the estimation problem tractable. Extensive simulation results Lang et al. 1999 indicate the approach can distinguish the difference between linear and nonlinear
surfaces. And, Bootstrap and Jackknife procedures provide some assurance that the parameter estimates are reasonable. GEMCAT approaches have been successfully
applied in a number of different organizational research contexts e.g. Oliva, 1991; Gresov et al., 1993; Kauffman and Oliva, 1994. More recently, Lang et al. 1999
developed an improved version of the algorithm called GEMCAT II, which provides greater speed, efficiency, utility and flexibility in terms of analysis and
testing. For example, the new version has options to perform both Bootstrap and Jackknife testing procedures and it produces SPSS files for further analysis. In
addition, GEMCAT II is slightly more general as it allows offsets a
, b , and g
to be included in equations Eq. 2, Eq. 3, and Eq. 4.
Finally, in their comparison of Cobb 1981 and Guastello 1995 techniques versus the GEMCAT approach, Alexander et al. 1992 note that for exploratory
situations in which theory construction is the focus, or when the existence of catastrophe data is the issue, and univariate dependent measures are sufficient,
Cobb related approaches are the best choice. However, Alexander et al. 1992 argue that GEMCAT is the best choice for theory testing or confirmatory contexts,
and those requiring multivariate indicators in the dependent variable. Given the use of a multivariate dependent construct and confirmatory nature of this work, the
GEMCAT II procedure is the appropriate estimation technique to use.
4. Data
Data for this study were provided by Techtel Inc. a major marketing research firm in Emeryville, California www.techtel.com. Techtel has tracked organiza-
tional adoption of PCs and PC software since 1984 and network equipment since 1989 surveying over 68 000 firms. The data for our study were developed from a
quarterly survey sent to a panel of 2000 end-user firms. Firm officials who respond to the panel are recruited by Techtel and are required to be qualified as having
influence in, and knowledge of, the PC buying process within their respective organizations. The issue of who supplies the data conforms to the criterion for
quality found in Tornatzky and Klein 1982 meta-analysis of 75 innovation adoption studies. Respondent firms come from the following 14 industries: agricul-
ture, manufacturing, finance, health care, construction, wholesale trade, public utilities, business services, retail, transportation, education, government, communi-
cations, and publishing. The type of products in the database fit the criteria of high technology that are suggested in the following papers Shaklin and Ryans, 1984;
Moriarty and Kosnik, 1989; Heide and Weiss, 1995. Finally, the quality of the data is also measured by the quality of the clients who purchase Techtel’s data for
their own businesses, e.g. Apple, Cannon, IBM, Netscape, Compaq, Symantec, Toshiba, Gateway, Sony, Intel, Hewlet Packard, DirecTV, PAGENET, VISO
PSINet, and WRQ, to name a few www.techtel.com.
The reports from the Techtel survey, called ‘PCMarket Opinion
TM
,’ are widely used in industry and quoted frequently in business and trade publications. A
confidentiality agreement requires that all data provided by Techtel be disguised with respect to: 1 the identity of the firms; and 2 the exact values reported.
Examples of the types of products in the Techtel data set includes: spreadsheet software, personal computers, communications software, modems, video cards,
word processing software, and the like. The data also includes multiple product classes e.g. PCs, CD-ROMS, Modems, product forms e.g. laptops, notebooks,
and brands e.g. IBM, Microsoft, Lotus, Novell.
A random sample of 128 firms who had adopted Freelance over 25 quarters of the study period from 1988 to 1994 were used. These firms all adopted the products
and participated in the survey for the complete time frame. Other firms that did not conform to the foregoing were not used. This eliminates problems associated with
firms who dropped out of the survey or joined later in the time period.
The study reported below focuses on the diffusion of competing technology standards rather than the products that are aligned with a given standard. A subset
of the Techtel data containing firms who used or adopted the DOS versus Windows versions of the Lotus Freelance Presentation package was drawn. Hence, the
competition is between DOS and Windows Operating Systems for Freelance adopters. We note that at the beginning of the study period DOS was the operating
system in ascendance and Windows was struggling in the market. In fact, it was not until version 3.1 that Windows dominated the market. The product was held
constant because of our focus on the diffusion of competing technology standards PC operating systems rather than competing products e.g. Microsoft PowerPoint
versus Lotus Freelance. Finally, we did not want adopter preferences for individual brands e.g. Microsoft over Lotus and vice versa to influence the diffusion process
in any large measure.
5. Operationalization of variables
