Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:Information and Management:Authorlist C:
Information & Management 35 (1999) 77±88
Research
The initiation and adoption of client±server
technology in organizations
InduShobha Chengalur-Smith*, Peter Duchessi
Management Science and Information Systems, School of Business, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY 12222, USA
Received 15 October 1997; accepted 23 August 1998
Abstract
A large number of companies are adopting client±server systems. We investigated the relationship between several contextual
factors and the initiation and adoption process of this important technology. The contextual factors included: (a)
environmental, such as market position; (b) internal factors, namely organizational structure/culture, size, and migration
strategy; and (c) technological, such as scope, scale, and cost of a system. An analysis of data from 350 companies revealed
that a company's market position, its migration strategy, and the system's scope and scale have a signi®cant effect on the
initiation and adoption process. # 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
Keywords: Client-server systems; Initiation and adoption of technology; Contextual factors
1. Introduction
Client-server systems represent a form of distributed processing. The systems distribute information
and computing tasks among computers that are linked
by a network. They are based on the relatively new
notion that speci®c servers (e.g. a database server)
handle some computing tasks best.1 In a client±server
environment, clients initiate service requests and servers respond to those requests via the network.
There are different types of client±server systems,
depending on the extent to which a server distributes
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-518-442-4028; fax: +1-518442-2568; e-mail: ic307@cnsibm.albany.edu
1
Distributed processing became popular during the late 1970s
and early 1980s, while client±server processing emerged during the
late 1980s and early 1990s.
computing tasks to clients. The Gartner Group delineates ®ve different types of client±server applications;
they appear below in order of increasing complexity:
Distributed presentation ± clients and the server
share presentation services, while the server controls both application and data management processing.
Remote presentation ± clients provide only presentation services, while the server provides both,
application and data management processing.
Distributed function ± clients provide presentation services and perform part of application processing, while the server provides the remaining
application processing and data management processing.
Remote data management ± clients provide both
presentation services and application processing,
0378-7206/99/$ ± see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
PII: S-0378-7206(98)00077-9
78
I. Chengalur-Smith, P. Duchessi / Information & Management 35 (1999) 77±88
while the server provides just data management
processing.
Distributed database ± clients provide presentation
services, application processing, and data management processing.2
The proliferation of client±server systems has been
so rapid that several practitioners have hailed this
information technology (IT) as the next signi®cant
computing paradigm.
Using data from a nation-wide survey, we examined
the impact of technological, organizational, and environmental characteristics on the initiation and adoption
of client±server systems to gain insight into the effective deployment of this technology.3 We also address
several important questions, including the following:
Are the initiation and adoption processes used by
larger companies different from those of smaller ones?
Does the technical complexity of a client±server
system in¯uence the initiation and adoption process?
2. Initiation and adoption of client±server
technology
The implementation of client±server systems may
progress through several stages (see Fig. 1). Cooper
and Zmud [3] and Kwon and Zmud [8] propose one
framework that contains six implementation phases:
initiation, adoption, adaptation, acceptance, routinization, and infusion. These need not occur sequentially
because companies can conduct two or more in parallel. Preece [13] discusses another framework that
also consists of seven stages: initiation, progression,
investment decision, planning and systems design,
installation, operationalization, and evaluation of the
new technology. The ®rst two stages, initiation and
progression, ®t with the initiation phase; whereas the
third stage, namely investment decision, equates to
adoption. We resolve semantic differences by using
the term `initiation and adoption' to represent the preimplementation process of identifying and responding
to a company's problems and/or opportunities, searching for appropriate IT solutions, and assessing the
2
We use the original, 1991 classification; a new classification is
now in circulation.
3
For a detailed account of this survey see Ref. [2].
technology's bene®ts for management's approval.4
The consequences of using IT include several practical
bene®ts, including increased pro®t, increased market
share, and higher quality services. These may have farreaching effects (e.g. they may initiate consideration
of future IT and strategic initiatives). Thus, the bene®ts
can entail technical, operational, and competitive
advantages.
3. Factors affecting the initiation and adoption of
client±server systems
In planning for IT change, managers consider external and internal forces (e.g. awareness of competitors'
actions, existing technology base, and market conditions). Five contextual factors that may affect initiation and adoption of IT are: environmental (e.g.
general level of competition); organizational (e.g.
degree of centralization); technological (e.g. compatibility with existing systems); user (e.g. level of
education); and task (e.g. amount of autonomy permitted). We consider only environmental, organizational, and technological factors here.5
3.1. Environmental factors
Environmental forces, such as competition, technology, and government regulation, precipitate initiation and adoption of client±server systems. A
company's desire to be ahead of the competition is
a major factor in adopting IT [7]. Companies that are
dominant in a particular market tend to be leaders;
either they are responsible for IT innovations or are
very quick to adopt them as they are introduced by
competitors [10]. Thus, we state the ®rst hypothesis:
H1: The market position of a company in¯uences the
initiation and adoption process of client±server systems.
3.2. Organizational factors
Organizational characteristics affect the initiation
and adoption process as well. Moch and Morse
4
Thus, our definition stems from Refs. [3, 8, 13]. Moreover, it
also precludes implementation and post-implementation stages.
5
Lack of data on users and tasks precluded any analysis on other
contextual factors.
I. Chengalur-Smith, P. Duchessi / Information & Management 35 (1999) 77±88
79
Fig. 1. Initiation and adoption frameworks.
[12] found that decentralized organizations adopt
innovations faster than more centralized ones.
Companies that have a middle-out management
style, where decisions are made through the consensus of independent business managers, often
seek technology solutions that are tailored to
departmental needs, not necessarily overall
organizational needs [11]. Client±server systems
enable decentralization and, as a consequence, are
compatible with companies that operate in this
way. Alternatively, centralized companies may
consider the technology as a means to become decentralized.
The returns for investing in client±server systems
are hard to predict for ®rst-time users because of their
lack of experience in using them. Pioneering companies, which initiate and adopt innovations early [5],
may be more active in applying client±server systems
for their business problems, though the returns are not
immediately obvious. Large companies can more
easily absorb the risks and costs of implementing
client±server systems.
80
I. Chengalur-Smith, P. Duchessi / Information & Management 35 (1999) 77±88
Finally, a company's internal approach for migrating to other computing platforms can affect initiation
and adoption. Some authors (e.g. Schultheis and Bock
[15]) advocate an iterative strategy: start with pilot
projects and gradually grow into more critical applications. Others (e.g. Atre [1]) promote a bolder
approach: go with a mission-critical application at
the outset. Thus, the type of in-house migration strategy determines the nature of the client±server solution
considered by a company.
Hence these hypotheses follow:
H2: The structure and culture of a company in¯uences
the initiation and adoption process for client±server
systems.
H3: The size of a company in¯uences the initiation
and adoption process for client±server systems.
H4: A company's in-house migration strategy in¯uences the initiation and adoption process for client±
server systems.
3.3. Technological factors
Technological issues are important during initiation
and adoption as companies evaluate the ®t between the
new technology and their existing systems. An application's technical complexity (i.e. hardware, software,
and communications architecture) may hinder implementation success [16]. Generally, client±server applications require considerable investment in new
operating systems, communication protocols, and
hardware components, especially when companies
move from mainframe-based legacy applications to
the client±server architecture. Furthermore, companies are discovering that the implementation of client±
server systems involves hidden costs, including custom coding and developer training [6].
As the expense and degree of complexity go up,
companies need to make a strong case to justify the
effort, possibly requiring a complete explanation of
problems resolved and/or opportunities realized. The
next hypotheses, therefore, are:
H5: The scale of the client±server application in¯uences the initiation and adoption process.
H6: The scope of the client±server application in¯uences the initiation and adoption process.
H7: The cost of the client±server application in¯uences the initiation and adoption process.
4. Measurement issues
Our data originated from a questionnaire that was
developed for a nation-wide study of client±server
implementation. We tested the questionnaire extensively to ensure that it was suitable for the undertaking. For this study, we relied primarily on items
appearing in the background section of the questionnaire, including market position, size, and organizational culture, as well as items about the application,
including number of servers, number of clients, and
project budget.
4.1. Contextual factors
To determine the implementation stage, we used:
early (identi®ed application but no installed components), middle (installation of network with some
clients and servers), and late (completed recently).
We split market position into three classes: (a) dominant market leader, (b) major competitor, (c) and
minor competitor. Organizational structure and culture
had three variables: (a) centralized vs. decentralized,
(b) pioneering vs. traditional, and (c) top-down vs.
bottom-up management style. Recognizing that companies and management styles could fall anywhere
between these extremes, we used a sliding scale with
the extremes as anchors. We classi®ed ®rms that
checked either of the two scale positions closest to
centralized as `centralized' and those that checked any
of the remaining three scale positions as `not centralized'. We used the same procedure for the other two
variables.
To measure a company's size, we used the number
of employees and total sales (or assets for banks). We
created two groups for each of these variables, based
on their medians. We used two items to capture
migration strategy. The ®rst asked if the application
was mission-critical, and the second asked if the
application was implemented across all business functions at the same time. We measured the responses on
I. Chengalur-Smith, P. Duchessi / Information & Management 35 (1999) 77±88
a 5-point Likert scale with `1Strongly Disagree' and
`5Strongly Agree'. For each variable, we split
respondents into two groups as follows: we assigned
respondents who checked `Strongly Agree' or `Agree'
to one group and the remaining respondents to the
second group. We measured project scope and scale
using the number of servers, clients, and organizational levels covered. We captured project cost with
project duration and budget. Again, we used the
medians of these variables to create two groups.
4.2. Initiation and adoption factors
To capture initiation and adoption considerations,
we used a number of motives, including `respond to
competitive pressures', `avoid mainframe facilities',
and `increase revenues', measured on a 5-point rating
scale with `1Not at All a Motivation' and `5
Motivated to a Great Extent' (see Table 1).
To reduce the number of motives, we ran a factor
analysis. Bartlett's test for sphericity was highly signi®cant (Bartlett's 1295.44, p100
Competitive
Efficiency
Technical
Operational
2.78
3.49
2.36
3.34
3.07
3.60
2.76
3.65
Motive factors
Number of areas
3
>3
Competitive
Efficiency
Technical
Operational
2.71
3.43
2.49
3.39
3.13
3.66
2.59
3.57
Motive factors
Number of levels
4
>4
Competitive
Efficiency
Technical
Operational
2.79
3.45
2.35
3.34
3.06
3.65
2.78
3.65
Motive factors
Competitive
Efficiency
Technical
Operational
Budget
$1 million
> $1 million
2.83
3.48
2.36
3.38
3.05
3.65
2.87
3.67
Looking at the data from another angle, we checked
for signi®cant differences among the four motive
factors for a given market position. We found that
dominant market leaders and major competitors consider operational and ef®ciency factors to be of equal
85
importance in their initiation and adoption process
(see Table 7). They considered these factors to be
more important than competitive and technical considerations, suggesting that the initiation and adoption
of client±server systems in these companies are primarily in¯uenced by the technology's ability to
increase productivity, reduce costs, and reduce cycle
time through operational improvements. Additionally,
we found that major competitors rate competitive
motives higher than technical motives, indicating that
they feel client±server applications may yield competitive advantages against dominant market leaders and
other major competitors. Minor competitors considered competitive, operational and ef®ciency factors to
be equally important. All three types of companies
downplayed the importance of technical considerations. Apparently, it is not the technical bene®ts (e.g.
avoid mainframe facilities) that make the difference,
but the technology's business bene®ts that affects the
initiation and adoption of client±server systems.
7.2. Organizational factors
We found no signi®cant differences in the initiation
and adoption process between companies with differing structures, cultures, sizes, and management styles.
This is understandable because, during the late 1980s
and early 1990s, many companies recognized the need
to use IT to respond to threats and opportunities.
Moreover, large and small companies are able to
act in a similar way because the ¯exibility and scalability of client±server systems makes them affordable
in a variety of large and small architectures. Thus,
internal factors, such as culture, size, etc., relevant in
the 1970s and early 1980s, are less apt to affect the
initiation and adoption of client±server technology.
With regard to migration strategy, the nature of the
application affected the initiation and adoption process: companies rate competitive, ef®ciency, and
operational factors as more important in missioncritical applications than in non-mission-critical applications. In companies with mission-critical applications, technical bene®ts were the least important
factors, while operational and ef®ciency gains
received the most attention during the initiation and
adoption process. It appears that companies pursuing
mission-critical applications may have high expectations of signi®cant operational and ef®ciency gains.
86
I. Chengalur-Smith, P. Duchessi / Information & Management 35 (1999) 77±88
Table 7
Average motive factor ratings within groups of contextual factors a
Market position
Dominant leader
Major competitor
Minor competitor
(technological2.59, competitive2.94)
Research
The initiation and adoption of client±server
technology in organizations
InduShobha Chengalur-Smith*, Peter Duchessi
Management Science and Information Systems, School of Business, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY 12222, USA
Received 15 October 1997; accepted 23 August 1998
Abstract
A large number of companies are adopting client±server systems. We investigated the relationship between several contextual
factors and the initiation and adoption process of this important technology. The contextual factors included: (a)
environmental, such as market position; (b) internal factors, namely organizational structure/culture, size, and migration
strategy; and (c) technological, such as scope, scale, and cost of a system. An analysis of data from 350 companies revealed
that a company's market position, its migration strategy, and the system's scope and scale have a signi®cant effect on the
initiation and adoption process. # 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
Keywords: Client-server systems; Initiation and adoption of technology; Contextual factors
1. Introduction
Client-server systems represent a form of distributed processing. The systems distribute information
and computing tasks among computers that are linked
by a network. They are based on the relatively new
notion that speci®c servers (e.g. a database server)
handle some computing tasks best.1 In a client±server
environment, clients initiate service requests and servers respond to those requests via the network.
There are different types of client±server systems,
depending on the extent to which a server distributes
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-518-442-4028; fax: +1-518442-2568; e-mail: ic307@cnsibm.albany.edu
1
Distributed processing became popular during the late 1970s
and early 1980s, while client±server processing emerged during the
late 1980s and early 1990s.
computing tasks to clients. The Gartner Group delineates ®ve different types of client±server applications;
they appear below in order of increasing complexity:
Distributed presentation ± clients and the server
share presentation services, while the server controls both application and data management processing.
Remote presentation ± clients provide only presentation services, while the server provides both,
application and data management processing.
Distributed function ± clients provide presentation services and perform part of application processing, while the server provides the remaining
application processing and data management processing.
Remote data management ± clients provide both
presentation services and application processing,
0378-7206/99/$ ± see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
PII: S-0378-7206(98)00077-9
78
I. Chengalur-Smith, P. Duchessi / Information & Management 35 (1999) 77±88
while the server provides just data management
processing.
Distributed database ± clients provide presentation
services, application processing, and data management processing.2
The proliferation of client±server systems has been
so rapid that several practitioners have hailed this
information technology (IT) as the next signi®cant
computing paradigm.
Using data from a nation-wide survey, we examined
the impact of technological, organizational, and environmental characteristics on the initiation and adoption
of client±server systems to gain insight into the effective deployment of this technology.3 We also address
several important questions, including the following:
Are the initiation and adoption processes used by
larger companies different from those of smaller ones?
Does the technical complexity of a client±server
system in¯uence the initiation and adoption process?
2. Initiation and adoption of client±server
technology
The implementation of client±server systems may
progress through several stages (see Fig. 1). Cooper
and Zmud [3] and Kwon and Zmud [8] propose one
framework that contains six implementation phases:
initiation, adoption, adaptation, acceptance, routinization, and infusion. These need not occur sequentially
because companies can conduct two or more in parallel. Preece [13] discusses another framework that
also consists of seven stages: initiation, progression,
investment decision, planning and systems design,
installation, operationalization, and evaluation of the
new technology. The ®rst two stages, initiation and
progression, ®t with the initiation phase; whereas the
third stage, namely investment decision, equates to
adoption. We resolve semantic differences by using
the term `initiation and adoption' to represent the preimplementation process of identifying and responding
to a company's problems and/or opportunities, searching for appropriate IT solutions, and assessing the
2
We use the original, 1991 classification; a new classification is
now in circulation.
3
For a detailed account of this survey see Ref. [2].
technology's bene®ts for management's approval.4
The consequences of using IT include several practical
bene®ts, including increased pro®t, increased market
share, and higher quality services. These may have farreaching effects (e.g. they may initiate consideration
of future IT and strategic initiatives). Thus, the bene®ts
can entail technical, operational, and competitive
advantages.
3. Factors affecting the initiation and adoption of
client±server systems
In planning for IT change, managers consider external and internal forces (e.g. awareness of competitors'
actions, existing technology base, and market conditions). Five contextual factors that may affect initiation and adoption of IT are: environmental (e.g.
general level of competition); organizational (e.g.
degree of centralization); technological (e.g. compatibility with existing systems); user (e.g. level of
education); and task (e.g. amount of autonomy permitted). We consider only environmental, organizational, and technological factors here.5
3.1. Environmental factors
Environmental forces, such as competition, technology, and government regulation, precipitate initiation and adoption of client±server systems. A
company's desire to be ahead of the competition is
a major factor in adopting IT [7]. Companies that are
dominant in a particular market tend to be leaders;
either they are responsible for IT innovations or are
very quick to adopt them as they are introduced by
competitors [10]. Thus, we state the ®rst hypothesis:
H1: The market position of a company in¯uences the
initiation and adoption process of client±server systems.
3.2. Organizational factors
Organizational characteristics affect the initiation
and adoption process as well. Moch and Morse
4
Thus, our definition stems from Refs. [3, 8, 13]. Moreover, it
also precludes implementation and post-implementation stages.
5
Lack of data on users and tasks precluded any analysis on other
contextual factors.
I. Chengalur-Smith, P. Duchessi / Information & Management 35 (1999) 77±88
79
Fig. 1. Initiation and adoption frameworks.
[12] found that decentralized organizations adopt
innovations faster than more centralized ones.
Companies that have a middle-out management
style, where decisions are made through the consensus of independent business managers, often
seek technology solutions that are tailored to
departmental needs, not necessarily overall
organizational needs [11]. Client±server systems
enable decentralization and, as a consequence, are
compatible with companies that operate in this
way. Alternatively, centralized companies may
consider the technology as a means to become decentralized.
The returns for investing in client±server systems
are hard to predict for ®rst-time users because of their
lack of experience in using them. Pioneering companies, which initiate and adopt innovations early [5],
may be more active in applying client±server systems
for their business problems, though the returns are not
immediately obvious. Large companies can more
easily absorb the risks and costs of implementing
client±server systems.
80
I. Chengalur-Smith, P. Duchessi / Information & Management 35 (1999) 77±88
Finally, a company's internal approach for migrating to other computing platforms can affect initiation
and adoption. Some authors (e.g. Schultheis and Bock
[15]) advocate an iterative strategy: start with pilot
projects and gradually grow into more critical applications. Others (e.g. Atre [1]) promote a bolder
approach: go with a mission-critical application at
the outset. Thus, the type of in-house migration strategy determines the nature of the client±server solution
considered by a company.
Hence these hypotheses follow:
H2: The structure and culture of a company in¯uences
the initiation and adoption process for client±server
systems.
H3: The size of a company in¯uences the initiation
and adoption process for client±server systems.
H4: A company's in-house migration strategy in¯uences the initiation and adoption process for client±
server systems.
3.3. Technological factors
Technological issues are important during initiation
and adoption as companies evaluate the ®t between the
new technology and their existing systems. An application's technical complexity (i.e. hardware, software,
and communications architecture) may hinder implementation success [16]. Generally, client±server applications require considerable investment in new
operating systems, communication protocols, and
hardware components, especially when companies
move from mainframe-based legacy applications to
the client±server architecture. Furthermore, companies are discovering that the implementation of client±
server systems involves hidden costs, including custom coding and developer training [6].
As the expense and degree of complexity go up,
companies need to make a strong case to justify the
effort, possibly requiring a complete explanation of
problems resolved and/or opportunities realized. The
next hypotheses, therefore, are:
H5: The scale of the client±server application in¯uences the initiation and adoption process.
H6: The scope of the client±server application in¯uences the initiation and adoption process.
H7: The cost of the client±server application in¯uences the initiation and adoption process.
4. Measurement issues
Our data originated from a questionnaire that was
developed for a nation-wide study of client±server
implementation. We tested the questionnaire extensively to ensure that it was suitable for the undertaking. For this study, we relied primarily on items
appearing in the background section of the questionnaire, including market position, size, and organizational culture, as well as items about the application,
including number of servers, number of clients, and
project budget.
4.1. Contextual factors
To determine the implementation stage, we used:
early (identi®ed application but no installed components), middle (installation of network with some
clients and servers), and late (completed recently).
We split market position into three classes: (a) dominant market leader, (b) major competitor, (c) and
minor competitor. Organizational structure and culture
had three variables: (a) centralized vs. decentralized,
(b) pioneering vs. traditional, and (c) top-down vs.
bottom-up management style. Recognizing that companies and management styles could fall anywhere
between these extremes, we used a sliding scale with
the extremes as anchors. We classi®ed ®rms that
checked either of the two scale positions closest to
centralized as `centralized' and those that checked any
of the remaining three scale positions as `not centralized'. We used the same procedure for the other two
variables.
To measure a company's size, we used the number
of employees and total sales (or assets for banks). We
created two groups for each of these variables, based
on their medians. We used two items to capture
migration strategy. The ®rst asked if the application
was mission-critical, and the second asked if the
application was implemented across all business functions at the same time. We measured the responses on
I. Chengalur-Smith, P. Duchessi / Information & Management 35 (1999) 77±88
a 5-point Likert scale with `1Strongly Disagree' and
`5Strongly Agree'. For each variable, we split
respondents into two groups as follows: we assigned
respondents who checked `Strongly Agree' or `Agree'
to one group and the remaining respondents to the
second group. We measured project scope and scale
using the number of servers, clients, and organizational levels covered. We captured project cost with
project duration and budget. Again, we used the
medians of these variables to create two groups.
4.2. Initiation and adoption factors
To capture initiation and adoption considerations,
we used a number of motives, including `respond to
competitive pressures', `avoid mainframe facilities',
and `increase revenues', measured on a 5-point rating
scale with `1Not at All a Motivation' and `5
Motivated to a Great Extent' (see Table 1).
To reduce the number of motives, we ran a factor
analysis. Bartlett's test for sphericity was highly signi®cant (Bartlett's 1295.44, p100
Competitive
Efficiency
Technical
Operational
2.78
3.49
2.36
3.34
3.07
3.60
2.76
3.65
Motive factors
Number of areas
3
>3
Competitive
Efficiency
Technical
Operational
2.71
3.43
2.49
3.39
3.13
3.66
2.59
3.57
Motive factors
Number of levels
4
>4
Competitive
Efficiency
Technical
Operational
2.79
3.45
2.35
3.34
3.06
3.65
2.78
3.65
Motive factors
Competitive
Efficiency
Technical
Operational
Budget
$1 million
> $1 million
2.83
3.48
2.36
3.38
3.05
3.65
2.87
3.67
Looking at the data from another angle, we checked
for signi®cant differences among the four motive
factors for a given market position. We found that
dominant market leaders and major competitors consider operational and ef®ciency factors to be of equal
85
importance in their initiation and adoption process
(see Table 7). They considered these factors to be
more important than competitive and technical considerations, suggesting that the initiation and adoption
of client±server systems in these companies are primarily in¯uenced by the technology's ability to
increase productivity, reduce costs, and reduce cycle
time through operational improvements. Additionally,
we found that major competitors rate competitive
motives higher than technical motives, indicating that
they feel client±server applications may yield competitive advantages against dominant market leaders and
other major competitors. Minor competitors considered competitive, operational and ef®ciency factors to
be equally important. All three types of companies
downplayed the importance of technical considerations. Apparently, it is not the technical bene®ts (e.g.
avoid mainframe facilities) that make the difference,
but the technology's business bene®ts that affects the
initiation and adoption of client±server systems.
7.2. Organizational factors
We found no signi®cant differences in the initiation
and adoption process between companies with differing structures, cultures, sizes, and management styles.
This is understandable because, during the late 1980s
and early 1990s, many companies recognized the need
to use IT to respond to threats and opportunities.
Moreover, large and small companies are able to
act in a similar way because the ¯exibility and scalability of client±server systems makes them affordable
in a variety of large and small architectures. Thus,
internal factors, such as culture, size, etc., relevant in
the 1970s and early 1980s, are less apt to affect the
initiation and adoption of client±server technology.
With regard to migration strategy, the nature of the
application affected the initiation and adoption process: companies rate competitive, ef®ciency, and
operational factors as more important in missioncritical applications than in non-mission-critical applications. In companies with mission-critical applications, technical bene®ts were the least important
factors, while operational and ef®ciency gains
received the most attention during the initiation and
adoption process. It appears that companies pursuing
mission-critical applications may have high expectations of signi®cant operational and ef®ciency gains.
86
I. Chengalur-Smith, P. Duchessi / Information & Management 35 (1999) 77±88
Table 7
Average motive factor ratings within groups of contextual factors a
Market position
Dominant leader
Major competitor
Minor competitor
(technological2.59, competitive2.94)