You are here:

Relative ranking of conditions that facilitate innovation implementation in the USA
ARTICLE

,

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Volume 24, Number 5, ISSN 0814-673X Publisher: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education

Abstract

This study compared how people working in three different types of organisations in the United States (K-12 schools, higher education, and business) rank the importance of eight conditions that have been shown to facilitate the implementation of innovations. The study also sought to determine if the nature of the innovation (i.e., technology or process innovation) affected the rankings. Technology innovations are those that require the use of a new tool or product such as an innovative communications device or new piece of manufacturing equipment. Process innovations are those that require a new method or system such as a new method for performance evaluations or new budget approval process. A total of 635 participants completed an online instrument to determine their individual ranking of the eight conditions, 315 participants responded to questions specific to technology innovation while 320 responded to process specific questions. Analysis of variance was used to compare differences between the groups. Significant differences were found on five of the eight conditions in the technology sample and on seven of the eight conditions in the process sample. In addition, there were differences within groups based on the nature of the innovation. Change agents must adapt their strategies to account for the different rankings of the eight implementation conditions based on type of organisation and the nature of the innovation. The results of this study provide a framework for understanding and accounting for the group differences. This is the first study to address the prescriptive value of the eight implementation conditions.

Citation

Ensminger, D., Surry, D. & Surry, D. (2008). Relative ranking of conditions that facilitate innovation implementation in the USA. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5),. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved August 11, 2024 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bauder, D.Y. (1993). Computer integration in K-12 schools: Conditions related to adoption and implementation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(8), 2991A. (UMI No. 9401653).
  2. Benson, R. & Palaskas, T. (2006). Introducing a new learning management system: An institutional case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 548-567.
  3. Bishop-Clark, C. & Grant, R. (1991). Implementing computer technology in educational settings. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 19(4), 313-326.
  4. Buchan, J.F. & Swann, M. (2007). A bridge too far or a bridge to the future? A case study in online assessment at Charles Sturt University. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 408-434. Http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/buchan.html
  5. Burkman, E. (1987). Factors affecting utilization. In R.M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  6. Conger, J.A. (2000). Effective change begins at the top. In M. Beer & N. Mohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Ensminger and Surry 625
  7. Dalton, D.W. (1989). Computers in schools: A diffusion/adoption perspective. Educational Technology, 11, 20-27.
  8. Day, G.S. (1999). The market driven organization. Direct Marketing, 62(9), 32-33.
  9. Dhanarajan, G. (2001). Distance education: Promise, performance and potential. Open Learning, 16(1), 61-68.
  10. Dirks, K.T., Cummings, L.L. & Pierce, J.L. (1996). Psychological ownership in organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resist change. In R.W. Woodman, & W.A. Pasmore (Eds), Research in organizational change and development. Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.
  11. Ebersole, S. & Vorndam, M. (2003). Adoption of computer based instructional methodologies: A case study. International Journal of E-Learning, 2(2), 15-20.
  12. Ely, D.P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal on Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 298-305.
  13. Ely, D.P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39, 23-27.
  14. Ensminger, D.C., Surry, D.W., Porter, B.E. & Wright, D. (2004). Factors contributing to the successful implementation of technology innovations. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 61-72. Http://www.ifets.info/others/download_pdf.php?j_id=1 & A_id=7
  15. Griffith, T.L., Zammuto, R.F. & Aiman-Smith, L. (1999). Why new technologies fail. Industrial Management, 41(3), 29-34.
  16. Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
  17. Havelock, R.G. & Zlotolow, S. (1995). The change agents guide (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  18. Herson, K, Sosabowski, M., Lloyd, A., Flowers, S., Paine, C. & Newton, B. (2000). Implementation strategies for educational intranet resources. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 47-55.
  19. Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  20. Jost, K.L. & Schneberger, S.L. (1994). Educational technology adoption and implementation: Learning from information systems research. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 23(3), 213-230.
  21. Klien, K.J. & Sorra, J. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055-1080.
  22. Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  23. Meyers, W.P., Sivakumar, K. & Nakata, C. (1999). Implementation of industrial process innovations: Factors, effects, and marketing implications. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(2), 295-311.
  24. Muehrcke, J. (1999). Meeting the test of time. Nonprofit World, 17(7), 2-3.
  25. Okumus, F. (2001). Towards a strategy implementation framework. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality, 13, 327-338.
  26. Pajo, K. & Wallace, C. (2001). Barriers to the uptake of web based technology by university teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 70-84. [verified 31 Oct 2008] 626 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(5)
  27. Porter, B.E., Surry, D.W. & Ensminger, D.C. (2003). Reliability test results for an implementation profile instrument. ERIC Documentation Reproduction Services No. 481230. [verified 31 Oct 2008] http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/Content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/72/ab.pdf
  28. Ravitz, J.L. (1999). Conditions that facilitate teacher internet use in schools with high internet connectivity: A national survey. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(4) 1094A. (UMI No. 9925992).
  29. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
  30. Rogers, P.L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Computing Research, 22(4), 455-472.
  31. Schiemann, W.A. (1992). Why change fails. Across the Board, April, 53-54.
  32. Sims, S.J. & Sims, R.R. (2002). Employee involvement is still the key to successfully managing change. In R.R. Sims (Ed.), Changing the way we manage change. Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
  33. Smith, M.E. & Mourier, P. (1999). Implementation: Key to organizational change. Strategy & Leadership, 27(6), 37-41.
  34. Stockdill, S.H. & Morehouse, D.L. (1992). Critical factors in the successful adoption of technology: A checklist based on TDC findings. Educational Technology, 1, 57-58.
  35. Surry, D.W. & Ely, D.P. (2002). Adoption, diffusion, implementation, and institutionalization of instructional design and technology. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  36. Surry, D.W. & Ensminger, D.C. (2003). Perceived importance of conditions that facilitate implementation. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 6(1). Http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/e-jist/docs/Vol6_No1/surry.html
  37. Surry, D.W. & Ensminger, D.C. (2004). Development of implementation profile instrument. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 503-504.
  38. Surry, D.W., Ensminger, D.C. & Haab, M. (2005). Strategies for integrating instructional technology into higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 327-329.
  39. Varkking, W.J. (1995). The implementation game. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 8(3), 31-46.
  40. Voss, C. (1992). Successful innovation and implementation of new processes. Business Strategy Review, 3(1), 29-44.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts