Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 16, Issue 3, 2021

Complementary Adoptions and the Diffusion of Information

Systems in Small and Medium Enterprises: An Exploratory

Study

Arturo Vega

Newcastle University Business School

5 Barrack Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4SE, United Kingdom

Tel: 0044 7891915032

Email: arturo.vega@newcastle.ac.uk

Mike Chiasson

Faculty of Management, University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus

EME4145 – 1137 Alumni Ave, Kelowna, British Columbia, V1V 1V7, Canada

Tel: 001 2508079462

Email: mike.chiasson@ubc.ca

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explore the diffusion of information systems (IS) in small and medium

enterprises (SMEs) as a multifaceted and open social phenomenon, by considering the role and effects

of complementary adoptions -in terms of other innovations and their adopters- on the adoption of the IS

-focal adoptions. We conceptualised adoption as a staged process (agenda-setting, matching,

implementing, restructuring, clarifying, routinising and infusion) and used multiple case studies to

guide the fieldwork and analysis. We found that the outcome, timing, and flow of the stages of the

focal processes were affected by intricate and multilevel systems of mutually dependent

complementary adoptions of innovations and non-innovations by a diversity of adopters, which

ultimately determined the results of the focal adoptions. Our constructs define an alternative unit of

analysis that provides a comprehensive and realistic view of the possibilities of effectively diffusing IS

in SMEs. This emphasises the need to rethink the objects of study, agency functions, theoretical

frameworks, and research approaches if we are to understand systems and design and implement

system interventions, including public policies.

Keywords: Information systems diffusion, Small and medium enterprises, Multiple adoption

dependencies, Unit of analysis, Systems of innovation

Arturo Vega and Mike Chiasson

1. INTRODUCTION

The process and outcome of an innovation -namely, a ‘focal’ innovation- in society can be

explained by the chronological events that complexly connect ‘complementary’ innovations,

innovators, and other actors (Mowery and Rosenberg 1998, Perez 1983). Technical and social

components must be systemically linked to unblock and speedup the development, progress, and

success of focal innovations, including the organisation of production and distribution (Jagerberg

2005). For example, the creation of the internet depended on the development of complementary

innovations including telecommunications infrastructure, packet-switched networks, computer systems,

and other interdependent technologies, along with the coordination of multiple stakeholders to agree

aims, architectures, standards and basic services that materialised and made its operation feasible (e.g.

Ryan 2013).

However, most studies in this area focus on the research and development stage of innovations,

rather than the diffusion stage. Rogers (2003, p. 164) himself emphasised that such studies ‘do not tell

much about the diffusion-adoption phase… investigations of the entire innovation process are needed’.

Similarly, Gagliardi et al. (2018, p. 224) stated that ‘mainstream innovation diffusion studies rarely

admit [complementary innovations] as a fundamental element of their conceptual frameworks’. We

agree with this gap in relation to IS diffusion in SMEs. Research in this area, although of great value,

has mostly focused on the factors (i.e. barriers and enablers) that affect the earliness, rate, or extent of

adoption of an IS (Chitura et al. 2008, Chouki et al. 2020, Consoli 2012, Ghobakhloo et al. 2011,

Jeyaraj et al. 2006, Parker and Castleman 2009, Parker et al. 2015, Spinelli 2016, Williams et al. 2009).

The activities of other organisations or individuals are included as factors that directly influence the

adopters of the IS (Chitura et al. 2008, Choudrie and Culkin 2013, Chouki et al. 2020, Consoli 2012,

Ghobakhloo et al. 2011, Jeyaraj et al. 2006, Parker et al. 2015, Spinelli 2016, Williams et al. 2009), for

example competitive pressures, the bargaining power of big buyers, and public policies. Clearly, the

predominant unit of analysis embraces the specific IS artefact that is to be diffused and a given group

of adopters. We conceptualise it as a focal adoption, composed of a focal innovation and its focal

adopters. However, we believe that the units of analysis in the research of the diffusion of IS in SMEs

can be expanded beyond focal adoptions because diffusion is a multifaceted and open phenomenon that

is affected by numerous events and processes that take place outside the organisational boundaries and

microenvironments (see Avgerou 2010, Kurnia et al. 2015, Kurnia and Johnston 2000, Currie 2009,

Parker et al. 2015). Units of analysis matter because they are the entities that are the subject of study

(e.g. Babbie 2009, Silverman and Solmon 1998). We specifically argue that to understand and

potentially influence the diffusion of IS, the units of analysis should embrace both focal and

complementary adoptions. Therefore, the objective of this research is to explore through case studies

the role of complementary adoptions (in terms of other innovations and their adopters) in the context of

IS diffusion in SMEs (focal adoptions). Our questions are threefold: What is the nature of the

complementary adoptions? How do complementary adoptions affect focal adoptions? And how are

these adoptions connected and dependent on each other?

We begin below with a literature review on complementary adoptions, and then move on to

developing the theoretical framework for the study. After explaining the research design, we present

the case studies, after which we explain and discuss our theoretical constructs. Finally, we reflect on

the implications for theory and practice, including agential roles to drive and coordinate multiple

adoption dependencies.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Complementary Adoptions in Diffusion Research

As noted, the academic literature on complementary adoptions in diffusion is very scarce

(Gagliardi et al. 2018, Rogers 2003). Some research focuses on the analysis and exploitation of relevant

quantitative data on complementary adoptions. Within this group of studies, we have identified

longitudinal research on the correlation between the diffusion of pairs of complementary innovations in

people (Dewan et al. 2010, Niculescu and Whang 2011), such as for personal computers and the

internet, and wireless voice and data services. The results are disaggregated, for example by the level of

development of the studied countries or the innovativeness of the adopters. Focusing on single

innovations, Sundararajan (2008) quantified the mutual effect of adoption by groups of two types of

adopters in the diffusion of network goods, for instance in the adoption of an e-marketplace by sellers

and buyers. Also, based on extensive data and complex mathematics, some studies have gone a step

further by developing computer simulations to model the co-diffusion effects of pairs of

complementary innovations (Jensen and Chapin 2014, Lazzati 2020).

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Other research is more prescriptive in terms of diffusion strategies. Robertson and Breen (2014)

explained how leaders in the toy industry have developed complementary innovations such as new

products, services, business models and channels to market, to make their core offer much more

appealing. Analysing the entrepreneurial ecosystem of the ceramic industry, Russo (2000)

demonstrated how an innovative product needs to have evidence of high levels of demand before

convincing other companies to adopt the complementary innovations -for example, a manufacturing

method- that could ensure long-term success. Bucklin and Sengupta (1993) went even further in their

study of scanners and barcodes, emphasising the need for direct collaboration with other companies in

the life cycle of the complementary innovations that work with the focal innovation. Finally, Gagliardi

et al. (2018) showed how the success of a focal innovation depends on the development and diffusion

of complementary innovations that are dynamic in nature, such as in the case of drugs and their

improvable companion tests.

Although the existing studies in the area are useful for introducing oneself to some aspects of the

topic, most of the material is about the diffusion of non-IS innovations to individuals or not specifically

to SMEs. Also, the focus is often on only one complementary innovation and one or two groups of

adopters. Finally, the focus of the literature is either on quantitative relations between innovations or on

generic diffusion strategies. All this is a long way from our aim of illustrating and understanding in

detail an ontological view about an alternative unit of analysis for future research. This reinforces our

exploratory approach to the topic and the research questions.

2.2 Research on IS Diffusion in SMEs and Theoretical Framework

2.2.1 Adoption process

We required a framework that would guide us to comprehensively investigate most of what

happened throughout focal adoptions with the aim of detecting complementary adoptions and

grounding theoretical concepts about them. We decided to use the innovation adoption process (AP) in

organisations (Rogers 1983, 2003) as an exploratory tool and the initial constituent of the theoretical

framework. The AP is composed of a sequence of interdependent and non-linear stages -agenda-

setting, matching, redefining/restructuring, clarifying, and routinising- which organisations pass

through when they adopt innovations. These stages cover the full life cycle of adoption, from initial

needs to the point where the innovation is used fully and properly and provides the expected benefits.

As the AP is an abstract model for any organisational adoption, we adjusted it according to our study

focus on IS.

Cooper and Zmud (1990) were the first to adapt the AP stages to the context of IS. We expanded

their framework to obtain more comprehensive guidance for most events during the life cycle of IS

adoption. The result is shown in table 1. The contextualisation of the AP goes beyond expressing the

stages in IS terms. It considers the division of the redefining/restructuring stage into two to distinguish

the activities related to the IS artefact from the organisational activities. Another difference is the

expansion of the scope of the redefining stage, which is now termed implementing, by adding the in-

house creation and maintenance of innovations to the modification of externally generated innovations.

Finally, there is the infusion stage, which is about innovations that are adopted gradually with no

guarantee of full use.

Table 1. Stages of the AP for IS (adapted from Cooper and Zmud (1990))

AP stages

Explanation

Agenda-Setting

Study of the strategic situation of the organisation and scanning of different

types of IS

Matching

Technical, organisational, and financial analysis to agree the investment of

resources for the implementation and use of a specific IS

Implementing

The IS is developed, acquired, or rented, possibly installed, possibly adapted

to the organisational processes, and maintained

Arturo Vega and Mike Chiasson

Restructuring

The organisational structure, processes, internal and external relationships,

and/or boundaries are modified, and personnel are trained. All as requisite to

make the IS operative and valuable

Clarifying

The personnel of the organisation are induced to use the IS

Routinising

The use of the IS is encouraged as a normal activity

Infusion

Extent of use of the IS in terms of number of users, quantity of total

transactions, types of transactions, and/or quantity of transactions per type

The adoption stages have been practically untouched by research on IS diffusion in SMEs (Parker

et al. 2015, Parker and Castleman 2009, Salim et al. 2015). Most studies focus on the binary decision to

adopt or not to adopt, or else they differentiate between adoption, implementation, or use, mostly to

measure factors rather than to explain processes (see Currie 2009, Ghobakhloo et al. 2011, Salim et al.

2015). As Rogers (2003) has stated, nor does most diffusion research make use of the AP. This is in

clear contrast to the study of factors of adoption. However, the fact that the process stages are affected

by a diversity of factors opens opportunities to combine them within single studies (Kurnia and

Johnston 2000, Mustonen-Olilla and Lyytinen 2003, Salim et al. 2015).

2.2.2 Factors of adoption

The technology, organisation, and environment framework (TOE) (DePietro et al. 1990) and the

diffusion of innovations (DI) (Rogers 2003) are two of the most frequently used theories to study

factors in the diffusion of IS in firms (e.g. Kurnia et al. 2015, Oliveira and Martins 2011, Salavati et al.

2013)

. These and other frameworks classify factors into groups with the aim of making better sense of

them for research and practice. For example, DI considers as meta-factors the characteristics of the

internal organisational structure, of the leader, of the innovation, and of the openness to the external

environment. TOE contemplates three types of factors, namely the organisational, technological, and

environmental ones.

TOE and DI overlap and complement each other (e.g. Arpaci et al. 2012, Oliveira and Martins

2011). For instance, both develop the organisational dimension by considering the degree of

centralisation of power, knowledge diversity in employees, interconnectedness among functional areas,

firm size, and slack resources. Regarding leaders, DI includes the analysis of adoption champions and

different categories of innovators, whereas TOE, as part of its organisational context, addresses the role

of top managers in fostering and supporting change.

The technological context of TOE includes the existing technological infrastructure and practices

in firms which could support the life cycle and realisation of the benefits of adoption. Although

practices are to some extent connected to the organisational aspects of DI, the infrastructural

component contrasts with the external focus of DI on the attributes of innovations. Unlike DI, TOE also

encompasses relevant environmental forces, such as industry and market structures, external support

networks, and government regulations. DI basically considers the internal mechanisms that facilitate

the interaction with the external environment, as TOE also does. In addition, DI explains the social side

of diffusion, including communication networks, opinion leaders and critical masses.

Researchers have tested these and other theories, either individually or in combination, to assess

their components in different diffusion scenarios (e.g. specific IS in target SME populations) (see

Jeyaraj et al. 2006, Kurnia et al. 2015, Wymer and Regan 2005). The results have been twofold: firstly,

a context-dependent list of relevant factors; secondly, their useful reclassification into diverse groups

according to the views of the researchers (see Jeyaraj et al. 2006, Wymer and Regan 2005). For

instance, Al-Qirim (2004) and Thong (1999) proposed similar frameworks specifically for IS in the

SME sector, which are composed of the characteristics of the SMEs, decision-takers, IS, and the

external environment. These dimensions do not only resemble a good combination of TOE and DI

(Arpaci et al. 2012), but they also represent a wide-ranging summary of most of the factors found in the

literature about IS diffusion in firms (c.f., Jeyaraj et al. 2006).

Major theories about diffusion factors in individuals include the technology acceptance model (Davis

1986), the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of

technology (Venkatesh et al. 2003).

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Thus, we decided to use the classification of Al-Qirim (2004) and Thong (1999) as a guide, since

we found it comprehensive, clear-cut, and easy to understand. Table 2 presents several examples of

factors for each group.

Table 2. Factors of IS adoption in SMEs

Groups

Examples of factors

SME

Centralisation, technical expertise, creativity following recognition of

opportunities, formal planning, and external links

Decision-Taker

Strategic thinking, IS knowledge, IS management focus, role in IS

initiatives, and attitude towards risk and change

Business benefits, technical complexity, pace of change, ease of use, and

compatibility with current practices

External Environment

Customer power, industry characteristics, mutual trust, competitor

initiatives, and public policies

2.2.3 Final framework

Figure 1 shows the interaction of processes and factors. Each factor may affect one or more stages

of the focal AP (e.g. Robey and Farrow 1982, Sabherwal and Robey 1995). For example, flexible

organisation structures favour the initial innovation stages, but mechanistic structures are more

convenient for the last stages (Zaltman et al. 1973). Also, each factor may indirectly affect the effects

of other factors (e.g. Sabherwal and Robey 1995). For instance, the dominance of either IS personnel or

end users in projects may trigger conflicts and biases, which could be attenuated by the involvement of

top management (Doll 1985, Newman and Sabherwal 1991). Finally, the outcome of an adoption stage

may influence the outcome of other stages (e.g. Mohr 1987, Sabherwal and Robey 1995). For example,

the early definition of a proper project scope would lead to successful IS outcomes (Swanson 1988).

We designed this analysis to identify complementary adoptions at the societal level and provide a first

step in understanding their nature and how they affect focal APs and each other.

Figure 1. Framework to explore complementary adoptions

To conclude, as our objective is to detect complementary adoptions, we need to define what an

innovation is. The complementary innovations could be of any type, not only IS. This required using a

comprehensive definition of innovations to be aware of them during the exploratory study.

Accordingly, we used the classification of Schumpeter (1954), which posits five types of innovations:

new goods or services, new methods of production or commercialisation, new sources of supply, the

exploitation of new markets, and new ways to organise the business. We extended this by adding

SME

Decision-Taker

Ext. Environment

Agenda-Setting

Matching

Implementing

Restructuring

Clarifying

Routinising

Infusion

Factors of Adoption

Adoption Process

Focal Adoption

Complementary

Adoption 1

Complementary

Adoption N

Complementary

Adoption 2

Arturo Vega and Mike Chiasson

organisational and technological process innovations for improving internal operations (Meeus and

Edquist 2006). Finally, since our research is contextual to the adopters, we also considered that ‘an

innovation is an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other units of

adoption’, even if the items ‘are not objectively new’ (Rogers 2003, p. 12).

3. RESEARCH DESIGN

We followed a hybrid approach to carry out this exploratory research (Corbin and Strauss 2014),

starting with a theoretical framework as a lens to do the fieldwork. Accordingly, our constructs were

developed from the data to supplement the initial framework. The AP stages and the adoption factors

initially guided the fieldwork, but issues related to complementary adoptions emerged during the

interplay between data, theoretical framework, and theory building.

We used multiple case studies of IS adoption by SMEs in England. Case studies are defined as ‘an

empirical investigation of a particular phenomenon within its real-life context’ (Robson 2002, p. 178).

Yin (2009, p. 16) added that ‘the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly

evident’. In our research, the phenomenon is the focal adoptions, and the context is composed of the

factors of adoption, which we expected to be in some instances the manifestation of complementary

adoptions. As the aim of the research is to expand the unit of analysis, we also expected to

reconceptualise the phenomenon under investigation by considering both the focal adoptions and part

of the initial context, specifically the complementary adoptions.

We opted for an arrangement of collective cases (Stake 2005), in which the researcher defines the

specific interest within the phenomenon -in our study, complementary adoptions- and from there works

with a varied and balanced group of cases which are believed to offer the greatest learning potential.

This is vital in an exploratory study. Our cases include SMEs from diverse industrial sectors and

various IS applications with different levels of difficulty for the adopters. We used 5 case studies until

we reached theoretical saturation (Corbin and Strauss 2014), which proved to be very helpful to

complete and illustrate our constructs in detail.

The cases involved very small companies or micro enterprises, the segments of the SME sector

with the fewest employees per firm. The factors of adoption tend to be more pronounced in these

companies (e.g. Barba-Sanchez et al. 2007, Karjaluoto and Huhtamaki 2010, Wolcott et al. 2008),

which helped us to recognise the needs and characteristics of complementary adoptions. For example,

the main decisions in micro enterprises are normally centralised on the owner-manager (e.g. Ott and

Laumer 2012, Wolcott et al. 2008), and key individual employees are usually in charge of several

activities under demanding time constraints (e.g. Jones et al. 2011, Karjaluoto and Huhtamaki 2010).

These characteristics create barriers related to knowledge and skills (e.g. Jones et al. 2011, Wolcott et

al. 2008) that are difficult to overcome since these firms do not have specialised IS departments (e.g.

Jones et al. 2011, Oni and Papazafeiropoulou 2014), nor do they have enough slack resources or the

willingness to invest in education and training (e.g. Jones et al. 2011, Karjaluoto and Huhtamaki 2010).

In line with the constraints in this sector, the studied SMEs received public-funded consulting services

to support IS adoption.

We employed diverse sources and methods to triangulate information (e.g. Denzin 2012, Patton

2014), including semi-structured interviews with SME and programme personnel, SME and

programme documents such as assistance proposals and evaluations, emails between different

participants, internet research on the SMEs, commercial and technical information about the IS, and

observations on the use of the IS by employees. We also had access to relevant documentary

information on the participation of some of the SME decision-takers in a leadership training

programme. Our interviews were with important SME decision-takers -three managing directors, one

project development manager and one production director- and programme personnel -two programme

consultants who directly assisted the SMEs in their adoption process. We recorded the interviews and

guaranteed confidentiality to the participants.

Finally, we analysed the case studies using the data display and analysis method (Miles et al.

2019). We initially reduced the data by summarising the interviews and writing self-memos about all

the pieces of information. We then tried to represent the complex relationships among focal and

complementary adoptions graphically. We did several iterations of this exercise jointly with a written

explanation of each case until we obtained clear and comprehensive conclusions on multiple adoption

dependencies. In sections 5 and 6 we present relevant parts of the material used in the analytical

process (explanations of the cases and graphs of our constructs).

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

4. CASE INFORMATION

In this section, we give summary information about each case through a chronological narrative

(Yin 2009). This format is convenient not only because the APs developed in complex and distinctive

ways, but also to better appreciate the cross-case constructs explained in the next section, especially the

dynamics of the AP dependencies. We use pseudonyms to identify the organisations that participated in

the study.

4.1 JVentureCo

The firm launched the first e-marketplace for the building supplies sector. The company was a

joint venture formed by the SMEs Archard and Intech. Apart from its directors, who were also the

directors of the parent companies, it had 2 full-time employees. Archard was a distributor of

architectural hardware, a specific segment of the building supplies sector, while Intech had expertise in

internet IS. Archad was a brick-and-mortar company, which partnered with Intech to fulfil a need for IS

expertise to develop its new initiative.

The e-business model was based on resale agreements with traditional building supply shops. The

shopping basket of each client in the e-marketplace could include products from different shops.

However, delivery to the client was to be made directly from the warehouses of the supplying shops. In

addition, delivery times and charges to customers varied for each shop.

Encouraged by promising initial results, the company decided to use loans to expand its

operations. Its success proved only temporary because the increase in sales volume was not sustained,

which ultimately affected the recruitment of more supplying shops. The managing director of Intech

explained it as follows:

“We developed alliances with some suppliers, developed the platform itself and did some

testing… A life test, actually generating revenue and sales… The initial results were pretty good, and

then it allowed us to get external funding to expand the activities… [But] the business growth that we

had anticipated based on the initial results didn’t materialise.”

To overcome this problem, the company received support in strategy and marketing from a

government programme. However, the managing director remained sceptical about making costly

changes to any aspect of the business, such as designing a navigation structure based on product

categories or shops or defining a more attractive delivery charge scheme. The programme consultant

who supported the company commented:

“The navigation changed slightly, but they haven’t implemented all our recommendations and

those which were implemented they didn’t implement the core, just bits… [Also,] it was a huge issue

[not to implement the advice on uniform delivery charges].”

The venture launched various promotional initiatives, but these were clearly unsuccessful, mainly

due to a lack of knowledge and business intelligence on the wider building supplies sector. The

managing director criticised this situation:

“[Archard] had knowledge of a very small part of the building supplies industry [architectural

hardware]… It’s that kind of marketing knowledge you can’t expect an advertising agency to have…

[JVentureCo] needed to have the industry knowledge.”

The venture was advised of the need to develop a trusted brand to produce a competitive

advantage in the relevant and demanding building contractor segment. Although this suggestion was

accepted, the firm’s personnel acknowledged that it was a very difficult challenge.

Unfortunately, the low volume of transactions made the e-marketplace unattractive even for its

current users. JVentureCo could not cope with its financial situation and had to close down. The

venture was sold and successfully re-launched by a firm with a well-known and diversified online and

offline presence in the sector, which was also in a better position to absorb new operating costs.

4.2 RecruConstCo

This company is a recruitment agency specialising in the construction sector. The managing

director had a broad background in human resources but very limited knowledge of IS and project

management. He also practised a markedly centralised management style:

“I’m the company, I’m the face of the company and people come to the company because of me…

This is why [the company operates in this way], because of my idea of the way we should work… It

isn’t the way everybody else sees the work, other people want short term gains, making money on

commissions.”

The aim of the IS initiative was to support the growth plans of the organisation. RecruConstCo

wanted to develop a portal-based internet system to give employers and candidates access to the

company’s recruitment services. The system would automate functions such as employer profiles, job

Arturo Vega and Mike Chiasson

opportunities, and uploading and downloading curricula vitae and reference letters. It would also

provide construction news, careers advice, and information on working overseas.

The managing director determined the functional requirements of the system and contracted a

systems integrator to represent them in the selection of suppliers and products, and the management of

the project. Unfortunately, at the end of the project, the response time of the system proved to be very

slow, the session manager software randomly collapsed, and the operational cost was too high. The

managing director expressed his frustration as follows:

“The systems integrator misrepresented me… They sold me hardware and project management,

knowing that there could be a problem… None of the companies that worked here was prepared to say,

‘it’s my fault’… I need to move away from the solution I got because it’s crap, it doesn’t work, and get

my money back.”

Even though the managing director had recently taken leadership training and the company had

received public assistance in marketing and strategy to grow the business, RecruConstCo decided to

reduce its personnel from six full-time employees to only the director and a part-time worker in charge

of administrative tasks. This was in sharp contrast to what the managing director had written in his

application form for the leadership training course:

“[I see the company] as the first choice for the construction industry in the north of England for

any recruitment and human resource requirement. I’ll have offices that will allow the north-east of the

country to be covered along with Scotland and the Midlands. I’ll also be in a position for a move into

the South East. Each of the regions will be running with unit managers.”

The central reason for this drastic change of plans was that the managing director was not willing

to share his databases of employers and candidates with his employees. He believed that these assets

were at risk and could be used by any good employee to start their own business. Also, he claimed,

profitability increased after the cuts, despite having less work.

The IS project was finally abandoned because the managing director believed that such a small

company had no need for a significant web presence, even if the system had been correctly up and

running. He said that he might opt to grow the business in the future but would use a service

diversification strategy, for example incorporating people management services.

4.3 RecruTrainCo

RecruTrainCo is a regional company which offered recruitment and some training services. It

operated exclusively in the construction sector, with its main source of income being the running of

publicly funded programmes in disadvantaged areas. After a careful strategic analysis, the 22-employee

company planned an aggressive diversification to grow by 400% in a 5-year period. Now the company

offers a cross-industry portfolio of services, including benchmarking of employees and candidates,

coaching, and management development programmes. RecruTrainCo implemented this strategy

through a radical business transformation, as the owner-manager stated in an application form for a

training course in leadership:

“We have restructured the company into business units. We have strengthened our skills base,

improved our team performance, and modified our reporting and monitoring systems as well as the

financial structure.”

In line with the new direction and the goal of growing the business, the SME also decided to

expand its IS. The IS initiative embraced the incorporation of functionality into the firm’s internet

presence, including facilities to submit vacancies and apply for positions, job alerts, an online training

forum, and a payment service for employers.

The initiative was charged to the project development manager, who seconded another employee

as his assistant. Both had little expertise in IS but important backgrounds in projects, the selection of

suppliers and contract management. Also, the company itself focused on the management and delivery

of public programmes. In contrast, the company did not even have an IS area.

Coincidently, RecruTrainCo received public support for the initial analysis of the functionality.

This was used in the requirements of a public tender launched by the company to select a systems

integrator to implement the initiative. The selection process was meticulous:

“We sent out the tender to 10 companies and we received 6 back, and out of these 6 we went back

to 3 to present to us, and [the systems integrators pre-selected] were the ones that really read the

information we had given to them and did quite a good preparation before the meeting.”

During the implementation phase, RecruTrainCo also interacted well with the systems integrator.

We observed the systems up and running as well as correctly used by employers, candidates, and the

company personnel. The project development manager was delighted with the work of the systems

integrator:

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

“The systems integrator stood out for their willingness to go the extra mile in fulfilling the

requirements… They asked a lot of questions, but nothing was too much for them… By taking time to

develop a thorough understanding of our objectives, they devised an effective solution which

accurately presents us as a forward-thinking specialist company.”

4.4 LanguagesCo

This company is a one-stop language shop for different types of services such as translation,

interpreting and voice over. The business model is based on the linking of companies that provide

language services to clients. Out of eight employees, the production director was the only employee

with IS expertise, including a basic self-taught knowledge of programming languages and experience

with enterprise system implementation.

The company had an intranet system for the administration and coordination of service providers

and clients, which was developed in Access by the production director himself. He emphasised that the

application was built based on a badly designed database. The system was evolving over time

according to business requirements and was suffering from improvised modifications in functionality

and database files. The application was diminishing in consistency and speed as the volume and types

of operation grew.

As a result, an IS initiative was designed to replace the intranet system with an application

developed around a proper database structure. The new application had to be relatively easy for the

company itself to maintain. LanguagesCo twice received the support of a public programme to design

and develop the system.

The first attempt failed to satisfy the production director due to the intention to develop the system

in PHP. He had a meeting with the programme director, which led to the original consultant being

replaced by another who was willing to develop the system in Access. The production director then

took an active role in designing the functionality of the application. The programme consultant who

developed the system pointed out:

“[The system] was developed to the production director’s specifications. We worked with him

adding many features… He was quite involved in the design process, he developed his own system

previously, he knew a little bit about Access development.”

The programme delivered a system based on a well-designed relational database but with bugs.

Therefore, the SME still had to debug the system and pass the historical data from the old files to the

new database. Despite this, the production director was satisfied with the application:

“[The consultant] produced a good working prototype with a lot of very useful stuff in it… There

wasn’t time to solve those bugs and there wasn’t time to provide the documented model of how it

works… given it was free, they did very well in terms of telling me what I could do and building me a

model that I’d like to use.”

However, after assessing the difficulties of completing an application that he had not developed

and the complexity of data migration, the production director decided to modify a copy of the old

system based on the improvements in the new system:

“What I’m really doing is taking elements of the [new] design [to the old system], so for example,

going from the single supplier table to the modular supplier tables, linked supplier tables, and I take

that and build it into our database… I’m not taking the code; I’m taking the design.”

He was doing this work in his spare time, but he finished only a minimal part of it. Regrettably, no

relational design was used by LanguagesCo within three years after the programme intervention.

4.5 FuelCo

FuelCo distributes, installs, and provides technical service for liquefied petroleum gas conversions

for truck diesel engines. The firm had two full-time and two part-time employees, and it outsourced the

conversion of engines and technical service to two suppliers. With the objective of helping sales

generation, the managing director decided to provide externally audited and funded trials for one or two

trucks from the fleets of potential clients to compare fuel consumption and costs. This was done in

partnership with sector consultants and financial institutions. The managing director explained the

difficulties of introducing this technology to the market:

“This isn’t like selling mobile phones to millions of people. We’re selling something very

specific… For example, we wouldn’t use telemarketing because there is a lot of knowledge involved.

Customers are concerned that if someone is going to do something with their trucks, and the trucks cost

50,000 pounds, or if it breaks down in the middle of a contract.”

To implement this plan, the firm wanted to adopt a database to compare the numerical indicators

and show the results in tables and graphs. FuelCo also intended to log the fuel consumption of fleets

Arturo Vega and Mike Chiasson

with the expectation of commercialising aggregated data to interested parties, for example breaking

down fuel consumption by a combination of vehicle make, model, age, route, month, or owner.

For reasons of validity, the data capture from the fleets had to be done automatically, using

sensors in the trucks, telemetric systems, and interfaces with the database. This is an extract from an e-

mail in which the managing director detailed an alternative to this component:

“We’ve a candidate for the automation of data collection – ‘Canbus’ [a telemetric product]… This

is a data-acquisition unit for collecting data from external sensors. These sensors would be load cells,

fuel monitoring, GPS navigation and even wind-speed and temperature. The central unit can then relay

that information to a PC into a database.”

Even with the support of a public programme, FuelCo only finished the database system because

the research and development of the automation of data entry was too complex. In another email, a

programme consultant responded to FuelCo regarding this requirement:

“[The automation of data collection] is an expensive option… This automation may be

problematic to fully automate… Just for your information, the Engineering department in a University

uses Canbus on several projects… If you were at all interested in talking about telemetry with someone

there, I would be happy to introduce you.”

Also, after four years of the operation, the company only had one customer, so it would have been

impossible to populate the database with substantial data. Regrettably, as the automatic data capture

system was not developed, the database by itself did not give any meaningful added value over an old

spreadsheet that the company had been using with the same aim. As a result, FuelCo never used the

new development. The production director tried to show us the new system, but he could not remember

how to operate it.

5. THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS AND DISCUSSION

This section is structured around the three research questions. We start by discussing the nature of

the complementary adoptions, after which we explain their impact on the stages of the AP of the focal

adoptions. Finally, to gain a comprehensive view of the complexity of this unit of analysis, we analyse

the diversity of dependencies among the complementary adoptions and focal APs.

5.1 The Nature of Complementary Adoptions

We found that all the focal adoptions needed one or more complementary adoptions to be

successfully completed. Table 3 shows the focal adopters, their activities and sectors, the IS that they

tried to adopt in the focal adoptions, and whether they succeeded. Except for RecruTrainCo, all the

focal adoptions had negative results. The unsuccessful cases were very useful to clearly recognise the

need for complementary adoptions. Accordingly, in table 4 we present some relevant adopters and the

items that they adopted or should have adopted to help the focal adoptions.

Table 3. Focal adoptions

Focal adopter

Activity and sector

IS (focal adoption)

Was the IS

a success?

JVentureCo

Intermediary for building

supplies

An e-marketplace for the sector

RecruConstCo

Human resource services in

construction

A portal-based, self-service

application for e

mployers and

candidates

RecruTrainCo

Cross-sector services in

human resources

Improvement of website functionality

and appearance, including an online

training forum

Yes

LanguagesCo

Intermediary in language

translation services

An intranet application to manage

interaction

with language service

providers and clients

FuelCo

Representative of

manufacturers of truck

parts

A database to graphically compare

consumptions of fuel and costs

Using the innovation definitions of Schumpeter (1954) and Rogers (2003) (see section 2), we can

appreciate that the complementary adoptions were not always about innovations. As table 4 shows,

there were items that could have been considered innovations by some, but not all the adopters. For

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

instance, the exploitation of the whole building supplies sector was indeed an innovation for

JVentureCo because the commercial expertise of Archard had been as a distributor in a niche market,

namely architectural hardware. The venture did not have any acquaintance with diversification

strategies. This complex challenge should have implied a full AP in itself, including: an early

acknowledgement of the issue; evaluation of courses of action, resources and risks; a gradual

implementation; some restructuring of the partners to facilitate operations; and a review of and

consolidation in the sector. New knowledge and skills would have been relevant factors for

accomplishing all this.

Table 4. Complementary adoptions and their impact

Focal adopter

Who were or should have

been the adopters in the

complementary

adoptions?

What items were or should have

been adopted in the

complementary adoptions?

Was the

item an

innovation?

Impact on the

focal AP

JVentureCo

Supplying shops

Clients

Exploitation of a new market: The

whole building supplies sector

New technological process:

Business intelligence to generate

knowledge about the whole sector

New method to commercialise:

With the e-marketplace

New source of supply of products:

More suppliers in the e-

marketplace

Yes

For some

adopters

For some

adopters

Agenda-setting,

restructuring and

infusion

Agenda-setting,

restructuring and

infusion

Restructuring and

infusion

Restructuring and

infusion

RecruConstCo

Managing director

Employers

Managing director

Employers

Candidates

New way to organise the business:

As a result of a growth strategy

New services: e.g. People

management

New organisational process: e.g.

The management of people

New organisational process: The

project management life cycle

New source of supply of services:

More candidates via the portal

New method to commercialise:

The portal

Yes

For some

adopters

Yes

For some

adopters

For some

adopters

Agenda-setting

and clarifying

Agenda-setting

and clarifying

Agenda-setting

and clarifying

Agenda-setting,

matching and

implementing

Restructuring and

infusion

Restructuring and

infusion

RecruTrainCo

Employers

Candidates

New way to organise the business:

Business units as a growth strategy

New services: Be

nchmark of

employees and candidates,

coaching, online training, etc.

New

organisational and

technological processes: e.g.

Coaching and online training

New source of supply of services:

More candidates via the new

internet presence

New method to commercialise:

The new internet presence

Yes

For some

adopters

For some

adopters

For some

adopters

Agenda-setting

Restructuring and

infusion

Restructuring and

infusion

LanguagesCo

Production director

New organisational process: The

design and ma

intenance of

relational databases

Yes

Implementing

This column is explained in section 5.2, Effects of Complementary Adoptions on Focal APs.

Arturo Vega and Mike Chiasson

FuelCo

Clients

FuelCo

Clients

New method to commercialise:

xternally funded and audited

trials to clients

New technological process: The

converted engines

New organisational process: The

research and development of the

automatic data capture system

New service

: The automatic data

capture in the trucks of the fleets

Yes

Agenda-setting

and restructuring

Agenda-setting

and restructuring

Matching,

restructuring, and

infusion

Infusion

In contrast, adoption of the e-marketplace would not have been an innovation for some of the

supplying shops. Although the JVentureCo initiative was the first e-marketplace in the sector, whether

it was an innovation depended on the knowledge, skills, and experience of each supplier in similar

types of commercial decisions, as well as with the logistical processes and technical requirements for

materialising the adoption. Importantly, if an item is not considered an innovation by an adopter, the

complementary adoption will not necessarily be guaranteed because there might be similar products or

services in the market, or the adopter might have other strategic priorities. Thus, some forms of

interventions would be needed for the adoption to happen.

We also appreciate that complementary adoptions should ultimately affect other adoptions just as

factors of adoption do, since complementary adoptions create factors, that is, barriers and enablers.

We will use the cases of RecruConstCo and RecruTrainCo to exemplify these connections. Both SMEs

tried to adopt similar internet systems to connect employers and job seekers, and both had a similar

barrier, namely a lack of knowledge about IS. Thus, each decided to contract a systems integrator to

select, coordinate, and assess the work of various suppliers of products and services.

The crucial difference was that RecruTrainCo had expertise in projects and contract management.

It used this enabler in its public tender and throughout its project to take control of its initiative and

ensure the commitment of suppliers. In contrast, RecruConstCo had to abandon its initiative due to a

very poor development of its project. Clearly, the personnel of RecruConstCo should have properly

adopted the practice of project management before embarking on any IS business initiative. Instead, the

lack of this complementary adoption created another barrier in itself, which spoiled the focal AP. A

successful adoption could have generated an enabler to break the barrier of lack of IS knowledge and

favour the focal process.

Similarly, the production director of LanguagesCo would have needed to do a full AP of the

relational database technique to acquire the necessary skills to conclude the adoption of the intranet

application for the administration of providers and clients. The company should have developed this

knowledge-related enabler to overcome the underlying barrier represented by the future dependence on

external agents for the maintenance of the system. The clients of FuelCo should also have adopted the

automated data capture system as a technical enabler to justify the adoption by FuelCo of the database

to compare fuel consumption and costs in fleets. The barrier was the reduced benefits of the focal

innovation as a stand-alone database, which would have prevented the input of large volumes of valid

data without human intervention.

Summarizing, when complementary adoptions involve innovations, adopters must perform

complete complementary APs. If the adoptions were not about innovations, they may still not be

carried out as there may be similar alternatives in the market or competing internal priorities for

adopters. In the end, complementary adoptions create factors which affect focal APs as enablers and

barriers.

5.2 Effects of Complementary Adoptions on Focal APs

Table 4 shows some complementary adoptions and the stages of the focal adoptions that they

should have affected to help the focal APs. The unsuccessful cases were useful not only for spotting

missing complementary adoptions but also for noting important characteristics of their effects on focal

adoptions. As only RecruTrainCo saw a positive result, what happened in the other cases was

somewhat like what is described in table 4. To make sense of this, in figure 2 we present the

chronology of the most relevant events and dependencies involved in the failed focal process of

JVentureCo. Below, we discuss relevant considerations that could have enabled the case to succeed,

including aspects of the adoptions pointed out in table 4.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

FOCAL ADOPTION:

JVentureCo

E-marketplace for the building

supplies sector

Agenda-setting

Matching

Implementing

Restructuring

Clarifying

Routinising

Infusion

Other adoption

processes

Other adoption

processes

Other adoption

processes

COMPLEMENTARY ADOPTION:

Supplying Shops

New method to sell products

Agenda-setting

Matching

Implementing

Restructuring

Clarifying

Routinising

Infusion

SME

Decision-Taker

Environmental

SME

Decision-Taker

Environmental

COMPLEMENTARY ADOPTION:

JVentureCo

Exploitation of a new market

Agenda-setting

Matching

Implementing

Restructuring

Clarifying

Routinising

Infusion

SME

Decision-Taker

A new market

Environmental

COMPLEMENTARY ADOPTION:

Clients

New source of products

Agenda-setting

Matching

Implementing

Restructuring

Clarifying

Routinising

Infusion

SME

Decision-Taker

Environmental

Figure 2. A dynamic view of the multiple dependencies of an AP

1. The partners designed and implemented the e-marketplace. The IS knowledge of one of them,

Intech, was an enabler for quick accomplishment. JVentureCo also agreed the initial participation of a

group of supplying shops.

2. JVentureCo tried to approach the building supplies sector, initially having relative success

with early adopters.

3. This success positively impacted the initial result of the infusion stage of the focal AP because

of the encouraging number of transactions. This, together with the injection of new capital, led to more

supplying shops joining the e-marketplace, which positively impacted the temporary outcome of the

restructuring stage of the focal AP due to the new external relationships that were managed and

serviced.

4. In the medium term, JVentureCo was unsuccessful in exploiting the building supplies sector.

Barriers such as low knowledge of the wider sector and a lack of a strong brand name to garner trust

with building contractors negatively impacted clients and suppliers. The complete cycle was repeated

but with negative effects.

5. The situation of the venture automatically impacted the AP of the clients and supplying shops

that wanted to continue using the e-marketplace, causing the end of the focal adoption.

The failure to exploit the building supplies sector was crucial since it directly influenced other

complementary APs, which then caused the distortion and failure of the focal AP. It also indirectly

affected certain stages of the focal process through the other complementary adoptions

, specifically

the restructuring and infusion stages. In fact, this complementary adoption ultimately acted like focal

factors. We will discuss this further.

Firstly, the adoption was particularly complex for the SME. JVentureCo needed to perform many

activities: build a strong brand, conduct effective marketing, develop offline sales, and establish

In the column ‘Impact on the focal AP’ in table 4, in italics we present the stages of the focal APs that

were indirectly affected by the complementary adoptions.

Arturo Vega and Mike Chiasson

agreements over delivery times and charges with the supplying shops. However, it did not have the

knowledge, presence in the sector, and resources to accomplish these challenges. This explains the

positive but short-lived commercial results at the launch of the venture.

Secondly, the evidence indicates that the exploitation of the building supplies sector was not only

too complex, but also started too late. Archard should have begun to exploit the sector offline well in

advance, to trigger and influence the agenda-setting of the focal AP. In fact, the partners only began to

operate in that sector with the launch of the e-marketplace. The management of JVentureCo only

recognised the challenges of doing this when most of their financial resources had already been

consumed. The firm then tried to rely on advice from a public programme, but this was insufficient and

ineffective.

Thirdly, to properly design and accomplish the activities to exploit the building supplies sector,

the company should first have found a way to obtain constantly updated knowledge on the entire

sector, for example through business intelligence systems or reorganising the business units and

relationships of JVentureCo and the partners. This adoption would have directly impacted the

exploitation of the sector, thus indirectly affecting the same stages of the focal AP that the exploitation

of the sector finally affected, namely agenda-setting, restructuring, and infusion. Despite the relevance

of knowledge as an underlying factor, the adoption of a knowledge-generating mechanism was

notoriously missing from the whole process.

In summary, focal APs depend on complementary adoptions for the outcomes of each of their

stages and the timing and flow among the stages. Complementary adoptions affect focal APs both

directly and indirectly via other complementary adoptions. Hence, the failure, absence, or delay of any

of them could spoil the whole focal process.

5.3 Diversity of Adoption Dependencies

We turn to exemplifying some basic forms in which adoptions depend on and affect each other.

This is illustrated in Figure 3 and is then discussed using extracts from the case studies.

Figure 3. Examples of multiple-adoption dependencies

Innovation 7

Adopter 9

Focal Adopter Organisation

Focal

Innovation

Adopter 6

Focal

Innovation

Adopter 7

Focal

Innovation

Adopter 8

Focal

Innovation

Adopter 5

Focal

Innovation

Adopter 4

Innovation 6

Focal Adopter

Innovation 5

Focal Adopter

Innovation 4

Focal Adopter

Focal Adopter Organisation

Innovation 3

Adopter 3

Focal Innovation

Focal Adopter

Innovation 2

Adopter 2

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

1. A focal adoption may depend on complementary adoptions that occur only internally within

the focal organisation. Of our cases, only LanguagesCo showed this characteristic. To adopt the

intranet application to manage the interaction with language service providers and clients, the

production director, who was the person in charge of IS, would have needed first to adopt the technique

of relational databases to complete and maintain the application. Although within the focal

organisation, both innovation and adopter are different from the focal ones.

2. In the other cases, the focal APs depended on complementary adoptions that occurred both

internally and externally to the focal organisation. For instance, JVentureCo needed to operate in the

entire building supplies market, which represented an additional innovation to the focal e-marketplace.

Archad was the entity within JVentureCo in charge of this adoption. In addition, JVentureCo needed

supplying shops and clients to adopt the focal innovation to ensure the success of the e-business model.

3. Some cases showed mutual dependencies between APs. For example, the successful adoption

of the internet system to connect employers and candidates by RecruTrainCo depended on the adoption

of this focal innovation by the employers, as external users. At the same time, the adoption by

employers depended on the correct adoption of the system by RecruTrainCo itself, including the

implementation of useful transactional functions, a proper integration with the back-end databases, and

a proper use within the company.

4. Also, we detected the effects of single adoptions on multiple adoptions. This happened with

the adoption by employers of the new recruitment portal of RecruConstCo. The adoption of the portal

by RecruConstCo itself depended on the use of this focal innovation by employers and candidates.

Equally, the adoption of the portal by candidates depended on its adoption by relevant employers.

Therefore, adoption by employers simultaneously affected both the focal and a complementary AP.

5. Some adoptions may affect more than one stage of other APs. This was the case with the

adoption of a growth strategy by RecruConstCo, which was vital to trigger the agenda-setting of the

focal AP for the recruitment portal. However, as the growth did not turn out as expected, the managing

director stopped the AP of the portal at the clarifying stage due to doubts over its value if it served only

a few employers and candidates.

6. There were cases of several serial levels of adoption dependencies. For example, the correct

adoption by FuelCo of the focal database to compare consumption of fuel and costs depended on the

adoption of the automatic data capture system by its clients. However, the data capture system would

have depended on FuelCo researching and developing it, and the research and development on the

success of FuelCo’s new way of approaching the engine conversion market. Note that the latter two

adoptions should have been accomplished by the focal adopter.

Clearly, a focal AP could be affected by a multilevel combination of these and other types of

dependencies as if they were complex systems. Furthermore, the outcomes of the complementary

adoptions could change over time through exposure to the varying contexts of their own subsystems.

This systemic perspective represents the real structure of adoption, which means that focal APs in

many cases depend on intricate, open, and evolving systems of innovation (e.g. Edquist 2005, Freeman

2008, Niosi 2018).

6. CONCLUSIONS

The predominant unit of analysis in research on IS diffusion in SMEs has been composed of the

specific IS and a given group of adopters (Chitura et al. 2008, Chouki et al. 2020, Consoli 2012,

Ghobakhloo et al. 2011, Jeyaraj et al. 2006, Parker and Castleman 2009, Parker et al. 2015, Spinelli

2016, Williams et al. 2009). We have contributed to theory by extending this ontological view to

include a systemic structure of complementary adoptions of innovations and non-innovations by a

multiplicity of groups of adopters. These directly and indirectly affect the stages, dynamics, and

outcomes of focal processes, just as focal factors do.

7.1 Implications and Future Research

A clear theoretical implication is that the theorisation of the diffusion of IS in SMEs should

embrace the explanation of the systemic structures formed of both focal and complementary adoptions.

From this alternative perspective, future research on diffusion should focus on the composition and

outcomes of the structures themselves, either to develop general theories about them or to design

interventions to improve their work. It is important to appreciate that the systemic structure (e.g.

Freeman 2008, Niosi 2018) of this type of unit of analysis makes the comprehensive investigation of IS

diffusion a highly complex task. Not only do focal APs depend on various adoptions and their

respective factors, also, at the beginning of such studies the academics, policymakers, or practitioners

will not know what the complementary adoptions are, how they are linked, or when and how they will

Arturo Vega and Mike Chiasson

interact and affect each other. In fact, systemic structures at the societal level are simultaneously both

units of analysis and objects of study (Edquist 2005, Vega and Chiasson 2019).

There is another critical implication created by the systemic structures once the initiatives for

change have been designed: their correct and timely implementation to build working systems. This is

clearly dependent on the role of agents in the evolution of systems (e.g. Hung and Whittington 2011,

Korber et al. 2009). This would require key actors with roles that go beyond those of traditional change

agents (those who influence the decisions of adopters (Rogers 2003)) and mediating institutions (those

who work with adopters to lower barriers (Damsgaard and Lyytinen 2001)) to become system builders

(see Hughes 2012). System builders break the status quo, manage diverging interests, influence the

activities of several parties, and link and synchronise their work to make technological change happen

in society (Howells 2006, Kebede et al. 2014, Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009, Kivimaa 2014, Musiolik et al.

2020). Future research should explain the dynamics of systems with emphasis on why system builders

act and their biases, their lobbying and political capacities, their tactics, their knowledge, their access to

resources, and how to empower and disempower them.

7.2. Suggestions on How to Research the Extended Unit of Analysis

The multiple adoption dependencies point to the theorisation of not only the state of the structure

of systems, but also of their evolutionary character and the role of agents as sources and drivers of

change at the highest levels of society. To research this novel, complex and rich unit of analysis, we

suggest evaluating theoretical frameworks that focus on these characteristics, for instance critical

realism (e.g. Vega and Chiasson 2019), complexity theory (e.g. Merali 2006), the morphogenetic

approach (e.g. Mutch 2010), and structuration theory (e.g. Jones and Karsten 2008).

We employed a collective case study design (Stake 2005) to learn from varied and balanced cases.

This diversity was acceptable for the aims of this exploratory study, in which each case added

something to the constructs of the structures. However, it could be interpreted as a limitation in the

sense that the findings cannot be generalised to a particular aggregation of companies and IS. An

alternative approach could be the use of surveys of SMEs of the same sector, geographical area, and

adopting the same type of IS, with the aim of detecting factors that could point to complementary

adoptions. The results could then be systemically researched through retroduction (c.f., Danermark et

al. 2019, O’Mahoney and Vincent 2014). This is normally done through comparative studies of cases

of similar characteristics (e.g. Tsang 2014, Wynn and Williams 2012), for example, a comparison of

regions regarding the diffusion of the same IS in the same sector. This would make it possible to

abstract general theory about specific systems by finding the systemic commonalities that could explain

the different outcomes of the cases (ibid).

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991) “The Theory of Planned Behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 50(2): 179–211. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Al-Qirim, N. (2004) A framework for electronic commerce research in small to medium-sized

enterprises, In: N. Al-Qirim (ed) Electronic Commerce in Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises:

Frameworks, Issues and Implications, Idea Group Publishing, Pennsylvania, pp. 1-16.

Arpaci, I., Yardimci, Y., Ozkan, S. & Turetken, O. (2012) “Organizational Adoption of Information

Technologies: A Literature Review”, International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies,

4(2): 37-50. Available at

http://www.sobiad.org/eJOURNALS/journal_IJEBEG/arhieves/2012_no2_new/ibrahim_arpaci.pd

f [Accessed 18 June 2020]

Avgerou, C. (2010) “Comments on Allen Lee’s Article ‘Retrospect and Prospect’: Information Systems

Research in the Last and Next 25 Years’ From a Socio-Theoretical IS Research Perspective”,

Journal of Information Technology, 25(4): 355-357. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1057/jit.2010.24

Babbie, E. (2009) The Practice of Social Research (12th ed.), Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont.

Barba-Sanchez, V., Martinez-Ruiz, M. & Jimenez-Sarco, A. (2007) “Drivers, Benefits and Challenges

of ICT Adoption by Small and Medium Enterprises: A Literature Review”, Problems and

Perspectives in Management, 5(1): 103-112. Available at

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

http://businessperspectives.org/images/pdf/applications/publishing/templates/article/assets/574/PP

M_EN_2007_01Barba-Sanchez.pdf [Accessed 25 June 2020]

Bucklin, L. & Sengupta, S. (1993) “The Co-Diffusion of Complementary Innovations: Supermarket

Scanners and UPC Symbols”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(2): 148-160. doi:

doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(93)90006-C

Chitura, T., Mupemhi, S., Dube, T. & Bolongkikit, J. (2008) “Barriers to Electronic Commerce

Adoption in Small and Medium Enterprises: A Critical Literature Review”, Journal of Internet

Banking and Commerce, 13(2): 1-13. Available at http://www.icommercecentral.com/open-

access/barriers-to-electronic-commerce-adoption-in-small-and-medium-enterprises-a-critical-

literature-review.pdf [Accessed 12 February 2019]

Choudrie, J. & Culkin, N. (2013) “A Qualitative Study of Innovation Diffusion: The Novel Case of a

Small Firm and KTP”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(4): 889-912.

doi:dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-03-2012-0047

Chouki, M., Talea, M., Okar, C. and Chroqui, R. (2020) “Barriers to Information Technology Adoption

within Small and Medium Enterprises: A Systemic Literature Review”, International Journal of

Innovation and Technology Management, 17(1): 1-42. doi:doi.org/10.1142/S0219877020500078

Cooper, R. & Zmud, R. (1990) “Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological

Diffusion Approach”, Management Science, 36(2): 123-139.

doi:dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.2.123

Consoli, D. (2012) Literature analysis on determinant factors and the impact of ICT in SMEs. In

proceedings of the 2020 World Conference on Business, Economics and Management (BEM), 4-6

May, Antalya, pp. 93-97.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2014) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for

Developing Grounded Theory (4th ed.), Sage Publications, Los Angeles-London-New Delhi.

Currie, W. (2009) “Contextualising the IT Artifact: Towards a Wider Research Agenda for IS Using

Institutional Theory”, Information Technology & People, 22(1): 63-77. Available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09593840910937508 [Accessed 15 January

2019]

Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M. & Karlsson, J. (2019) Explaining Society: An Introduction to Critical

Realism in the Social Sciences (2nd ed.), Routledge, London and New York.

Damsgaard, J. & Lyytinen, K. (2001) “The role of Intermediating Institutions in the Diffusion of

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): How Industry Associations Intervened in Denmark, Finland,

and Hong Kong”, The Information Society: An International Journal, 17(3): 195-210.

doi:10.1080/01972240120907

Davis, F. (1989) “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information

Technology”, Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13(3): 319–340. Available at

http://misq.org/perceived-usefulness-perceived-ease-of-use-and-user-acceptance-of-information-

technology.html?SID=kqlask8kpiadjl7645e2t33bs6 [Accessed 20 February 2019]

Denzin, N. (2012) “Triangulation 2.0”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2): 80-88.

doi:10.1177/1558689812437186

DePietro, R., Wiarda, E. & Fleischer, M. (1990) The context for change: Organisation, technology and

environment, In: L. Tornatzky and M. Fleischer (eds.) The Process of Technological Innovation,

Massachusetts: Lexington Books, pp. 151-175.

Dewan, S., Ganley, D. & Kraemer, K. (2010) “Complementarities in the Diffusion of Personal

Computers and the Internet: Implications for the Global Digital Divide”, Information Systems

Journal, 21(4): 925-940. doi:doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0219

Doll, W. (1985) “Avenues for Top Management Involvement in Successful MIS Development”,

Management Information Systems Quarterly, 9(1):17-35. doi:doi.org/10.2307/249271

Edquist, C. (2005) Systems of Innovation: Perspectives and Challenges, In: J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery,

& R. Nelson (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.

181-208.

Freeman, C. (2008) Systems of Innovation: Selected Essays in Evolutionary Economics, Edward Elgar

Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham.

Gagliardi, D., Ramlogan, R., Navarra, P & Dello Russo, C. (2018) “Diffusion of Complementary

Evolving Pharmaceutical Innovations: The Case of Abacavir and Pharmacogenetic Companion

Arturo Vega and Mike Chiasson

Diagnostic in Italy”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 134(September 2018): 223-

233. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.014

Ghobakhloo, M., Sadegh, M., Hong, T. & Zulkifli, N. (2011) “Information Technology Adoption in

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises - An Appraisal of Two Decades of Literature”,

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(7): 53-80. Available at

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228448004_Information_Technology_Adoption_in_Sm

all_and_Medium-sized_Enterprises_An_Appraisal_of_Two_Decades_Literature [Accessed 12

June 2020]

Howells, J. (2006) “Intermediaries and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation”, Research Policy,

35(5): 715-728. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005

Hughes, T. (2012) The evolution of large technological systems, In: W. Bijker, T. Hughes & T. Pinch

(eds.) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and

History of Technology, The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 45-76.

Hung, S. & Whittington, R. (2011) “Agency in National Innovation Systems: Institutional

Entrepreneurship and the Professionalization of Taiwanese IT”, Research Policy, 40(4): 526-538.

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.008

Jensen, T. & Chapin, E. (2014) Towards and agent-based model on co-diffusion of technology and

behaviour: a review. In proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Modelling and

Simulation (ECMS), 27-30 May, Brescia, pp. 782-788.

Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J. & Lacity, M. (2006) “A Review of the Predictors, Linkages, and Biases in IT

Innovation Adoption Research”, Journal of Information Technology, 21(1): 1-23.

doi:dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000056

Jones, M. & Karsten, H. (2008) “Gidden’s Structuration Theory and Information Systems Research”,

Management Information Systems Quarterly 21(1): 127-157. Available at https://misq.org/gidden-

s-structuration-theory-and-information-systems-research.html [Accessed 25 March 2019]

Jones, P., Packham, G., Benyon-Davies P. & Pickernell, D. (2011) “False Promises: E-Business

Deployment in Wales’ SME Community”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology 13(2):

163-178. doi:10.1108/13287261111135990

Karjaluoto, H. & Huhtamaki, M. (2010) “The Role of Electronic Channels in Micro-Sized Brick-and-

Mortar Firms”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 23(1): 17-38.

doi:10.180/08276331.2010.10593471

Kebede, K., Mitsufuji, T. & Choi, E. (2014) “Looking for Innovation System Builders: A Case of Solar

Energy Foundation in Ethiopia”, African Journal of Science Technology Innovation and

Development 6(4): 289-300. doi:10.1080/20421338.2014.947198

Kivimaa, P. (2014) “Government-Affiliated Intermediary Organisations as Actors in System-Level

Transitions”, Research Policy 43(8): 1370-1380. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.007

Klerkx, L. & Leeuwis, C. (2009) “Establishment and Embedding of Innovation Brokersat Different

Innovation System Levels: Insight from the Dutch Agricultural Sector”, Journal of Technological

Forecasting and Social Change 76(6): 846-860. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001

Korber, M., Paier, M. & Fischer, M. (2009) An agent-based view of the biotech innovation system. In

proceedings of the 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science (CERS), 7-9 October,

Kosice, pp. 1114-1132.

Kurnia, S., Choudrie, J., Mahbubur R. & Alzougool, B. (2015) “E-Commerce Technology Adoption: A

Malaysian Grocery SME Retail Sector Study”, Journal of Business Research, 68(9): 1906-1918.

doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.010

Kurnia, S. & Johnston, R. (2000) “The Need of a Processual View of Inter-Organizational System

Adoption”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(4): 295-319.

doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00050-0

Lazzati, N. (2020) “Co-diffusion of Technologies in Social Networks”, American Economic Journal:

Microeconomics, 12(4): 193-228. doi: 10.1257/mic.20180220

Merali, Y. (2006) “Complexity and information Systems”, Journal of Information Technology, 21(4):

216-228. doi:10.157/palgrave.jit.2000081

Meeus, M. & Edquist, C. (2006) Introduction to part I: Product and process innovation, In: J. Hage &

M. Meeus (eds.) Innovation, Science and Institutional Change: A Research Handbook, Oxford

University Press, Oxford, pp. 23-37.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Miles, M., Huberman, A. & Saldana, J. (2019) Qualitative Data Analysis (4th ed.), Sage, Thousand

Oaks.

Mohr, J. (1987) Innovation theory: An assessment from the vantage point of new technology in

organizations, In: J. Pennings & A. Buitendam (eds.) New Technology as Organizational

Innovation, Ballinger, Cambridge, pp. 13-31.

Mowery, D. & Rosenberg, N. (1998) Paths of Innovation, Technological Change in 20thCentury

America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Musiolik, J., Markard, J., Hekkert, M. & Furrer, B. (2020) “Creating Innovation Systems: How

Resource Constellations Affect the Strategies of System Builders”, Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 153, 119209. doi:doi.org/10.1016/jtechfore.2018.02.002

Mustonen-Olilla, E. & Lyytinen K. (2003) “Why Organizations Adopt Information System Process

Innovations: A Longitudinal Study Using Diffusion of Innovation Theory”, Information Systems

Journal, 13(3): 275-297. doi:doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2003.00141.x

Mutch, A. (2010) “Technology, Organisation, and Structure – A Morphogenetic Approach”,

Organization Science, 21(1): 507-520. doi:doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0441

Nelson, R. (1993) National Systems of Innovation: A Comparative Study, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Newman, M. & Sabherwal, R. (1991) “Information Systems Development: Four Process Scenarios

with Case Studies”, Journal of Information Systems, 5(1): 84-101.

Niculescu, M. & Whang, S. (2011) “Co-diffusion of Wireless Voice and Data Services: The Case of

the Japanese Market”, Information Systems Research, 23(1): 260-279.

doi:doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0346

Niosi, J. (ed.) (2018), Innovation Systems, Policy and Management, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Oliveira, T. & Martins, M. (2011) “Literature Review of Information Technology Adoption Models at

Firm Level”, The Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1): 110-121.

Available at https://issuu.com/academic-conferences.org/docs/ejise-volume14-issue1-

article705?e=1257060/3056166 [Accessed 28 February 2019]

O’Mahoney, J. & Vincent, S. (2014) Critical realism as an empirical project: A beginner’s guide. In P.

Edwards, J. O’Mahoney, & S. Vincent (eds.) Studying Organizations Using Critical Realism,

Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1-20.

Oni, O. & Papazafeiropoulou, A. (2014) “Diverse Views on IT Innovation Diffusion among SMEs:

Influencing Factors of Broadband Adoption”, Information Systems Frontiers, 16(4): 729-747.

doi:doi.org/10.1007/s10796-012-9384-7

Ott, P. & Laumer, S. (2012) Adoption of online appointment schedule platforms a An interview-based

case study series with micro-enterprises. In proceedings of the 18th Americas Conference on

Information Systems (AMCIS), 9-12 August 2012, Seattle, pp. 3618-3629.

Parker, C., Burgess, S. & Al-Qirim, N. (2015) “A Review of Studies on Information Systems and

SMEs in High Ranked IS Journals”, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 19: 153-173.

doi:dx.doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v19i0.1219

Parker, C. & Castleman, T. (2007) “New Directions for Research on SME E-Business: Insights from an

Analysis of Journal Articles from 2003 to 2006”, Journal of Information Systems and Small

Business, 1(1): 21-40. Available at

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228646677_New_directions_for_research_on_SME-

eBusiness_Insights_from_an_analysis_of_journal_articles_from_2003_to_2006 [Accessed 10

April 2019]

Parker, C. & Castleman, T. (2009) “Small Firm E-Business Adoption: A Critical Analysis of Theory”,

Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22(1/2): 167-182.

doi:dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410390910932812

Patton, M. (2014) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (4th ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Perez, C. (1983) “Structural Change and the Assimilation of New Technologies in the Economic and

Social System”, Futures, 15(4): 357-375. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(83)90050-2

Robertson, D. & Breen, B. (2014) Brick by Brick: How LEGO Rewrote the Rules of Innovation and

Conquered the Global Toy Industry, Random House Business, London.

Arturo Vega and Mike Chiasson

Robey, D. & Farrow, D. (1982) “User Involvement in Information System Development: A Conflict

Model and Empirical Test”, Management Science, 28(1): 73-85.

doi:doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.1.73

Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research (5th ed.), Blackwell, Oxford.

Rogers, E. (1983) Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed.), Free Press, New York.

Rogers, E. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.), Free Press, New York.

Russo, M. (2000) “Complementary Innovations and Generative Relationships: An Ethnographic

Study”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 9(6): 517-541.

doi:doi.org/10.1080/10438590000000021

Ryan, J. (2013) A History of the Internet and the Digital Future, Reaktion Books, London.

Sabherwal, R. & Robey, D. (1995) “Reconciling Variance and Process Strategies for Studying

Information Systems Development”, Information Systems Research, 6(4): 303-327.

doi:10.1287/isre.6.4.303

Salavati, S., Hashim, N., Khani, N. & Bahrami, M. (2013) A conceptual model for IT and website

adoption in the tourism industry, In: N. Sumarjan, Z. Salehuddin, R. Salleh, M. Zurinawati, H.

Hafiz, B. Faeez Saiful, Z. Artinah, S. Bakhtiar, M. Hafiz & M. Hanafiah (eds.) Hospitality and

Tourism: Synergizing Creativity and Innovation in Research, CRC Press, Florida, pp. 465-470.

Salim, S., Sedera, D., Sawang, S., Alarifi, A. & Atapattu, M. (2015) “Moving from Evaluation to Trial:

How do SMEs Start Adopting Cloud ERP?”, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 19:

219-254. doi:doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v19i0.1030

Schumpeter, R. (1954) History of Economic Analysis, Allen & Unwin, New York.

Silverman, S. & Solmon, M. (1998) “The Unit of Analysis in Field Research: Issues and Approaches to

Design and Data Analysis”, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(3): 270-284.

doi:10.1123/jtpe.17.3.270

Spinelli, R. (2016) The determinants of IT adoption by SMEs: An agenda for research, In: C.

Rossignoli, M. Gatti & R. Agrifoglio (eds.) Organizational Innovation and Change - Lecture

Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, Springer, Cham, pp. 41-52.

Stake, R. (2005) Qualitative case studies, In: N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.) The Sage Handbook of

Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), Sage, London, pp. 443-466.

Sundararajan, A. (2007) “Local Network Effects and Complex Network Structure”, The B.E. Journal of

Theoretical Economics, 7(1): 1-37. doi:doi.org/10.2202/1935-1704.1319

Swanson, E. (1988) Information Systems Implementation: Bridging the Gap Between Design and

Utilization, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood.

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

Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4): 187-214.

doi:dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1999.11518227

Tsang, E. (2014) “Case Studies and Generalization in Information Systems Research: A Critical

Perspective”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(2): 174-186.

doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2013.09.002

Vega, A., & Chiasson, M. (2019) “A Comprehensive Framework to Research Digital Innovation: The

Joint Use of Systems of Innovation and Critical Realism”, Journal of Strategic Information

Systems, 28(3): 242-256. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2019.06.001

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G. & Davis, F. (2003). “User Acceptance of Information

Technology: Toward a Unified View”, Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3): 425–

478. Available at http://misq.org/user-acceptance-of-information-technology-toward-a-unified-

view.html [Accessed 27 May 2019]

Williams, M., Dwivedi, Y., Lal, B. & Schwarz, A. (2009) “Contemporary Trends and Issues in IT

Adoption and Diffusion Research”, Journal of Information Technology 24(1): 1-10.

doi:doi.org/10.1057/jit.2008.30

Wolcott, P., Kamal, M. & Qureshi. S. (2008) “Meeting the Challenges of ICT Adoption by Micro-

Enterprises”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management 21(6): 616-632.

doi:10.1108/17410390810911212

Wymer, S. & Regan, E. (2005) “Factors Influencing E-Commerce Adoption and Use by Small and

Medium Businesses”, Electronic Markets, 15(4): 438-453.

doi:dx.doi.org/10.1080/10196780500303151

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Wynn, D. & Williams, C. (2012) “Principles for Conducting Critical Realist Case Study Research in

Information Systems”. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 36(3): 787-810.

doi:doi.org/10.2307/41703481

Yin, R. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Method (4th ed.), Sage Publications, London.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. & Holbek, J. (1973) Innovations and Organizations, Jon Wiley and Sons,

New York.

Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. & Xu, S. (2003) “Electronic Business Adoption by European Firms: A Cross-

Country Assessment of the Facilitators and Inhibitors”, European Journal of Information Systems,

12(4): 251-268. doi:dx.doi.org /10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000475