation:An examination of assimilation gaps. Information Systems Research, 10(3),255–275.

Fink, D. (1995). IS security issues for the 1990s: Implications for management.Journal of Systems Management, 46(2), 46–50.

Garcia-Crespo, A., Colomo-Palacios, R., Soto-Acosta, P., & Ruano-Mayoral,M. (2010). A qualitative study of hard decision making in managing globalsoftware development teams. Information Systems Management, 27(3),247–252.

Gordon, M. (2002). How to succeed in strategic planning. CIO, 15(11), 46–47.Gottschalk, P. (1999). Implementation predictors of strategic information sys-

tems plans. Information & Management, 36(2), 77–91.Grover, V., & Segars, A. H. (2005). An empirical evaluation of

stages of strategic information systems planning: Patterns of pro-cess design and effectiveness. Information & Management, 42(5),761–779.

Gutierrez, O. (1989). Experimental techniques for information requirementsanalysis. Information & Management, 16(1), 31–43.

Hazen, B. T., Overstreet, R. E., & Cegielski, C. (2012). Supply chain innova-tion diffusion: Going beyond adoption. International Journal of LogisticsManagement, 23(1).

Heckman, R. (2003). Strategic information technology planning and the linemanager’s role. Information Systems Management, 20(4), 16–21.

Katz, E. (1961). The social itinerary of social change: Two studies on thediffusion of innovation. Human Organization, 20(2), 70–82.

Katz, E., Levin, M., & Hamilton, H. (1963). Traditions of research on thediffusion of innovation. American Sociological Review, 28(2), 237–252.

Lai, V. S., Guynes, J. L., & Bordoloi, B. (1993). ISDN: Adoption and diffusionissues. Information Systems Management, 10(4), 46–52.

Langeland, L., & Iden, J. (2010). Setting the stage for a successful ITILadoption: A Delphi study of IT Experts in the Norwegian Armed Forces.Information Systems Management, 27(2), 103–112.

Larsen, T. J. (1993). Middle managers’ contribution to implemented informa-tion technology innovation. Journal of Management Information Systems,10(2), 155–176.

Loukis, E., Spinellis, D., & Katsigianis, A. (2011). Barriers to the adop-tion of B2B e-marketplaces by large enterprises: Lessons learned fromthe Hellenic aerospace industry. Information Systems Management, 28(2),130–146.

Low, L. (2001). Co-evolving business and IT strategies. CIO perspectives @25—Different voices, shared visions: Getting alignment right. Retrievedfrom http://www2.cio.com/conferences/october2001/coverage33_content.html

Lucas, H. C., Jr., & Goh, J. M. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodakmissed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of StrategicInformation Systems, 18(1), 46–55.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

ADOPTION OF EMERGING IT 247

Luftman, J., & Kempaiah, R. (2008). Key issues for IT executives. MISQuarterly Executive, 7(2), 99–112.

Luftman, J., Kempaiah, R., & Nash, E. (2006). Key issues for IT executives2005. MIS Quarterly Executive, 5(2), 27–45.

Malhotra, M. K., Steele, D. C., & Grover, V. (1994). Important strategicand tactical manufacturing issues in the 1990s. Decision Sciences, 25(2),189–214.

McFadzean, E., Ezingeard, J.-N., & Birchall, D. (2011). Information assur-ance and corporate strategy: A Delphi study of choices, challenges, anddevelopments for the future. Information Systems Management, 28(2),102–129.

Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1996). Integrating diffusion of innovations andtheory of reasoned action models to predict utilization of information tech-nology by end-users. In K. Kautz & J. Pries-Heje (Eds.), Diffusion andadoption of information technology (pp. 133–146). London: Chapman andHall.

Muller, R. M., Linders, S., & Pires, L. F. (2010). Business intelligenceand service-oriented architecture: A Delphi study. Information SystemsManagement, 27(2), 168–187.

Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R., & Tanniru, M. (1999). Organizational mechanismsfor enhancing user innovation in information technology. MIS Quarterly,23(3), 365–395.

Newkirk, H. E., Lederer, A. L., & Srinivasan, C. (2003). Strategic informa-tion systems planning: Too little or too much? The Journal of StrategicInformation Systems, 12(3), 201–228.

Niederman, F., & Brancheu, J. C. (1991). Information systems managementissues for the 1990s. MIS Quarterly, 15(4), 475–500.

Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a researchtool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information &Management, 42(1), 15–29.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization.Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 1–9.

Paliwoda, S. J. (1983). Predicting the future using Delphi. ManagementDecision, 21(1), 31–38.

Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superiorperformance. New York: Free Press.

Premkumar, G., & King, W. R. (1994). The evaluation of strategic informationsystem planning. Information & Management, 26(6), 327–340.

Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., & Nilakanta, S. (1994). Implementation ofelectronic data interchange: An innovation diffusion perspective. Journal ofManagement Information Systems, 11(2), 157–186.

Riggs, W. E. (1983). The Delphi technique: An experimental evaluation.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23(1), 89–94.

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Rohrbaugh, J. (1979). Improving the quality of group judgment: Social judg-

ment analysis and the Delphi technique. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 24(1), 73–92.

Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1998). Strategic information systems planning suc-cess: An investigation of the construct and its measurement. MIS Quarterly,22(2), 139–163.

Segars, A. H., Grover, V., & Teng, J. T. C. (1998). Strategic informationsystems planning: Planning system dimensions, internal coalignment, andimplications for planning effectiveness. Decision Sciences, 29(2), 303–341.

Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. NewYork: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Taylor, R. E., & Meinhardt, D. J. (1985). Defining computer informationneeds for small business: A Delphi method. Journal of Small BusinessManagement, 23(2), 3–9.

Tornatzky, L., & Klein, K. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovationadoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactionson Engineering Management, 29(1), 28–45.

Tushman, M. L. & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations:Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California ManagementReview, 38(4), 8–30.

Varon, E. (2000). Be nimble, be quick. CIO, 13(17), 84–85.Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for

directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptanceand usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

248 C. G. CEGIELSKI ET AL.

APPENDICES

Appendix: Descriptive Information Regarding the Delphi Study Expert Panel (N = 75)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4

ADOPTION OF EMERGING IT 249

Appendix: Descriptive Information Regarding the Respondents to the Confirmatory Survey (N = 99)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:23

05

Oct

ober

201

4