Organizational Climate for Innovation Implementation

and ICT Appropriation: Exploring the Relationship

through Discourse Analysis

Tanya Bondarouk

and Huub Ruël

University of Twente, Faculty of Management and Governance

P.O. box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

Abstract. In this paper we explore the relationship between the organizational

climate for innovation and ICT implementation success, defined as the stage in

which end-users highly appropriate the newly implemented ICT. This explora-

tion is guided by the question: how are organizational climate for innovation

implementation and end-user appropriation of ICT related? We carried out a

longitudinal case study in a hospital where new ICT had been implemented. We

analyzed the organizational climate for innovation and end-user appropriation

by means of discourse analysis. This led to the conclusion the relationship be-

tween organizational climate and end-user appropriation needs to be redefined.

1 Introduction

Modern marketplace forces organizations to implement innovations [1, 2]. But yet in

many cases organizations implement innovations – technological, structural, or cul-

tural – with unsatisfactory results [3, 4]. Information and communication technology

(ICT) implementation has been one of the most prominent examples of innovation

over the last decade, and will stay one of the most important ones for the coming

years.

As such technologies become progressively more intertwined in the operations,

products, and infrastructure of companies, it is crucial that implementation or on-

going use of ICT is successful [5]. This remains a challenge. Literature keeps on

providing examples of failures of ICT projects. Researchers identify that companies’

inability to achieve all intended benefits of ICT mainly roots in the implementation

process of such technology, and less in its technical capability [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

The question is how to ‘organize’ successful innovations, and more specifically in-

formation and communication technology implementations. A number of researchers

has started to acknowledge that the organizational climate may play a decisive role in

whether innovations will be successful or not [13, 14]. [15] for example acknowl-

edges that the organizational climate should be stimulative towards innovations in

order to assure successful implementations.

Bondarouk T. and Ruël H. (2008).

Organizational Climate for Innovation Implementation and ICT Appropriation: Exploring the Relationship through Discourse Analysis.

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Human Resource Information Systems, pages 83-96

DOI: 10.5220/0001744700830096

 SciTePress

In this paper we explore the relationship between the organizational climate for in-

novation and ICT implementation success, defined as the stage in which end-users

highly appropriate the newly implemented ICT. This exploration is guided by the

question: how are organizational climate for innovation implementation and end-user

appropriation of ICT related? We carried out a longitudinal case study in a hospital

where new ICT had been implemented. We analyzed the organizational climate for

innovation and end-user appropriation by means of discourse analysis. This led to the

conclusion the relationship between organizational climate and end-user appropria-

tion needs to be redefined.

The structure of the paper is as follows. First we elaborate on the key concepts. We

focus on the appropriation concept at a user-level and on organizational climate for

ICT implementation at an organizational level. After this, the research method is

explained and the results is presented. In a final section we will draw a number of

main conclusions and reflect on the research method used.

2 ICT Implementation

We view ICT implementation from the perspective of innovation implementation.

The focus is on the implementation of technology that an organization is using for the

first time, regardless of whether other organizations have previously used the same

system [16].

In lots of IT studies implementation is assumed as an implicitly clear word [17, 18,

19, 20, 21, 22]. However, searching for precise understanding of ICT implementation

we found a variety of its meanings [5].

We approach our definition of ICT implementation from three angles: the period

of time, the core processes involved in implementation, and the indicators of the im-

plementation completion. Implementation of any kind of innovation in a broad sense

concerns a period from the initiative to get this innovation till its active use. Usually it

takes a long time before the initial idea becomes a reality in day-to-day practice. To

specify our research interest we limit such time and consider implementation of ICT

within the transition period only from the technical installation skipping the design

stage.

We propose to root implementation completion of ICT in the stage when the end-

users 1) make a high number of appropriation moves (or really fully use the technol-

ogy), 2) appropriate the new ICT in a faithful way, 3) when end-users’ attitudes are

positive and 4) when there is a consensus among end-users about how to appropriate

the technology.

Routine use of technology is limited by the nature of the job tasks: if the task is

changed it may have the consequence that use of technology will be different (Bon-

darouk and Sikkel, 2001). Therefore the full definition of implementation of ICT is as

the situated use of a system during the transition period between the technical instal-

lation of the system and the appropriate use of it within a certain job task.

3 Organizational Climate for Innovation Implementation

Introduction of new ICT requires strong organisational encouragement in order to

forward employees efforts in use of the system. The literature on the implementation

of innovation describes a lot of organisational practices that accomplish and support

innovation use [23] These include training in innovation use, time to experiment,

respect from management, financial support, job reassignment, friendliness of an

innovation, etc. [24; 25, 26, 27]. [28] posit that all such practices encourage innova-

tion use “through shaping the organisation’s climate for implementation” (p. 813).

The organisational climate is widely understood to consist of empirically accessi-

ble elements such as behavioural and attitudinal characteristics illustrated by shared

perceptions of the employees [29, 30, 25, 31, 15, 13, 14].

We specify the organisational climate for innovative ICT implementation as the

employees’ shared perceptions of the extent, to which their use of ICT is valued

within a company.

Research suggests that the more comprehensively implementation policy and prac-

tices are perceived by the targeted employees as encouraging, cultivating, and re-

warding their use of a given innovation, the stronger the climate for implementation

of that innovation will be [27]. Important is that the climate for ICT implementation

can differently result in the same individual within the same organization in one

workplace or another, and in one group of employees or another.

[27] suggest to consider particular organisational practices for strengthening climate

for innovation implementation as a three-fold construct:

We specify each of three practices for the implementation of ICT as an innovation.

An organization has a strong climate for implementation ICT as an innovation if: (a)

the targeted users are given autonomy and responsibility in use of ICT and are pro-

vided with different learning opportunities (ensuring employees’ skills); (b) an inten-

sive collaboration to exchange knowledge and experience about ICT is cultivated

among the users (encouraging use of an innovation); (c) the employees are given

enough time to learn the system and the management is willing to cooperate and help

(removing obstacles to use an innovation).

4 End user Appropriation

Innovations are successful if targeted employees faithfully adopt them. However

adoption in our view means more than just using or applying an innovation. It means

that targeted employees incorporate an idea or tool into day-to-day practice. For new

information technology implementation DeSanctis & Poole (1994) introduced the

concept of appropriation. They developed Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) with

the basic assumption that the effects of technology are not a function of the technol-

ogy itself, but of the way it is used. Furthermore AST provides promising concepts

that acknowledge the non-technical side of advanced information technology in or-

ganizations [12].

Two main ideas are based on AST: firstly, advanced information technologies are

social in nature. This is expressed by the concept of spirit of technology, which is

defined as the general intent with regard to values and goals underlying a given set of

technical features of a certain ICT [12]. Secondly, advanced information technologies

are being ‘realized’ by its use. This is expressed by the concept of appropriation.

AST considers information technology use as a matter of appropriation. In the rela-

tively short history of AST, its developers have gone through some changes in the

way they conceptualize appropriation. Initially, AST distinguished three dimensions

of appropriation: faithfulness of appropriation, attitudes towards appropriation, and

the level of consensus on the appropriation. However, after rethinking the theory of

adaptive structuration, [32] distinguish four dimensions of appropriation: appropria-

tion moves, faithfulness of appropriation, attitudes towards appropriation, and in-

strumental uses. So, they added appropriation moves and instrumental uses, and

removed consensus on appropriation. We believe that a combination of [32] and [33]

provides the most useful concept of appropriation and will therefore be applied in this

paper.

5 Research Model

To frame our study we start with the premise, depicted in Figure 1, that success of

ICT implementation is a function of the relationship between a) appropriation of ICT

by the targeted users and b) organizational climate for its implementation. Successful

implementation is achieved when the targeted employees appropriate ICT to a high

extent. However, we suppose that the organizational climate for innovations and the

way ICT is appropriated are interrelated, they mutually shape each other. Even

though, we expect a ‘fit’ between the two concepts in the following way: a ‘strong’

organizational climate for innovation is related to ‘a high level of appropriation, a

‘weak’ organizational climate for innovations is related to a low level of ’ appropria-

tion.

Both concepts are not stable, they may change and develop over time, and thus al-

so during an implementation of an innovation. To illustrate this, in the stage of insti-

tutionalized use the organizational climate for innovations may be not very strong.

The reasons for this can be multifold, for example - within an organization the man-

agement does not introduce a special reward system for experimenting with a new

system. Therefore the appropriation of the newly implemented ICT may be quite

unfaithful in this specific stage. Management take notice of the low appropriation and

start to undertake actions to improve the organizational climate for innovations in

order to improve the employees’ way of appropriation. In a later stadium the organ-

izational climate may change and become stronger, as may happen to the appropria-

tion of the ICT by employees. In this illustration we cannot and do not want to say

something about ‘what causes what’, but we just take notice of the situation, it spe-

cific conditions and actions of actors involved. We consider it as a rich source for

learning.

Fig. 1. The starting premise.

6 Discourse Analysis: A Theoretical Introduction

To explore the relationship between the organizational climate for innovation imple-

mentation and end user (or employees’ ) appropriation we used discourse analysis.

Discourse analysis is a relatively new technique but its use is rapidly growing in the

study of human behavior [34]. It is considered as a powerful research strategy [35].

Discourse analysis starts from the assumptions that language is a medium oriented

towards action and function, and that people use language intentionally to construct

accounts or versions of the social world. Variation in the use of language is the active

process of construction in which this is demonstrated. Analyzing discourse needs to

pay attention to the concept of variability, as discourse will vary systematically de-

pending on the function it is being used to perform.

We acknowledge but also accept that the way a text or a discourse is analyzed is

very subjective and may not be the only valid interpretation. Our analysis may be

only one of a number of possibilities. Moreover, by focusing on one alternative, other

explanations may even be missed or disregarded. Either way, we believe that social

scientific research is never value-free, whether advanced statistical procedures are

applied or not. Social sciences in our view need not to ‘prove’ universal behavioral

laws, it needs to provide insights to learn from, to enrich our social worldview. For

this purpose discourse analysis is a powerful and adequate approach.

In our study we went to the following procedure to carry out a discourse analysis.

A longitudinal case study was conducted in a local hospital in the Netherlands, where

a new information technology was introduced four months before our research

started. The case study lasted during 6 months. The system implied clerical work for

personnel and salary administration. First the system was introduced to three groups

from the central salary department and to the personnel secretaries. A detailed data

collection was conducted with the first users through semi-structured interviews,

observations in the field, and documents analysis.

Organizational climate for innovation implementation

End user appropriation of ICT

Time

32 interviews were employed lasting from 45 minutes to 2 hours, in total of 46

hours. Most of the interviews were individual, and also three group interviews were

used because of the office environment. Some of the interviews took two meetings, as

there was a need in additional clarification and information. We asked employees to

describe the organizational climate for innovations and their appropriation of the new

system in two stages. Postscripts of all 32 interviews were again discussed with inter-

viewees.

In order to analyze the transcripts we developed a framework that operationalized

the constructs organizational climate for innovation and end user appropriation. The

results are shown in the tables 1 and 2.

We define organizational climate for innovation as the employees’ shared percep-

tions of the extent to which their use of innovations is valued within a company. In

order to use the construct in our study we have operationalized and distinguished: a)

ensuring employees’ skills in use of an innovation, b) encouraging use of an innova-

tion, c) removing obstacles to use an innovation.

Table 1. The operationalization of organizational climate for innovation implementation.

Organizational climate for innovation implementation

Dimensions &Indicators Range Definitions

1.1 Autonomy

and responsibil-

ity

From ‘high’ to

‘low’

Delivering authority for decision-

making, planning and creativity in

use of the system.

1.Ensuring skills in

use of innova

ion

1.2 Promoting

different learn-

ing opportunities

From ‘adequate’

to inadequate’

Availability of formal and informal

sessions, information and different

resources to learn the system.

2.1 Feedback From ‘highly

encouraging’ to

‘disappointing’

The level, to which learning and use

of the system is given feedback and

rewarded.

2. Encouraging use o

ICT

2.2. Supporting

group collabora-

tion

From ‘strong’ to

‘weak’

Cultivating exchange of experience

within a group of users.

3.1. Manage-

ment style

From ‘highly

supportive’ to

‘unhelpful’

Perceptions about management as

being supportive, caring and willing

to help in learning the system.

3. Removing obstacles

3.2. Time

From ‘suffi-

cient’ to ‘in-

sufficient’

Time allowed taking advantages of

opportunity to learn the system

effectively rather than ‘muddle

through’.

Strong climate for innovation implementation is advanced when the targeted em-

ployees are provided with:

Is it – to the theoretical section #3 “end user appropriation”? For this section – it

must be shortened and made congruent with the ‘climate’ (see above)!!!!

The concept of appropriation consists of five dimensions: a) appropriation moves,

b) faithfulness of appropriation, c) attitudes towards appropriation, d) consensus on

appropriation. [32] define appropriation moves as the ways that users choose to

appropriate the available technology structures. They propose four types of appro-

priation moves: direct use, relate to other features, constrain the use of a feature, and

express judgements about a feature. Faithfulness of appropriation is defined as the

extent to which a certain office technology is appropriated consistent with its spirit.

Two indicators are distinguished: use of ICT in accordance with its spirit, and use of

ICT with the aim to advance its spirit. By attitudes towards appropriation we mean

the users’ assessments of the extent to which the structures within the system are

useful and easy to use. Attitudes set the tone for system usage and can reinforce pro-

ductive or counterproductive trends in a group’s experience with the system [33].

Finally, the fourth aspect we distinguish on appropriation is consensus towards ap-

propriation.

The definition we apply is as follows: the extent to which users of office technol-

ogy agree upon how the technology should be used. In order to achieve effective

processes and desired outcomes, it is important that a specific office technology is

used in a similar way by all users (indicator 1), and that there are written or tacit rules

about how to use the ICT (indicator 2). We believe that a high level of consensus is

necessary for all types of ICT use. For example, if in an insurance company, employ-

ees who work with a specific ICT do not use it in a similar way, this will probably

lead to ineffective work processes. Therefore, whether users of ICT are linked with

each other very closely, or they work more as individuals, for the effectiveness of the

work processes as a whole, it is important that there is consensus on how to use the

technology.

The two researchers who wrote this paper separately read all transcripts. They se-

lected all expressions that were informative about the two constructs per stage of the

ICT implementation, and placed them into the framework. The result of this activity

was a broad set of expressions constructing the worldview of end users per dimen-

sion.

The researchers labeled the expressions regarding all indicators of the organiza-

tional climate in terms of the proposed range (see table 1): ‘high level of autonomy

and responsibility’ or ‘low level of autonomy and responsibility’; ‘adequate learning

opportunities’ or ‘poor learning opportunities’; ‘highly encouraging feedback’ or

‘disappointing feedback’; ‘strong support for group collaboration’ or ‘weak support

for group collaboration’; ‘highly supportive management style’ or ‘unhelpful man-

agement style’; and ‘sufficient time’ or ‘insufficient time’. Then the assumptions/ or

propositions/ or conclusions of the climate for innovation implementation was charac-

terized in terms of ‘strong’, ‘weak’, or ‘neutral’.

The expressions regarding all indicators of end user appropriation were labeled us-

ing the proposed range (table 2): ‘high level of moves’ or ‘low level of moves’; ‘high

level of faithful appropriation’ or ‘low level of faithful appropriation’; ‘positive atti-

tude’ or ‘negative attitude’; and ‘high consensus’ or ‘low consensus’.

Table 2. The operationalization of the end user appropriation concept.

End user appropriation

Dimensions & Indicators Range Definitions

1.1 direct use

From

‘high’ to

‘low’

Openly use and refer to (feature)

of the ICT

1.2 Relate to other

feature(s)

From

‘high’ to

‘low’

Substitute, combine, enlarge, or

contrast a feature of the ICT with

another feature

1.3 Constrain the use

of a feature

From

‘high’ to

‘low’

A feature of the ICT is interpreted

or reinterpreted

1.Appropriation moves

1.4 Express judge-

ments about a feature

From ‘pos-

itive’ to

‘negative’

The use of a feature is judged as

good, bad or neutral

2.1. Use of ICT in

accordance with its

spirit

From

‘high’ to

‘low’

Features of the ICT are used in

line with its general intent regard-

ing values and goals of the fea-

tures

2. Faithful appropriation

2.2. Use of ICT with

the aim to advance its

spirit

From

‘high’ to

‘low’

Features of the ICT are used in

line with but also with the aim to

improve and sharpen the features’

general intent

3.1. Perceived use-

fulness

From

‘high’ to

‘low’

The features of the ICT are

judged as helpful and supportive

to the tasks to be carried out

3. Attitude towards

appropriation

3.2. Perceived ease of

use

From

‘high’ to

‘low’

The features of the ICT are

judged as easy to use

4.1 Identical ways of

using ICT

From

‘high’ to

‘low’

End users work with the features

in similar ways

4. Consensus on

appropriation

4.2 Written or tacit

rules about how to

use the ICT

From

‘high’ to

‘low’

End users developed rules that are

known among users about how to

work with the ICT

All expressions that could not be labeled with one of the proposed terms were la-

beled as ‘moderate’. The researchers were also open to new terms for labeling the

expressions. This created the possibility for more refined labels.The next section

presents the results of our analysis.

7 The Results

The discourse analysis has led to a long list of materials. We present a selection of the

most characteristic expressions per dimension and the way we labeled it. We have

chosen the sample of the expressions, which is in our view represents and covers all

diverse interview postscripts. Appendices represent the analysis regarding the con-

struct of organizational climate, and end user appropriation.

The boxes 7.1 and 7.2 present the result of our analysis (respectively time-1 and

time-2).

Time-1. Climate for innovation implementation: considerably strong

The level of autonomy and responsibility delivered to the employees was moderate. They were

strictly limited in the ‘exploring’ the system, and led by the project managers in most of the steps

towards learning the system. There was no freedom in making choices for participating in educa-

tional courses, peer guiding, frequency of use and experimenting with the system at the beginning.

At the same time taking initiative was not forbidden: skillful and experienced employees took the

decision to write manuals and arrange additional instructions for their colleagues.

There were lots of different learning opportunities: educational software courses, peer teaching,

manuals, and experts consultations. Info bulletins kept on providing job aids.

Group collaboration was strongly stimulated through organizing regular discussions about on-

going problems in use of the system: once a week with the whole department, and every day

during coffee pauses. On-line chat aimed at exchange of experience and ideas.

Project managers were highly supportive and open for any discussions and help. They were

oriented towards mutual learning the system together with the end users. They participated in all

meetings and guaranteed help always just-in-time.

Feedback was considerably disappointing. All mistakes made by the users were pointed imme-

diately. But the employees were not rewarded and recognized for lots of efforts invested in learn-

ing the new system.

End-users felt high time pressure during first months. Officially they had two hours a day dur-

ing first month to experiment with the system, but the amount of their daily tasks remained the

same. Later they had to switch to a new system, at once without any individual differences. Days

off and vacation days were forbidden to take during first three months.

Despite autocratic and strict atmosphere within the targeted departments, the implementation

climate was considerably strong because the use and learning of the new ICT was highly valued.

Time-1. Appropriation of the ICT in the beginning: low to moderate

Employees’ level of direct use in the beginning was immediately quite considerable already. Re-

fusing to use the new system was not the case. Even attempts to enlarge the possibilities of the

system were undertaken. Judgements about features of the system were hardly expressed in this

stage.

Use in accordance with the system’s spirit was quite low. Employees carried out tasks manually

that were meant to carry out through the system. Sometimes this was due to a lack of knowledge,

sometimes this was due to technical problems.

The level of use of the system in order to advance its spirit was quite high. A number of employ-

ees was curious about discovering the possibilities of the system to improve its aim.

The system’s usefulness was not really recognized in the beginning, its easiness of use was con-

sidered as low to moderate. To switch from the old system to the new was difficult, although for

younger employees it was less a problem.

Employees had a lot of questions about how to work with the system. Therefore, identical ways

of use were not really the case. The same can be said about the existence of written or tacit rules

among employees about how to work with the new system.

Time-2. Climate for innovation implementation: weak

Just a few users wee given an official authority to explore further the possibility with ICT to im-

prove the jaob performance. But mostly this issue was even not relevant for all users.

The level of providing different learning resources was not adequate to the current needs of the

users. Especially it concerned new employees who joint the department during this stage. They felt

a lack of any additional information to learn how to use the system. The only source for them was –

experienced colleagues who had to find time to explain the characteristics of the system. Manuals

and official documents were not up-dated in accordance to the latest improvements in the system.

Group collaboration was supported quite weakly. Regular discussions did not take place any

more, only in cases of emergency.

Managers were still willing to help and give any consultations. But the employees felt that the

project was frozen in comparison with the first months. Project team members did not ask about the

users’ opinions of on-going implementation. Only unexpected problems stimulated situational

discussions and evaluation.

The level of recognising and rewarding successful and creative implementation was disappoint-

ing. Only mistakes and problems were pointed out.

End-users did not have special time to try more difficult options in the system.

8 Conclusions and Discussion

This paper’s aim was to explore the relationship between the concept organizational

climate for innovation implementation and end-user appropriation of ICT. In the

former section we presented the results of our discourse analysis. It made clear that in

time-1, in the situation of a strong organizational climate, the overall level of appro-

priation was characterized as low to moderate. Learning opportunities were really

stressed, which facilitated employees to direct use the system and to perceive the

system as easy to use. However the strong organizational climate for innovation im-

plementation could not prevent the low level of use in accordance with the systems’

aim.

This is not in line with our basic premise. Interesting is it to observe that in a

strong organizational climate for innovation the leve of use with the aim to advance

the goal of the system is quite high. What could also not be prevented in time-1, in

the situation of a strong organizational climate for innovation, is the low level of

consensus about how to work with the system.

In time-2 the organizational climate for innovation implementation was weak and

the overall level of end user appropriation of the ICT was moderate. In comparison

with time-1 the climate changed and so did the level of appropriation. However, the

direction of change of both concepts was surprising if compared with our basic prem-

ise. We expected that the relationship between the two concepts would show a certain

kind of ‘fit’. A strong organizational clime for innovation implementation was ex-

pected to make a ‘fit’ with a high level of end-user appropriation, as a weak climate

was expected to ‘fit’ with a low level of end-user appropriation. Will our in-depth

study, by means of discourse analysis, makes us to come up with a different conclu-

sion? At least we have to look for an explanation for the unexpected result.

Time-2 Appropriation of the ICT in stable use stage): Moderate

Direct use in the stage of stable use was quite high. Employees really used the system considera-

bly. Combining, substituting, or enlarging features, however, was not recognized in this stage. Also

reinterpretations of the system were not really made. Employees found a certain basic and stable

interpretation.

They were critical about a number of features of the system or the system as a whole, but the

group of positive employees was considerable.

Use in accordance with the system’s spirit was not broadly the case. Quite some employees did

not want or could not use the system in line with its spirit. Others feel that they are doing quite well.

Use with the aim to advance the spirit was moderate. Attempts to improve were there, but not very

ambitious. On the other hand, how to go on and develop use of the system was also recognizable

with part of the employees.

Without doubts employees acknowledged the usefulness of the system in the stable use stage, as

well as its easiness of use. Different ways of use exist, although a steady growth of a similar way of

using the system was visible. Written or tacit rules surely were developing in this stage.

In our view the presented can be explained by redefining the relationship between

organizational climate for innovation implementation and end-user appropriation as

presented in our basic premise. It is very well possible that organizational climate is a

precondition in advance for enabling end-users or employees to appropriate new ICT.

To illustrate this: already before end-users are offered a new ICT the organiza-

tional climate for innovation implementation has to be strong, or at least prepared in

such a way that appropriation is facilitated as soon as end-users have to start to work

with the ICT. In other words, the level of appropriation ‘follows’ the organizational

climate. In our case study it is very well possible that the organizational climate just

before the implementation was still weak, but when the ICT was offered to end-users

the management undertook very strict and thorough action to create a strong climate

during time-1. The low overall level of appropriation of the ICT by end-users may

have ‘affected’ the organizational climate to become weak in time-2. This happened

while the level of appropriation itself made even a certain progress ‘affected’ by the

strong organizational climate in time-1. Figure 2 presents the redefined basic premise

about the relationship between organizational climate and end-user appropriation.

Fig. 2.The redefined relationship between organizational climate and end-user appropriation.

In sum, we believe that we have to redefine our basic premise about the relation-

ship between organizational climate and end-user appropriation. These two concepts

are not related in terms of a ‘fit’ in a certain situation, but one concept ‘follows’ the

other over time. It takes time, so to say, for one concept to adapt to the other. In our

case study, in which we carried out a discourse analysis, we assume that in time-1

end-user appropriation ‘followed’ the organizational climate in time-0 (the pre-

appropriation stage), and that end-user appropriation in time-1 ‘affected’ the organ-

izational climate resulting in a weak climate in time-2, and so on. In conclusion, or-

ganizational climate for innovation implementation and end-user appropriation of

ICT are related in an ‘action-reaction’ relationship. Of course, we are aware of the

limitation that we only carried out one case study and therefore more case studies are

necessary. It would even though be interesting to start new case studies from this

Organizational climate

for innovation imple-

mentation

End-user appropria-

tion of ICT

Organizational climate

for innovation imple-

mentation

End-user appropria-

tion of ICT

Organizational climate

for innovation imple-

mentation

End-user appropria-

tion of ICT

redefined point of view and it would be interested to look at the ‘mechanisms’ that

lay under this relationship.

References

1. Barret, F.J. (1995). Creating appreciative learning cultures. Organisational Dynamics,

24(2), 36 – 49.

2. Jick, T. (1995). Accelerating change for competitive advantage. Organisational Dynamics,

24(1), 77 - 82.

3. Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

4. Reger, R.K., Gustafson, L.T., Demarie, S.M., Mullane, J.V. (1994). Reframing the organi-

zation: why implementing total quality management is easier said than don. Academy of

Management Review, 19, 837-846.

5. Bondarouk, T. & Sikkel, K. (2001). A learning perspective on groupware implementation.

In: M. Khosrowpour (Ed.), Managing information technology in a global economy. Pro-

ceedings of the International IRMA Conference (pp. 701–703). Hershey, PA: Idea Group

Publishing.

6. Grudin, J. (1988). Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluation of

organisation interfaces. In: Proceedings of the international conference on CSCW, Port-

land, Oregon, 85 – 93.

7. Earl, M.J. (1993). Experiences in strategic information planning. MIS Quarterly, 17(1), 1 –

24.

8. Premkumar, G., & King, W.R. (1994). Organisational characteristics and information

systems planning: anempirical study. Information Systems Research: a Journal of the Insti-

tute of Management Sciences, 5,(2), 75 – 109.

9. Rogers, Y. (1994). Exploring obstacles: integrating CSCW in evolving organisations.

Proceedings on CSCW’94, October 22 - 26, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 67 – 77.

10. Fitzgerald, G. (1998). Evaluating information systems projects: a multidimensional ap-

proach. Journal of Information Technology, 13, 15 – 27.

11. Gottschalk, P. (1999). Implementation predictors of strategic information systems plans.

Information & Management, 36, 77–91.

12. Ruel, H.J.M., (2001). The non-technical side of office technology; managing the clarity of

the spirit and the appropriation of office technology. Ph.D. Thesis. Enschede, the Nether-

lands: Twente University Press.

13. Wallace, J., Hunt, J., & Richards, C. (1999). The relationship between organizational cul-

ture, organizational climate and managerial values. The International Journal of Public

Sector Management, 12(7), 548 – 564.

14. Klein, K.J., Conn, A.B., & Sorra, J.S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: an

organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811 – 824.

15. Ahmed, P.K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation

Management, 1(1), 30 – 43.

16. Nord, W.R., & Trucker, S. (1987). Implementing routine and radical innovations. Lexing-

ton: D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington Books.

17. Joshi, K. (1991). A model of users’ perspective on change: the case of information systems

technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 15, 229 – 242.

18. Orlikowski, W., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organi-

sations. Information Systems research, 2, 143–169.

19. Lederer, A.L., & Salmela, H. (1996). Towards a Theory of Strategic Information Systems

Planning. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 5

, 237–253.

20. Griffith, T.L. (1996). Cognitive Elements in the Implementation of New Technology: Can

Less Information Provide More Benefits? MIS Quarterly, 20, 99–110.

21. Mark, G., & Wulf, V. (1999). Changing Interpersonal Communication through Groupware

Use. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18, 385-395.

22. Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (1999). A Groupware’s Life. In S. Bødker, M. Kyng, & K.Schmidt

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Computer-Supported Coopera-

tive Work (pp. 199–218). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

23. Wolfe, R.A. (1994). Organisational innovation: review, critique and suggested research

directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405 – 431.

24. Rivard, S. (1987). Successful implementation of end-user computing. Interfaces, 17,(3), 25

– 33.

25. Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: an application of the climate construct. In:

B.Schneider (Ed.), Organisational climate and culture, (p. 383–412). San Fransisco: Jos-

sey-Bass.

26. Schneider, B., & Bowen, D.E. (1995). Winning the service game. Boston: Harvard Busi-

ness School Press.

27. Klein, K.J., & Sorra, J.S. (1996). The Challenge of Innovation Implementation. Academy of

Management Review, 21, 1055–1080.

28. Klein, K.J., Conn, A.B., & Sorra, J.S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: an

organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811 – 824.

29. Drexler, J.A. (1977). Organisational climate:its homogeneity within organizations. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 62, 38 – 42.

30. O’Driscoll, M.R., & Evans, R. (1988). Organisational factors and perceptions of climate in

three psychiatric units. Human Relations, 41(5), 371 – 388.

31. Moran, E.T., & Volkwein, J.F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of organiza-

tional climate. Human Relations, 45(1), 19 – 47.

32. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology

Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science, 5, 121–147.

33. Poole, M., DeSanctis, G. (1990). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use:

Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science, 5, 121–147.

34. Zajacova, A. (1990). The background of discourse analysis: a paradigm in social psychol-

ogy. Journal of social distress and the homeless, 10, 323-343.